interesing news
Posted on: June 20, 2007 - 11:49pm
Offline
interesing news
i got a brief moment in my busy life to checkout some really interesting news, the first reakky shocked me but, can you believe newton a renowned scientist someone who had to be a concrete fact finding person , believed in god and christ he even went on to try and predict the end of the world. He was hoping to stop other people from making outrageous claims and therefore keep the scriptures from being ignored. this man feared god.
i also got a chance to see the vatican put out the ten commandments of driving. ok now im a thiest i beleve in jesus christ, to see religion do something like that just makes me shake my head in amazment. what was the vatican thinking.
later pat
- Login to post comments
Let me educate you yellow_is_the_color_of_urine,
I was writing to "Richard Dawkins" in a fictional jest. "Dick" is a nickname for Richard.
Just like you using "bubblehead" as a comeback to my jest on "Freethrinkerism."
Atheism is not logical. Nor is the Christian-bashing of the common position here at Rational Responders.
I came here to see what all the fuss was about, and find the same old tired attempts to trick the uneducated that Skeptics.Freethinkers/Atheists, et al are the group to join.
You guys don't like desaling with what you dish out. If you wanted just the intellectual debate, you wouldn't allow so many Freethinkers to look and act so typical of the breed when presenting their positions about Christians.
Why do you think I am trolling when I use curse words and epithets in response to curse words and epithets? Shouldn't you apply the same standards to the fine individuals that represnt the anti-Godian position? How many atheists/skeptics/freethinkers et al have you guys suspended for being mena to Christians here?
I left deludedgod alone to his work on protiens so that the world will be a better place because of his immense and important work. Wasn't that nice and open-minded of me?
I'll be back after Church. And no, I'm not going to here from God. (I can do that anywhere) I'm going to see my friends.
It's all about cause and effect huh?
0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.
Look,
You whined and cried about being banned, claiming you were just here for discourse and meant no ill will. Since you have been back you have exhibited the same old tactics. You are not discussing the topics at hand rather, you are still trying to sling the same old mud.
Your ears are closed, your eyes are closed and you are swinging at a pinata that isn't even in the room. You left Deluded alone because you couldn't hang, couldn't understand the science and were making assertations you couldn't support. You seem to be using a commonly known psychological tactic called 'projection'. You see the faults and irrationality of your world view but are afraid to open the door to your mind and actually let some thought occur, therefore you attack the persons on these forums with ad hominems rather than discuss the topics. This is what Yellow#5 is referring to as trolling.
One thing you must understand, your scared cornered badger stance does nothing to help your arguments, it does not make your point in the least.
You are the one displaying the irrational behaviour, and I would highly suggest buying a mirror.
When does he get the asshat avatar? If I have a vote I vote for rebanning him.
Declare what now?
But Einstein was not a theist. He was perhaps pantheist and mostly in the metaphorical sense.
Yet again lumping vast varieties of people into one big generalised group. Atheism is not an ideology. Atheism is a lack of belief in the absurd. I personally do not hate Christians, I hate idiocy, a lot of the time the two overlap.
The absense of a creator is not the absense of a cause. The Big Bang does not have to be the beginning of the universe. Whatever caused the big bang, was more likely to be a physical cause than some supernatural hyperbeing by the name of God, who then sent his son/self down to Earth, a planet in a remote corner of the universe to perform miricals that contradict the laws of physics. Hmm.
You keep on with this whole 0 x 0 = Science/ Atheism, and yet you don't actually know a thing about real scientific research, or what atheists actually think and believe. You've been here a while now, you could perhaps take your head out of your arse and read some of the posts.
You've gone a long way to saying nothing there.
What happened?
Wow! You're telling Richard Dawkins to get an education? My oh my! That's pretty fucking bold for an ignorent troll like yourself! Do you have a phD? Are you a world reknowned expert on Biology and Zoology? Have you even been to University? What's your IQ? My guess would be 60. Koko the gorilla scored between 71-91 on several occasions
Atheist Books
Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727
Newton singled out 1665-1666 the prime of my age for invention (invented gravity discovered cat Flaps )
alchemy and chemistry He began intensive experimentation in 1669
Published
Geographia 1672
letters on optics appeared in print from 1672 to 1676 ( or how to poke your-self in the eye with a sharp stick )
Principia ( gravity and suft) 1687 revised in 1713 and 1726 and translated into English in 1729 Book III of the Principia 1733
Opticks in 1704 revised edition in Latin appeared in 1706
The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended 1728
The System of the World 1728
Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St John 1733
Indeed and I try to correct you, but will they listen aye
Count in my vote too please.
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
I'm actually against banning Nonbobblehead. So far I have seen, ignorence and idiocy from him. He has not created too much antagonism so far. I do think he should receive a warning though. He does need to learn to listen to other people and perhaps question his position.
Atheist Books
Nonbobblehead:
Just to be clear.
You were allowed to return to the forums under the condition you would be here to discuss the topics at hand. Your last few posts have been overly antagonistic and basically a mud slinging campaign.
Please review the rules Here, especially this portion.
2.1. Antagonism.
Antagonism is giving one or more members a hard time. Cases typically comprise a series of provocations, each not necessarily sanctionable in its own right. Incidents can include, but are by no means limited to the following:
The notoriously fickle and blurry nature of such exchanges makes it near-impossible to draw up a hardcoded definition of what exactly constitutes Antagonism. Moderators are more often than not simply forced to draw upon their vast and collective experience to adjudicate when enough is enough and take whatever steps they deem necessary in order to keep the peace, good will and reputation of the board.
Please consider this your one and only warning. Your return carried with it a very short leash and it is now stretched to the limit. Return to discussing the topics and you may continue to post.
It's possible that some of them didn't actually suffer from the delusional disorder known as theism, some of them may have just been smart enough to weigh their options..... believe in god and be free, don't believe in god and get burned at the stake.
Threads like these are pointless. The "atheist" video on youtube is one of the most viewed, the one that shows an equally amazing list of atheists. I don't host the video on my site, nor do I even like it, I've never once thought to make a list of smart people up who don't believe in god, because intelligent people aren't compelled from such data.
You have a list of smart people who suffered from the delusion of theism, I COULD make a list of famous atheists who didn't, but I wont insult your intellect like that.
From google:
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Did you qualify your post for him so that he knows that the list of smart people who believed, ultimately means absolutely nothing towards the truth or non truth of theism?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Gavagai, when you took the time to make your irrelevant list of individuals for the o.p. it appears as if you were researching the exact opposite of what you should have been.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Hello Brian,
Why would I have to make qualifications about something that's totally absent from my post? I agree, if I were arguing from
(i) Many brilliant philosophers and scientists believe in a God of some sort
to
(ii) Therefore, probably God exists,
that would not be such a good argument. But it's perfectly clear from my post that I made no such argument.
You claim that theists have a mental disorder, so please provide concrete, empirical evidence that at least some of those philosophers I linked to (all of whom are theists) have disorders. Please begin with Nicholas Rescher. In your next post, reveal the empirical, psychological evidence you've gathered that leads you to conclude Nick (specifically) suffers from a mental disorder to the extent that he's a theist. Then explain why you think professional psychologists would agree with your diagnosis of Nick. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.
Cheers,
Gavagai
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
I am much more familiar with the work of naturalist philosophers than I am with that of theists. Please cite a living, widely-respected, credentialed, naturalistic analytic philosopher who has published his view that "belief in God is a mental disorder".
Most living naturalist philosophers I know of agree that theism is rationally acceptable, and a few others I know of think certain forms of it can be irrational. But I've found none who deem it a "mental disorder". So it will be interesting to see your findings.
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)"
His book is advertised at the bottom left-hand page of this site
? if you would like help finding other credited philosophers also advertised on this site just ask
Mr. Harris is a Ph.D. student in neuroscience, not philosophy. He has not gone through 5 years or more of intellectually rigorous training in a formal environment to receive a doctorate in philosophy, nor have I been able to find any articles by him that have been recently published in academic philosophy journals; at most, I think he earned a bachelors. So he is not what I asked for: a widely-respected, credentialed, naturalistic analyitc philosopher who has published his view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder". And in any case, Harris, although he's an atheist, believes that spiritual or mystical experiences can have a rational basis (e.g. through long periods of deeply reflective meditation). He merely doubts some of the strong metaphysical conclusions that people tend to draw from such experiences.
Please cite what I asked for.
Cheers,
Gavagai
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
`A Short Account of the History of Mathematics' (4th edition, 1908) by W. W. Rouse Ball.
Or
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Newton.html
But whatever, Reverend, I have no quarrel with you. I know I'm not wrong and I can be a bit stubborn about things like that.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Sam Harris has a degree in philosophy from Stanford University
( book review ) Harris calls for the end of religious faith in the modern world. Not only does such faith lack a rational base, he argues, but even the urge for religious toleration allows a too-easy acceptance of the motives of religious fundamentalists. Religious faith, according to Harris, requires its adherents to cling irrationally to mythic stories of ideal paradisiacal worlds (heaven and hell) that provide alternatives to their own everyday worlds. Moreover, innumerable acts of violence, he argues, can be attributed to a religious faith that clings uncritically to one set of dogmas or another. Very simply, religion is a form of terrorism for Harris
He also says mysticism is a rational enterprise; religion is not
? would you disagree with this philosophy Gavagai
? I cannot see the relevance of a philosopher even an accredited philosopher in this field as it has more to do with psychology than philosophy. could you please demonstrate that you have the right credentials to hold a educated view in this matter Gavagai ie a Ph.D in psychology
like this man REICH, WILHELM psychologist
Hi Rev,
I've heard that Harris received a bachelors from Stanford. Do you think that people who do their undergraduate work in philosophy are ipso facto professional philosophers, widely-respected, who've published in academic philosophy journals, and so on? Interesting.
Here's how it's relevant to the context of our discussion.
My claim was: every living, naturalist and theist philosopher I know of would not agree that theism is a "mental disorder".
You responded to my claim by saying I should get out more, or something along those lines.
And perhaps you're right. Perhaps I've overlooked a huge number of philosophers out there who regularly assert that "theism is a mental disorder". That's possible. So I'm asking you to show me which living, analytic naturalist philosopher, credentialed (Ph.D.) and widely-respected in the academic community, has published his view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder". It's really that simple.
In any case, no I don't have a degree in psychology. But I certainly agree with you that psychology is a relevant field for evaluating the status of religious beliefs. I know that certain psychologists (though by no means all) have looked disapprovingly upon religious belief. And I agree that certain forms of religious belief can not only be positively irrational, but extremely dangerous. I've never argued otherwise. So this much is uncontroversial.
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
Yeah, it seems disengenuous to pretend that this is not an appeal to authority. Sorry. Ingersoll mentioned this kind of name dropping in The Great Infidels/Appeal to the Cemetery, when he said that the early skeptics of Christianity could have used a comparable list against the unique theology of the early Christians. It would be overwhelming to present the "list of Steves" here and expect someone to research and argue against the contentions of each Steve on their own. The arguments themselves must be presented and taken on their own merits (or lack thereof).
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
You think Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, were widely-respected ipso facto professional philosophers with Ph.D's ? Interesting
? could you please quote me were I said "huge number of philosophers out there regularly assert that "theism is a mental disorde"
maybe your reading too much into my post
Actually you originally said " Please cite a living, widely-respected, credentialed, naturalistic analytic philosopher who has published his view that "belief in God is a mental disorder"."
I pointed to one under your nose, then you change the criteria
" Could you please provide an example of a living, analytic naturalist philosopher, credentialed (Ph.D.) and widely-respected in the academic community "
I believe what ever examples are provided would prove inadequate as the criteria would again change
I'm almost always wrong. self skepticism can be enlightening
http://www.isaacnewton.ca/daniel_apocalypse/
Perhaps you would like to read Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733)
And tell me what you think this work, if you have the time
? would you care to clarify this contradiction Gavagai
Hello again Rev,
Yes, I think Plato and Socrates are widely-respected. No, they don't have their doctorates (because they died long before the practice of awarding doctorates to people).
No, you never explicitly stated that. So perhaps I've misunderstood you. Let's review. I said I don't know of a single naturalist analytic philosopher who'd agree that all theists have a "mental disorder". You responded by suggesting that I don't get out much. What did you mean by that response, if not that I was wrong, and there really are dozens of serious analytic philosophers around who believe all theists have mental disorders to the extent that they believe in a god?
Yes, by "credentialed" I mean "has a Ph.D." Doing undergraduate work in philosophy doesn't count as something that the rest of professional philosophers would regard as seriously credentialed. So my criteria, in very specific terms: (i) currently alive, (ii) practitioner of analytic philosophy, (iii) naturalist, (iv) widely-respected in their corresponding academic community (i.e. most other analytic philosophers think of them highly as an intellectual), (v) credentialed (i.e. has a Ph.D. in philosophy from an accredited institution), and (vi) has published their view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder" in a peer-reviewed philosophy journal.
I know of many philosophers who satisfy (i) - (v), but who would disagree that theism is a mental disorder, for example William Rowe, Quentin Smith, Richard Gale, et al.
Sure: Ned Markosian. (And he would also disagree that theism is a mental disorder.)
Take care,
Gavagai
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
Which contradiction would that be?
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
The big obvious one
Hi Rev,
A contradiction takes the form of the following schema: p and ~p. I don't see any sentences in the above quotation of mine that fit this schema. Perhaps you could explain in specific terms why you think there is nevertheless a contradiction there. Thanks!
Cheers,
Gavagai
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
Gavagai I'm at loss for words you've stumped me
But I have become extremely interested in you personally I would be interested to see if you fit into a specific character type
Would you mind if I asked you some personal questions about ethics and honest
ps
I'm currently researching On the Argument from Quantum Cosmology against Theism by Ned Markosian
I'm an atheist, but I've already decided a few months ago that Gavagai is probably the coolest Christian I've ever met. I just started reading this thread again (I didn't think anymore could come of this thread after my post in this thread forewarning against appealing to authority), and I'm absolutely impressed by Gavagai's patience and degree of critical thinking. We may disagree on whether there is a god, but he commands all my respect.
Anyway, I've been in TONS of pedestrian debates, and appeal to authority always comes up, and I know how goddamn annoying it is (pun shamelessly intended). However, I'm sure I don't have to point out that merely talking about authority is necessarily an appeal, even if doing so is an immediate cautionary red flag, but while Gavagai's authoritarian focus seemingly treads that fine line, I say we play along and see where he's going with this (I have ideas, and they're not appeals to authority).
P.S. Rather than just repeating that there's a contradiction, I would also like to see it more clearly defined.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
So far I have seen intellectual snobbery. and a propensity to play word games in avoiding a truthful answer, which I have mimicked in response
lets see
Gavagai wrote
"certain forms of religious belief can not only be positively irrational, but extremely dangerous"
Anybody displaying irrational and dangerous behavior would be defined as suffering from a mental disorder
Gavagai wrote
"Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder"
Thus a contradiction
Seriously, a professional philosopher would completely ignore all crendentials and prejudices and solely look at the argument a person makes. Asking for "credentials" all the time, is nothing but an appeal to authority, it's like saying: "This person can't be right, because he doesn't have a Ph.D.!!!". It's so obvious that this kind of thinking is fallacious.
To me it seems like people always ask for credentials, because they are too lazy to check out the arguments themselves. "Hey, this guy has a Ph.D. so I guess it's save to assume he's right!" is what Kant so nicely referred to as "immaturity".
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
I'm still laughing at this
(1) I know of not a single, well-respected philosopher or historian of philosophy (naturalist or theist) who would disagree with me.
(2) ops no I meant , analytic naturalist philosopher, credentialed (Ph.D.) and widely-respected in the academic community, has published his view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder".who would disagree with me.
(3) no no no I actually meant (i) currently alive, (ii) practitioner of analytic philosophy, (iii) naturalist, (iv) widely-respected in their corresponding academic community (i.e. most other analytic philosophers think of them highly as an intellectual), (v) credentialed (i.e. has a Ph.D. in philosophy from an accredited institution), and (vi) has published their view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder" in a peer-reviewed philosophy journal,
who would disagree with me. no no no please stand by for more amendments if deemed necessary
Now that's funny
However, it looks like Gavagai exempted himself from this contradiction. It even appears he anticipated this call by qualifying his former statement with "certain forms of." Gavagai was only finding common ground with his opponent by pointing out the obvious - that yes, it's conceivable that AT LEAST SOME religions could be described as a mental disorder.
All it takes is one religion (prescribed by at least "one of these people" ) that is not a mental disorder for these "atheological apologists" to be wrong.
That is the distinction that Gavagai is pointing out.
I also wouldn't confuse his calm and collected confidence with snobbery. If anything, I would examine your own responses as of late.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
Talking about authority or the status of sources isn't necessarily an appeal to authority. Again, I think it's fair to give Gavagai the chance to prove his point. I want to see where he's going with this before presuming anything.
Correlation does not imply causation.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
Sodium,
Thank you. That is exactly right. It's refreshing to encounter a genuinely intelligent atheist here. I think that certain religious attitudes (and atheistic ones) can be psychologically unhealthy, and even dangerous. But I don't agree that theism is a mental disorder. Nor, for that matter, do I think atheism is a mental disorder. There are sane and intelligent people on both sides of the fence. Likewise for rationality. Rationality involves the way in which people come to believe propositions, not the truth-value of propositions. False beliefs can be rationally held; conversely, true beliefs can be irrationally held. So I think atheism and theism can both be rational, depending on the reasons people have for being atheist or theist. I think my view is pretty sensible and modest. Then again, perhaps I'm merely practicing "intellectual snobbery".
Well, as I say, it's refreshing to see your posts here, and hopefully we can have some good discussions sometime in the future.
Take care,
Gavagai
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
If you would care to examine my responses extremely carefully. you'll find I was quoting Gavagai almost word for word from his earlier responses, I was quite literally acting as a mirror
I know how goddamn annoying it is my calm and collected confidence 
kinder thing . rather childish but I couldn't resist
If so then why didn't he ponit this out straight away why wasn't he clear and honest from the question of contradiction ?
Thank's for you response Sodium Pentothal I will need some time to consider the rest of your response
Mattness,
There seem to be two occurrences in this thread where people think I'm fallaciously appealing to authority. Allow me to exposit each one, and show you why I'm making no such appeal. On the one hand, there is my post with links to philosophers who are theists. As I've made clear several times now, I provided this information for the thread-starter, for his personal research. I told him I thought it was amusing that RRS and Dawkins want everybody to believe that all such theists have "mental disorders". I at no point argued from "so-and-so is smart and believes in a god" to "therefore, a god exists." Please review that post of mine to see for yourself.
On the other hand, there is the more recent request of mine for "credentialed philosophers". Why am I making this request? Well, let me provide the context and get you caught up to speed. My view is that it's false that theism is a mental disorder, so by extension it's false that all theist philosophers have mental disorders. I claimed that my view is uncontroversial. The reason I think it's uncontroversial has to do with the fact that I don't know of a single naturalist analytic philosopher who thinks "all theists have mental disorders". I'm not fallaciously appealing to authority here. I'm simply noting the fact that it's not debated by even naturalist philosophers; it's not controversial.
Reverend responded by saying that I don't get out much. I took his response to imply that, really, several naturalist analytic philsophers believe all theists have mental disorders and that I've somehow overlooked their publications. This is why I then asked Rev to cite some names. He cited Sam Harris. I responded that Sam Harris wasn't the sort of "philosopher" I had in mind. (He's not a professional philosopher; he's a student in neuroscience. Moreover, even if he were a professional philosopher, he believes that various mystical or spiritual experiences can have a rational basis (e.g. through deeply reflective meditation). Thus, it doesn't appear that he agrees that belief in a divinity is a mental disorder). So then I specified the criteria I had in mind, so it was clear to Rev. Not a single, living naturalist who's gained at least a Ph.D. in philosophy, who practices analytic philosophy, and who's respected by many other philosophers in his field, has published his view that all theists have "mental disorders".
None of this could be properly classified as the fallacy of appealing to the authority. In standard informal logic, that fallacy involves the inference from "so-and-so believes (or asserts) that p" to "therefore, p", where "so-and-so" stands for somebody who isn't an expert on matters concerning p. I've not done this. I've merely claimed that a certain view is uncontroversial in philosophy. And how else am I supposed to make good on such a claim other than by pointing out the fact that the view is not currently being promulgated or debated by any philosophers I know of?
In conclusion, I've not once appealed to authority anywhere in this thread, and I've just taken great care to explain why. My posts have been wildly misconstrued time and time again, with no reasonable basis. Dropping the name of a fallacy in contexts where no fallacy has been committed does not make one sound more intelligent, nor does it contribute to intelligent discussion. It merely indicates that one is a little too triggy happy with their favorite online "fallacy lists".
Cheers,
Gavagai
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
i think thats a good idea , ill research his life to find more events in his life to explain why he was a theist.
I have to say, that I pretty much agree with you on the common usage of "rational," in light of the related word "rationale," which seems to focus on reasoning within one's own boundaries of knowledge (whether true or untrue). I don't officially speak for anyone, but I think the RRS are focusing their usage of "irrational" on the very real constituency who intentionally bely accumulations of evidence against certain theistic claims not empirically supported (and not necessarily vague deistic notions pertaining to origin). Many of the posters here use "irrational" in this way- when theists continue to be dogmatic after certain claims are shown to have naturalistic explanations. Do theists (or anyone) continue to hold certain beliefs after confronted with empirical evidence because of a "mental disorder?" Depends on how one defines mental disorder. If one takes "mental disorder" to simply mean that the mind is "not logically ordered," so as to develop a tendency to make inaccurate predictions/come to false conclusions about the natural world, then they probably do by this definition... but if one takes "mental disorder" to mean that one comes to make inaccurate predictions/false conclusions about the natural world because of some physical impairment in the brain, then I would say they probably don't hold certain beliefs because of this definition of "mental disorder." There is, of course, much work being done identifying the "god part" of the brain, which might have a complicated relationship with motivation for holding dogma connected to the "mystical experience" of that part of the brain when stimulated, but I can't see that having a direct bearing upon what is actually true or untrue, as either actual truths or untruths may be related to that experience.
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
i was amazed to see the list that you provided with some of the greatest thinkers of our time , im going to research them further looking for the ones that. believed in jesus christ. thanks for the research!!! pat
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
This is where I disagree with you. We both agree that any rational theist or atheist should find it obvious that at least some religious and atheist attitudes/belief systems are psychologically unhealthy. What we disagree on though is that I actually believe that not just at least some religions, but all religions are psychoglogically unhealthy. This actually now brings up another point, and one that may be out of non-studied psychologists' leagues. Can we liken this psychological unhealthiness to a mental disorder by simply consulting a dictionary? Or would this require a deeper understanding of psychology? EITHER WAY THOUGH, the POINT behind atheists' description of religion as a mental disorder is what ultimately matters. Arguing semantics over whether this psychological unhealthiness also constitutes a class B mental disorder is moot in the broader scheme of things. It's admittedly interesting though!
I am glad you pointed this out, and I couldn't love and agree with you more about how rationality is NOT determined by accuracy/the truth-value. People seem to mess this up all the time lol (and no, I'm not referring to anyone here...I'm just talking about in real life in general)!
I think your view is also quite acute. I totally agree that truths can be irrationally held too. People believe in truths all the time...but for the WRONG reasons! And then these same people assume that their reasons are right SIMPLY because their conclusions are true. Correlation does not imply causation! In fact, I can even think of an example in our last discussion, Gavagai. Remember that Pascal's Wager thread where I was trying to clarify your points for another RSS member lol?
Going back to your previous quoted point, this is also why there are irrational atheists too. Some of them think that because atheism is true (which I of course agree with), then ANY atheistic argument is true too...simply by correlation.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
I recognize that you are not making an appeal to authority. I'd also add that appeals to authority are not even necessarily fallacies in the first place, but this is a side issue.
However, I am not sure what your point is.. .is it that 'x amount of people believe in Y, ergo y is a 'sane' belief'?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
It also just occurred to me that there are 2 ways to convince a theist that religion is a mental disorder:
As for method #1, I think RSS already does a good enough job with that.
1. Prove that religion is false, or rather, expose that there is no proof that religion is true. I find many atheists abusing the mental disorder card. You can readily tell an atheist that religion is a mental order because the atheist already agrees that religion is false, but you can't tell a theist that "religion is false because it's a mental disorder," "religion is a mental disorder because it's false," or any such variation...without committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. You must FIRST demonstrate that there is no logical reason to believe in a religion, and THEN you can promote that religion is a mental disorder.
2. Instead of focusing on the hurdle of religion's veracity/truth-value (to use your own terms, Gavagai), focus on the manner by which theists accept religion. Example:
I think all religion is psychologically unhealthy (and we can call it a mental disorder or whatever we like, but we get the point), but not simply because I believe the truth-value to be false, but simply because the manner required to accept any religious premise, whether it is true, also requires a psychologically unhealthy way of thinking; atheists can further argue that religion worsens this condition.
P.S. Please don't ask me to prove why I think religion "requires a psychologically unhealthy way of thinking" and that "religion worsens this condition." I know this will require a lot of time and energy, and I am just too lazy to pursue this lol. Maybe other atheists will be able to stand up to this challenge.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
I presented those names for the fellow who started this thread. He was amazed that Newton was a theist, so I thought he'd be delighted to hear about the others. As it turns out, he was.
Cheers,
Gavagai
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
Sodium,
Thanks for your reply. You've suggested that all religion is a mental disorder (or, at least, it's psychologically unhealthy). Of course, my first thought when I saw your statement was, "Well, why should I believe that? And what exactly is being said here, i.e. what does he understand by "religion" and "mental disorder" and "psychologically unhealthy"?"
Answering my questions in a serious way would require a lot of heavy-lifting on your part, as you recognize. For one thing, it's notoriously difficult to give a satisfying definition of "religion". And it would be unfair of me to demand that you do so. So to make things easier for you, let's narrow our sights on theism. Everybody has a better idea about how to define that. Thus, let's understand your claim hereafter as "theism is a mental disorder" or "theism is psychologically unhealthy". By extension, in your view all theists have mental problems. I'm a theist, so naturally I'm surprised to learn this about myself. I believe God exists. There. Just like that. I've said it. Now, why on earth does this mean I have a mental disorder or some other serious mental illness?
You move on to suggest that the phrase "mental disorder" may ultimately be rather insignificant. It's really the point behind this phrase that matters. My response: then why mention it? Intellectual responsibility includes inter alia upholding the virtue of clarity, saying what you mean when you say it, and saying it clearly. The phrase "mental disorder" is quite a suggestive piece of language that conjures up some pretty vivid imagery. If a literal "mental disorder" is not really what those who use the phrase have in mind, then at best they're abusing ordinary language, and at worst employing propaganda and sophistry to further whatever agenda it is that they have.
Of course, getting clear on the terms you want to use is just the first half of the battle. You still need to explain to me why I should believe all of this. It seems like you'd take up this task by showing me that the way in which people come to believe that theism is true, of necessity, requires that they engage in a variety of psychologically unhealthy habits. Then I now extend the invitation to you that I've previously provided for Brian Sapient and Scottmax: I invite you to show me, specifically, why each and every theistic philosopher out there exhibits such habits. How did you determine in each case that they have these habits? Did you conduct interviews with them during which they admitted it to you? Or what? Let's begin with, oh, Paul Moser. Reveal your diagnosis in the next post.
You might think this seems like an unfair request. It isn't. Because you've made an extremely bold claim, you should be perfectly prepared and willing to back that claim up. If you expect me to believe the claim that all theists, of necessity, engaged in psychologically unhealthy habits when they came to believe in God, great, then show me. Until that time, I don't see any good reason to believe such a claim.
Nevertheless, I see that you don't want to take the time to get into too much detail. Understandable. I hope you'll likewise get a sense of why I refrain from believing the view that theism is a mental disorder (or whatever you want to call it).
Take care,
Gavagai
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
Fair enough. I can agree to semantically converge on "theism." Good point.
And yes, I agree that by extension, all theists have mental problems too.
Do I think you have a mental disorder? Yes.
Do I think you're a bad or insane or idiotic person? No on all three accounts. As you say later on, mental disorders carry a negative stigma, but I think that stigma is perpetuated mostly by misunderstanding. I'm not a studied-psychologist, so my understanding of mental disorders or psychological unhealthiness may be a bit liberal, but I think (a) practically everyone suffers from some mental disorders and (b) mental disorders are not necessarily debilitating, especially the "lighter-weighted" ones. This is how I reconcile the seeming contradiction some might perceive in describing an intelligent person as also psychologically unhealthy.
P.S. At this rate, we may also need to agree on whether to use the term "mental disorder" or "psychological unhealthiness;" or perhaps both are indeed interchangeable.
I'm not a studied philosopher or logician, but I believe in a philosophy where conceptual mastery outweighs linguistic mastery. I feel that a foreigner who might not have a firm grasp of XYZ language should still be able to engage in a debate, although his linguistic handicap would certainly hinder communication. I don't think the likelihood of an opponent abusing language or employing propaganda should be a qualifier; at best, communication is slowed by clarifying definitions, and at worst, an opponent is called out for being dishonest. I suppose it's also possible that communication is impossible by too great of a language barrier; hopefully we won't be seeing much of that in this thread, ha!
I agree that "mental disorder" is rather suggestive, but I think this concern exists out of insecurity or a mistrust towards an opponent. Intelligent people are not so easily misled or wooed by suggestive language/propaganda. This is also why I think this aforementioned concern is very much legitimate with less intelligent people.
My conclusion is based on several beliefs:
1. There is no logical reason to believe there is a god (I say this as a deduction rather than an induction). Thus, the only reasons to believe there is a god are illogical ones.
2. I believe that the steps required to believe in these illogical reasons (and not just illogical reasons in general...very specifically the ones that support a god) require so much of a stretch that only a psychologically unhealthy state of mind could accept this stretch.
That is probably as far as I'd go, not because I think I've reached an impasse, but simply because I'm too lazy (to go to the local library of psychology...or google up psychological disorders lol...and I don't mean to be lazy because I don't take you seriously or I'm trying to disrespect you
). I invite any atheist who agrees with me to elaborate on #1 and #2.
My last few posts were written more as an argument of the APPROACH and ANGLE that atheists should take rather than WHY religion is a mental disorder. Once my approach and angle is understood, whether people agree, my work is done.
Your request is not unfair at all whatsoever. As I've said, I'm just too lazy to take the next step of proving the approach/angle I've now set up. In fact, it would be RIDICULOUS for any theist to concede with my last post. Again, I was only arguing the approach and angle atheists should take rather than why religion is a mental disorder. So obviously as far as evidence goes, I didn't really provide much, if any at all lol. So not only do I understand your refrain, but I 110% approve it.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
.
Sodium,
Well, I guess I'd have to remark at this point that I agree with you when you say you haven't provided evidence in support of your claims. I understand now that your intention was merely to suggest a framework within which one could generate such evidence. Even so, it's difficult to see how that could be done. Perhaps we can revisit this issue when you have more time (or when you're not feeling so lazy).
Take care,
Gavagai
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
I think enough time has passed
? would you care to show this one rational religion
Gavagai wrote
"certain forms of religious belief can not only be positively irrational, but extremely dangerous"
Anybody displaying irrational and dangerous behavior would be defined as suffering from a mental disorder
Gavagai wrote
"Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder"
Gavagai ? would you care to address this apparent contradiction