Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 17/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 433 of 479 (571361)
07-31-2010 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by jar
07-31-2010 1:19 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
jar writes:
Straggler writes:
So if someone had some sort of emotional need to believe in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits you would consider it rational and reasonable for them to believe in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits?
Sure, or other reasons.
If someone has an emotional need to believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte is it rational and reasonable for them to believe that they actually are Napoleon Bonaparte?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 1:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 1:46 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 437 of 479 (571398)
07-31-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by jar
07-31-2010 1:46 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
jar writes:
Straggler writes:
If someone has an emotional need to believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte is it rational and reasonable for them to believe that they actually are Napoleon Bonaparte?
For them, it might well be reasonable and rational. I would need to know what led them to that conclusion.
Primarily they have a feeling of absolute conviction that this is the case. These feelings are indescribably strong, especially when reading historical accounts of Napoleon's life which just feel wholly familiar. In addition they cite some rather vague visions as evidence of this conclusion.
jar writes:
Are they wrong, deluded? Almost certainly.
But wouldn't this also apply to our believer in the existence of Middle Earth hobbits? Or do you think that there is a significant difference between the two examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 1:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 3:30 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 440 of 479 (571401)
07-31-2010 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by RAZD
07-31-2010 3:20 PM


Re: opinion vs speculation
RAZD writes:
If one speculates that the sky is green however, the reply that it is blue and that this is the truth, is what needs to be substantiated by evidence (actual lightwaves, range defined as blue, etc), which is possible to do.
Except that it could be those ethereal sky gremlins which are manipulating our measurements and tricking us all into believing that the green sky is actually blue. This possibility is unfalsified - and indeed unfalsifiable.
Given that you have (apparently) proven that we cannot rationally consider any unfalsified conclusion to be improbable we cannot dismiss the potential existence of these tricksy sky gremlins as improbable. We must be entirely agnostic.
Thus you have (apparently) proven that we must be rationally agnostic as to whether the sky actually is blue no matter how much detectable evidence there mat be to suggest that this is the case.
Go figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 3:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 441 of 479 (571402)
07-31-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by jar
07-31-2010 3:30 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
jar writes:
Have you read what I have written?
Very carefully.
jar writes:
Both can be wrong, deluded and still be reasonable and logical based on what they see as the evidence.
I don't remember disagreeing with you on this at any point so far. What makes you think I am disputing this?
jar writes:
Reasonable and logical are unrelated to being correct or being deluded.
OK. I don't see what bearing this has on the questions I asked. Why do you think the questions I asked suggest dispute of this?
jar writes:
Straggler writes:
If someone has an emotional need to believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte is it rational and reasonable for them to believe that they actually are Napoleon Bonaparte?
For them, it might well be reasonable and rational. I would need to know what led them to that conclusion.
Primarily they have a feeling of absolute conviction that this is the case. These feelings are indescribably strong, especially when reading historical accounts of Napoleon's life which just feel wholly familiar. In addition they cite some rather vague visions as evidence of this conclusion.
jar writes:
Are they wrong, deluded? Almost certainly.
But wouldn't this also apply to our believer in the existence of Middle Earth hobbits? Or do you think that there is a significant difference between the two examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 3:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 3:43 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 465 of 479 (571653)
08-01-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by jar
07-31-2010 3:43 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
What did I say the last time you asked that question?
I have never before asked that question.
It is you who has made the distinction between being rational/reasonable and delusional. I am happy to go along with your definitions with respect to this.
You said that one who believes in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits on the basis of the Lord of the Rings text could be considered rational and reasonable if they did this for reasons of personal need.
I am asking you if they are also "almost certainly" delusional? As (we seem to agree) those who believe themselves to be Napoleon Bonaparte are.
Basically I am trying to find out what you think is delusional and what is not. Why. And then how this does or does not apply to religious beliefs based on texts.
Texts which you have advocated as evidence.
So how exactly does the Lord of the Rings text differ, in terms of being a valid form of evidence, to the bible? (if you indeed believe that it does). That is the question.
Please be specific in your answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 3:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by jar, posted 08-01-2010 7:20 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 467 of 479 (571658)
08-01-2010 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by jar
08-01-2010 7:20 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
Are those who believe that the Lord Jeus born from a virgin, son of God who is himself God, able to perform miracles and facilitate ones passage to Heaven "deluded"?
Are those who believe in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits "deluded"?
Are those who believe themselves to be Napoleon Bonaparte based on feelings of conviction etc. as previously described "deluded"?
What, if any, is the difference betwen the three examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by jar, posted 08-01-2010 7:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by jar, posted 08-01-2010 7:42 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 469 of 479 (571660)
08-01-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by jar
08-01-2010 7:42 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
Well that is kinda ambiguous. Nobody here is gonna deny any possibilities. So where does that leave us?
Can you elaborate on your answer beyond simple possibility (which nobody denies anyway)?
Are all three beliefs equally delusional? Is belief in some possibilities more delusional than others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by jar, posted 08-01-2010 7:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by jar, posted 08-01-2010 7:59 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 471 of 479 (571663)
08-01-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by RAZD
07-31-2010 10:04 PM


Proofs And Falsifications
RAZD writes:
DA writes:
If you assume the possibility of God's existance, you must assume the possibility of an infinite number of other phenomena/things that the human mind could possibly conjure up as existing, including pink unicorns.
Why?
Because you have (apparently) proven that we cannot rationally consider ANY unfalsified notion as unlikely, improbable or anything else short of absolute agnosticism.
RAZD writes:
This was proven, and the proof has been posted several times. Here it is again, fleshed out a bit to perhaps help drive the point home Message 344

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 10:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 472 of 479 (571664)
08-01-2010 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by jar
08-01-2010 7:59 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
So you can't say why someone who believes that Jeus Christ, their Lord and Saviour, born from a virgin, son of God who is himself God, able to perform miracles and facilitate ones passage to Heaven is any less "deluded" than he who believes himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte?
Fair enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by jar, posted 08-01-2010 7:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by jar, posted 08-01-2010 8:19 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 475 by ringo, posted 08-01-2010 8:26 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 474 of 479 (571667)
08-01-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by jar
08-01-2010 8:19 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
Well how do we decide who is deluded and who isn't?
Why are you so sure that our Napoleon Bonaparte wannabe is "almost certainly" deluded?
Is our 'Christ as Lord and Saviour' (as mentioned previously) believer in an evidentially different position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by jar, posted 08-01-2010 8:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by jar, posted 08-01-2010 8:29 PM Straggler has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024