Lying... Is Mentally Disordering
Posted on: September 22, 2007 - 10:57am
Offline
Lying... Is Mentally Disordering
One of my top favorite YouTubers, inmendham, has done this very thought provking video pertaining to the currently discussed topic of "is theism a mind disorder?".
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TyMRwLjbfWc
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." ~ Abraham Lincoln
- Login to post comments
Nice vid,
But I find the conclusions limited almost blinkered
One's own personality is based upon lies
ie try describing your-self without lying
Like this
Personally I'm 7 foot tall extreme good-looking incredibly intelligent and liked by everybody I'm honest trustworthy I'll always put somebody else's considerations before my own, I'm hung like a mule and I never lie
I liked his video, here are the comments I left for him...
I'm up to 4 minutes and I love where you're going here. I differentiate from you in term definition however because I equate lying to yourself with deluding yourself. And deluding yourself is enforcing a delusion from within. This creates a brain that is disordered and contains delusions... thus... those liars hold a delusional disorder. What do you think?
At 5:30, you comment on agnostics. We hold that all agnostics are either theist or atheist, but not agnostic alone. We hold to this by using Oxford English Dictionary as opposed to bastardized definitions by religious people in America. The 10 "leaders" of RRS are all agnostic atheist.
Have you read Dennett on "belief in belief." If not, google those terms and learn more about the position that theists OFTEN don't REALLY BELIEVE what they're saying. The Fred Phelps family and the 9-11 hijackers are the closest things we have to real believers. The rest wont admit to it, but they just believe in believing.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Why is it that atheists try to define what I have to believe to be a Christian?
What do you mean by this?
If you're making an objection to a point, you need to explain what you mean. Atheists don't have the priviledge of telling Webster what words mean any more than theists. Do you have an actual rebuttal of anything that has been said, or are you just bitching because you can't think of any real rebuttals?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I disagree that someone like Fred Phelps is one of the only real believers. Heres the normal atheist arguement:
1) Fundies suck
2) But they have the correct interpretation of their religion
3) Thus, religion should be rejected completely
The real problem with this arguement is that a fundamentalist Christian does not have the correct interpretation of the Bible or Christian ideas. I'm not going to claim that anyone gets it perfectly, but I know that for the most part, fundies miss the point completely.
Jesus spent most of his time with the poor, lame, blind, lepers, tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. Basically he reached out with love for all those that the greater society rejected. You see none of that within fundamentalist Christianity.
Ex: Freddie Phelps wastes all his time focusing on homosexuality. How many times does Jesus address homosexuality? Zero. What are the focal points of his ministry......love, forgiveness, mercy, love, service, giving, love. If Fred Phelps was actually a real believer he would focus more energy on ending global poverty rather than worrying about homosexuality.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Where'd you see this argument here?
Says you. But this is pretty much irrelevant. What exactly was your point in the previous post?
None of this has anything to do with answering my question. What was your point in the previous post?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I was contesting this assertion Hamby. The arguement that atheists give (stated in my second post on the thread) can be seen starting with Sam Harris, and descending to many atheists on these forums. Check out his debate with Chris Hedges where he talks about fundies having "the more honest version of their religion."
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
So, if you were contesting the assertion, you must have evidence to the contrary, right?
After all, I've read the bible as much as any theist I've ever known, and at the least, there seems to be good backing for Chris Hedges' position.
So, what's your counter-evidence?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I think he's pointing out that some arguments against Christianity depend on the notion that 'true Christianity' is how the fundies do it. So a 'real' Christian would have the morality of the Phelpses.
You mean why do atheists tend to know the bible better than Christians and then have to explain to them what their beliefs are?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I'm sorry, who? What is a Jesus? Only thing I know about him comes from circular logic in proofs offere by the bible, and since the rest of the story doesn't make sense, it's childsplay to consider Jesus never to have existed.
What up with the old testamant yo?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
What is this? Fundamentalist Christians can parrot Bible verses, so can most anybody who bothers to read the Bible. True Biblical reading from a true Christian perspective comes from entering into the text, entering into the Christocentric body of believers united in the Eucharist and then living the faith. Bible "reading" isn't an end for Christians, "living" the Bible is.
And Jesus is justified by circular reasoning? Meaning, I assume, that you are charecterizing Christians again as "the Bible says so, it is true." Why reject the simultaneous triple movement of tradition, scripture, and God's intervention. How can you reject the Bible as a series of historical texts? It's a series of letters and Greco-roman biographies testifying to the life of a peasant. To claim circular reasoning is required to justify his existance is bollocks. In fact, the very unique nature of the event is indivative of a truly unique occurence.
Because appeal to tradition is a fallacy in logic.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been." The opposite of Argumentum ad Novitatem.
from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
****
Scripture cannot be used to prove scripture. This is called circular reasoning.
Circulus in demonstrando
This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:
Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees.
Circular arguments are surprisingly common, unfortunately. If you've already reached a particular conclusion once, it's easy to accidentally make it an assertion when explaining your reasoning to someone else.
Ibid.
*****
Because there is no empirically demonstrated intervention by god in the history of the world, which is to say that this is an unsupported assertion:
Furthermore, this statement commits the fallacy Non causa pro causa, where something is claimed to be the cause of an event when the evidence does not support the cause-effect connection.
Non causa pro causa
The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when something is identified as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For example:
This is known as a false cause fallacy. Two specific forms of non causa pro causa fallacy are the cum hoc ergo propter hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.
Ibid.
You can read all about why any one of these arguments conclusively invalidates the argument HERE and HERE.
If you care to refute any of this, please note that you will have to demonstrate why Christianity is exampt from the laws of logic, which will necessarily cause you to commit the error of Special Pleading,
Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
Any questions?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You obviously don't know who Chris Hedges is. You should check that out before you make a post. Hedges was a CNN war correspondent and graduated from Harvard Seminary (although now agnostic/Christian) Sam Harris took the viewpoint that fundies have the more honest version of their religion. Hedges took the viewpoint that Harris was describing tribalism, not true religion.
I can easily prove that fundies don't have a honest version of their religion (I know a lot of them). Take Pat Robertson for example (probably the biggest fundie leader). He flies in personal jets and invested millions of dollars Liberian gold. Not to mention his whole Operation Blessing scandal. Not only is he extremely greedy, but he uses money that is supposed to go to the poor for his own financial gain.
So.....uh the whole camel and the needle thing is coming to mind. Oh yeah, and the first will be last, and the last will be first. And I love when Jesus says not to store up treasures on Earth. And finally when Jesus tells the rich young man to sell all his has and give the money to the poor. Tell me Hamby, is Patty Robertson living by any of these teachings?
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
I'm going to dismiss your point that Jesus never existed, since this is not the right thread for that debate. I'll mention that I have a proof for existence on the Jesus Myth thread that no one has debunked (Hint Brian: You would have to prove that Q and Thomas were written off each other to debunk it. Good luck with that my friend!)
As far as the OT goes, I'm assuming you think that for me to be a Christian, I have to hold to the infallibility of the Bible dogma and all that jazz. All I can say is that you must know little about Judaism (which Jesus comes from and plays a huge role in his teachings) and nothing about oral Torah, and binding and loosing (see Matthew 16).
Peace!
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
A nice meld of Fulton Sheen with GK Chesterton here, I think...not a slam, Tankalish. I'm a big fan of both.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
"Spooky language, spooky language!" - George Carlin
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Righty oh, then. So, why'd you use him to represent what you described as the position that fundies are the most accurate Christians?
Sorry that I assumed your paragraph was internally consistent. I won't make that mistake again.
This is a great anecdote. Now would you kindly mind explaining what your version of Christianity is, and then proving conclusively that it is correct by objective standards?
So, tell me, Christos, have you proven that your version of Christianity is objectively correct?
This is just anecdotes and a couple of bible verses. Do you need help formulating an actual argument? Here are some essays explaining what debate actually is. They're still in the process of being edited, but I think you can get something from it.
I'll give you a clue ahead of time.
TWO ANECDOTES ARE NOT AN ARGUMENT OR A PROOF.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Well Hamby, I know I can prove that my version of Christianity is closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than the fundies. My point about fundies not focusing on giving/service should be enough, but you're never satisfied
If you want a close idea of what I believe, you should check out Thich Nhat Hahn's Living Buddha, Living Christ. Although I don't agree with him on everything, his book definitely changed my life. And yes, I did convert to Christianity a few months after reading a book by a Buddhist. If that doesn't intrigue you enough to read it, nothing will.
I've seen some things in the West Bank that have changed how I think about the world. Lots of people have serious need, and I think it's time for humanity to put away our ultimately meaningless differences and work to alleviate suffering in the here and now. I can't see how anyone could disagree with that.
And to be honest Hamby, I could care less if you don't agree with my beliefs. Life is about a hell of a lot more than proofs and belief systems. My focus right now is just loving people and serving the poor. I think thats basically what Jesus was getting at.
Peace Brother!
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Truthfully, if you cared about my disapproval, I'd suggest that you get psychological counselling. I would hope that you would care about logic that I present, as it is either valid or invalid, regardless of the fact that I was the one to mention it.
If people would stop trying to push their religion on other people, and more particularly, push it into laws, I'd be a hell of a lot happier.
I think it's great that you live by these standards. It's a lot easier for me to forgive people for poor logic (such as believing they have the correct version of Christianity -- whichever version they happen to have!) when they keep their beliefs to themselves and don't push them on anybody, including their children.
Incidentally, do you believe I'm going to hell?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Ah Hamby, I do not have the correct version of Christianity. I would never make such a silly claim.
I don't believe in Hell my friend. So no, I have no idea what happens when you die. I care more about what you do with your life then what you believe (although sometimes what you believe has a very positive/negative effect on how one chooses to live).
I actually went to Hell today. It's really nice actually. You can play a nice game of soccer. When Jesus talks about Hell, he is talking about the Valley of Gehenna outside of Jerusalem (Gehenna translates to Hell in english). Gehenna was a place where pagans practiced child sacrifice, and where dogs fought over people's trash. Hence when Jesus say about Gehenna "there will be weeping (child sacrifice) and gnashing of teeth (dog fights)." You can probably look up some sources for this. I would talk more about how many Christians misinterpret Jesus about the "Kingdom of God/Heaven," but I really need to study.
By the way Hamby, you really should read that book I recommended.
Peace!
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Do you believe there is a correct version?
Damn rational of you.
I'm not very interested in what the bible says about hell, since the bible is nonsense, but I am familiar with this. IIRC, there are basically three versions presented in the bible, the OT (essentially Hades, or the place of the dead), the valley (Jesus' words), and the revelations version, which is quite literally an eternal punishment, in as many words. I guess if you want to consider the Ecclesiastes version of the afterlife, there are four. Then again, it's literally been over a decade since I bothered with any of this.
(If I'm wrong, don't bother correcting me, ok? I'm perfectly content to be ignorant of the specifics. Not bothering with it for so long has been intentional. I have better things to fill my brain with.)
Definitely you should not bother on my account. Like I've said many times before, I disbelieve in any gods without the need to even open a bible.
I really will put it on my list, but please understand, I'm on three pretty intense books now, and have about ten lined up after this, so I make no promises. If Rook is a Jesus mythisist and you are a Jesus literalist, I am a Jesus Apathetic. I honestly don't give a rat's ass whether there was a man on whom the myth of Christianity was based, so anything about what this man who might or might not have lived is of very little interest to me other than pure curiosity -- of which I don't have much.
Truthfully, I think it's pretty looney for you to call yourself a Christian. Nothing that Jesus said in the Bible is unique, and if you don't believe in the heaven and hell thing, I can't think of even one reason to call yourself Christian. Why don't you just call yourself a dude who thinks that Jesus was pretty groovy? Put him up there with the Buddha and Ghandi and Martin Luther King, and try to live a good life.
I just don't get the whole need to call yourself a Christian if there's no afterlife.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Let me say some things that will at least let us enter into a dialogue. To begin, there are documented records of God's intervetion, they are just usually old or third world, and so dismissed. Two points on why there may not be any documented today first world. First would be our fundamental understandings of existence automatically rule them out as fallacious and so dismiss criteria or stories as lies if the event doesn't fit into scientific conceptions. Second would be that anyone who confesses to having experienced a miracle, especially in the scientific community, is considered nearly as backward as a Fundie Christian.
Second, I was using the three movements simultaneously to justify scripture. Scripture is validated by entering it into dialouge with Creation and by the tradition testifying to the validity of the underying events. I think this takes me out of the logical fallacies you have listed, feel free to comment if not.
As for the bit about being a Christian without the afterlife, I am inclined to disagree that there is no heaven hell, but the claim of Chrisitanity is we are spiritually reborn and justified before God in Christ's death and resurrection. The passages in Paul can be interpreted as saying the resurrection in life, meaning the death and resurrection in baptism into the eucharistic and catholic (not the denomination) body of Christ. As for you going to hell, you seem like a morally upstanding individual, and I'd quote Romans to you but you won't care. Long story short, maybe, but I sincerely hope not. Same with most people, including myself.