Religion vs Delusion
We're only out done by the enlightened atheists.
Don't add lying to your list of faults.
She wouldn't be lying, like you twisting the account of your own actions. You've not added any value to this entire thread. So, she has not lied.
Were your posts not generally insulting and meaningless? Is that, um, part of your, er, lol, delusion?
Gamergirl your topic is just fine, and you can post about anything you wish that doesn't violate the terms.
Some people just have a hard time facing reality, because of their delusions.
Faith is much more a verb than an action. One cannot have the faith without the action of nurturing it. It's applauded because the fruits of faith can be proven through application and the nurturing of it. Yet, this evidence is not known and cannot be seen by those who are not willing to consider the manner the evidence has manifest itself. The common thought is that if you cannot taste, smell, see, hear or touch something - it just doesn't exist. Science, itself, has proven this to be a shallow perception, time and time again, of the world around us. Even with the senses listed above, there are varying degrees within each that one may detect something real but another cannot. It boils down to application. A dilusion cannot produce a fruitful result. The application and nurturing of faith can, will and does produce such fruit which is the evidence of something real - yet unseen as of yet.
Psst GP...a verb is an action...
Very good point AND an embarrassing oversight.
Faith is much more a verb than it is a noun. The rest I stand by though.Excellent analogy! You and I now have a common foundation. I hope all is well with you!
I'm ready for spring.I'm as good as can be expected, and anxiously awaiting the springtime weather.
Why are you guys waiting for spring? It is early autumn!
- Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
0 - Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago0
Are you responding to my statement to someone else?
You're not too interested in staying out of other people's conversation....hmmmm. I guess that again proves what a selfish and self-serving person you really are.
Thank you for your input. It always rings true when a religious view, as skewed as it is, looks at life. You're really sad.
And, if you consider that an insult? Then I could say you're also weak-minded, but then again...that comes with the territory of having a mystical faith based belief, which was incorrectly formed, because you lack the knowledge and understanding of life.
Again, Thank you for input.I bow to your insight and greatness!
Hi Mikel, what went wrong? I agree with something you said!
That means Hell has frozen over...
- that sounds about right!
- sneakorocksolidposted 13 years ago0
And we're off! Why did you start this thread? Are you trying to pick a fight or have your ego stroked by the atheists? I suggest if you don't know about this topic do some reading, examnie the facts and there are plenty. If you start a thread like this you're asking for a fight. How do you feel Christians would take you calling them dillutional or psychotic. This topic has been beaten to death and all it's done is cause hard feelings between hubbers, so can it.
Remember you asked for it, no matter how polite you think it is.
Devout christians -and various other nonchristian religionists- are definitely delusional.You're not helping.
...with you on that.
would add non-religious as well, by participation proxy.
only the deluded would say they are not delusional. jeje
After three months of reading the forums, both sides have exactly the same argument, basis and replies. multiply that by the number of threads.
the deluge is falling faster...
- sneakorocksolidposted 13 years ago0
It is more a lack of proof sweetie pie. We all know this is the new "I don't have to prove a damn thing - you dis-prove it!" argument that causes so many conflicts.
So - how about you come up with some proof? 100% total lack evidence is enough to convince me. As it is for you when it comes to anything else. Or can you prove the Star Goat did not vomit us up?
And I think you have sadly misjudged gamergirl's reasons for asking the question in the first place.Dear me,
Yes - I think you have misjudged some one and attacked them unnecessarily.
But - let's face it - that is the Christian thing to do. You just added the spaceman stuff and the, Disprove it or it is True Because I sed so!!!!! rubbish.Sweetie pie - you are the one making the delusional claims - you prove them. Did god tell you into your head that Jesus had a time machine?
Several things really. (belief not delusion)
1. common sense
2. lack of evidence
3. a lifetime of experience
4. people like you precious
Well..prove there wasn't...
- sneakorocksolidposted 13 years ago0
Don't insult us even if it's under the guise of a discussion and there won't be fight.
I can see you already have a problem sneako? First off, you're classifying me in the same group with Atheists. You must be completely foolish in this regard, considered you know damn well, I am not an atheist.
Don't make claims you cannot prove. I don't hurt anyone and if someone thinks my words are hurting them, then they are like you....they need to get over their own righteous inclination. Nice try to twist things around. Yet, again you failed your "GOD" in doing what you were to supposedly learned.
I would be glad to leave people to their beliefs, providing that they form their belief correctly. Until then, it isn't going to happen.
I know what your comments are and they are the same as every other person who has some sort of religious belief....you don't give a damn about other people, and your actions prove you to be a ....
I'm not anti-religion sneako. I don't want to ruin or dismiss real religions. However, those that are "MYSTIC" based are completely obsolete and useless in today's society.
I find you attitude quite a bit selfish. Thank you for the proof religion is damaging the people who use it for their own advantage.
No thats not the truth. It won't matter what I say you'll just insult me and the rest of the religious. Because you got nuth'in and you know it and I know it!
Actually, the REAL truth of the matter is you refuse to accept the reality of your own life and of those around you, so you can pray to a mystical entity, you cannot prove to exist, so you can prop up yourself and think yourself better. It's obvious in your self-righteous attitude, which carries in your words.
You look at things as insults, because you choose to. That's an insult on the rest of humanity or whoever you disagree with.
- Deborah Sextonposted 13 years ago0
Hello Everybody...
Delusion is an unprovable stance or perception of a person or group of people.
Religion is a group of people that believe the same thing, it is an organized group of people with rules for being a part of the group. The beliefs of the group are sometimes unprovable. Which makes it fall into the same realm as delusion, or possible delusion.
The reason Psychiatrists don't call believing in God or Gods a delusion is because of the general acceptance of the concept by a multitude of people. The generally unaccepted nature by large groups of people, of seeing ghosts and little green men, makes these concepts acceptable to be classified as delusional.
The true delusion is the delusion of the Psychiatrists, they believe(without proof) that they can decide whether something that is not provable or disprovable is a delusion or not. When in fact all they are doing is classifying something that is unprovable, as popularly accepted and therefore not delusional, or not popularly accepted and therefore delusional.
Delusional behavior such as the belief that one is the King of England is provable/disprovable. Because of this proof a delusional state is provable.
Hearing voices of people that are not physically seen may be a delusion and it may not be...there isn't any proof that the person hearing the voice isn't hearing the voice. But because others don't hear the voice, the popular belief becomes that the voice doesn't exist and the hearer of the voice is labeled (without proof) to be delusional.
Proof of things unseen, is not only empirical evidence, sometimes proof is in the feelings and experiences of the individual. Love could not be scientifically proven 1000 years ago, did it only come into existence after it was proven? I believe that love was around even when it could not be proven.
{Faith is believing in something unproven, it is not believing in something that has been proven untrue. Delusion in religion is believing in the face of proof to the contrary.}I agree with all I read..(I didn't read all of the paragraphs)
Thank you for the on-topic responses given so far. The topic was raised by my husband, and set in motion thoughts in my own head, which is why I brought the topic here.
Please feel free to continue contributing (or, as it seems to please some, not contributing, because that is entertaining too in an entirely different fashion.)I would read some of the theologian and atheist books he uses for sources, Richard Dawkins is not much of a writer, you may find that reading up on both sides of the story, and then reading his books, makes it easier to form your own opinion on the subject
I have never seen him so energized about a topic since reading this book, thus my interest in initiating a thread about it.
Very good point!
We are raised, particularly in the United States, to NEVER question or look with a negative eye on a person's religious beliefs, therefore supposedly making them untouchable from what would elsewise be called delusion. This is not to say that being delusional is entirely negative, as there are plenty of people who live incredible lives while operating under the false belief that, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is coming after their "soul."
But, as that is a religious belief, it obviously can't be delusion, because we are conditioned to think that no matter what religion a person subscribes to, their beliefs make their circumstances real for them.
Interesting thoughts for a beautiful sunny day.
Edit: I haven't yet cracked past the first chapter of the book in question myself, and consider myself to be a lifelong student of religion and religious history, so you can be sure I'll be checking into his sources - AND the opposing viewpoints.I attempt most times to bypass the negative and oft-times hateful remarks. I'm not here to have a petty argument, but rather to engage in meaningful (to me) discussions, to learn what others think/feel on subjects and maybe learn something in the process.
Of course, I can't really stop others from being mean for it's own sake. They aren't my responsibility, my only responsibility is to and for myself.
- Madame Xposted 13 years ago0
IF
(everybody sees the "IF" right? . . . good . . . )
There is an almighty being,
and that being created reality,
Then by definition that being is beyond reality - outside of it
and logic is a part of reality . . .
then it is impossible to prove the existence of said almighty being through the use of logic.
Just a (logical) thought . . . - Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago0
True, that.
And bumblebees fly for some damned reason.exactly!!!
Oh Daniel, music to my ears.
Are you familiar with the Hisenberg Uncertainty Principle? In a nutshell he states that you can know the position of a particle - OR - it's speed, but you cannot know both at the same time. The conclusion being that your observation alters the data because you have one perspective or another.
I agree, and this was very well stated.
For me it isn't, my religion is my own.
Perhaps instead of "religion" you should use the name of the particular religious branch your talking about, Christianity for example.
Calling all water cold because in your experience while living at the south pole all the water was cold, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a place somewhere as yet undiscovered that had warm water...someplace possibly named 'The Emerald Coast'...just a thought...
- Deborah Sextonposted 13 years ago0
Ah, how refreshing. Your first example is called a sophism - seems to be a lot of that around these days
I'm agreeing with you Deborah - sorry if I didn't sound that way
Your first example . . .
Faulty Premise/Conclusion
P.1=John has facial hair
P2=All people have facial hair
C.=John is a person
is a sophism.
I was commenting in general on how I sometimes see faulty logic
(but not from you )
- Deborah Sextonposted 13 years ago0
But that's not my point, really. Sorry if I didn't provide it clearly.
You are okay and at peace *regardless*. Does that make more sense?
The biggest point I'm trying to make is that the claims believers and nonbelievers often make are at the root, either similar or the same, but the claim is that one side says it's *because* there is a God and the other side says they have the same feelings regardless, therefore there is no God.
So then, I dot my "i's" and you draw little flowers where the dot goes—so to speak.I'm so relieved.
Of course, we'd probably interpret it differently.
It's because you're smarter than me.
If you'd turn it into a song lyric, I could write a bitchin' tune for it.
- Deborah Sextonposted 13 years ago0
Thank you for agreeing to step back and cease your insults, sneako. I appreciate it.
- Madame Xposted 13 years ago0
"That's a lot of psycho-jumbo, but hey, I've even convinced myself!!"
If you can't rely on your own personal experience, what do you have left ?The deluded have another perception of reality as they imagine another realm of angels and demons constantly swarming and swirling around them forever in spiritual battle for the souls of the earth.
Yeah, that's reality.
Agreed. There is enough empirical evidence against creation to sink a ship!
Notice how that statement contradicts your original claim. No charge in pointing that out to you.
Mikel:
Please let me clarify for you again, the definition presented that you take issue with is in TWO parts.
According to M-W.C again, "1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind " specifically 1(a).
A Being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. More commonly we might describe such a being as "all powerful, all knowing, all good."
-----------------------------------
The bolded section is the very next paragraph in his post, and a point of further clarity from the source. The bold italic is the first indicator as to which of the two definitions he referred to.
With somewhere around 33% of the world's population assigning themselves the religious affiliation of Christian, it is no small wonder that the Christian definition of God is present in dictionaries - after all, a dictionary is a literary tool serving as the compilation of all accepted definitions of words as they are used in language - or it should be anyway.
Anyhoo, I just wanted to clear that up.- Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago0
- Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago0
- Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago0
this is the first of your posts in this thread I actually understood....
and though I disagree with your opinion on my definition of Faith, I have no hard feelings. If I'm wrong and that can be pointed out to me in a way that brings me new understanding, then I'm all for it. In this case however, my definition is accurate and is not delusional at all.
thanks?!
yes, many definitions can be applied to the USE of faith.
consciousness: thought (logic/sensation, reason)certainly and am glad you disagree. proves the point.
consciousness is its own perception.
consciousness is thought
thought a parallel.
a question (a priori) a perception.
logic (the priori itself) a collective perception
an answer (posteriori) a perception.
neither is conclusive. both are lacking, needy, futile while engaging constantly. Both are relationary parallel of the "NTK".
A delude.
faith has nothing to do with either. Faith is drawn into the parallel by either or. Faith has no need.
- Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago0
- Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago0
- Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago0
ouch.
no seriously, they are the same, as is all parameters within.
all are apart of the 'collective consciousness'
consciousness =logic/sensation/reason. (the three "a priori").
the paradox is "the Need To Know".
Delusion is the NTK, and all parameters within.
Faith, is way beyond it. I have a hub with my conclusions in it. Read it and see what you think. I have sent it to M.I.T. but as Q or Mark or Jeffrey will be quick to point out they may have simply thrown it in the trash. As I haven't heard anything back from them.
{EDIT in the comments section you'll find a post from Q or Mark or Jeffrey, showing that they think F=MA is the third law of motion and not the second...}
Related Discussions
- 634
If you don't believe in God, why does it matter to you if others do?
I am sincerely curious as to why those who do not believe in the existence of God would spend time and energy to convince others to believe the same? I am asking this respectfully and am seeking true, valid answers--not attacks or arguments. I just want to understand the...
- 883
Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
- 49
The counter acting argument of the existence of a god
So I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I've been involved in a lot of discussions on the lack of any physical evidence to the existence of any god (no matter what the religion)and it is always countered with there is also no physical evidence that a god "does not" exist which is a...
- 75
The interaction of faith and imagination in christianity
Recently I wrote a hub on faith and imagination. Since I was interested in hearing others opinions on how we should use faith in our imagination I started a thread on this forum. Unfortunately it was high-jacked and the topic at hand was not able to be discussed. So this is basically my second...
- 55
If you do not go to church, but you believe in God, are you still considered rel
If you do not go to church, but you believe in God, are you still considered religious?
- 248
What is wrong with believing something by Faith?
I see a lot of religionists trying to argue that their faith is not really faith. It is either "proven" because god found their car keys or whatever. Or the same as having faith that evolution happens because evolution was not videotaped as it happened. Or arguing that it is...