RoadRunner

When we are talking about a person's belief in God, their concept of God is what matters rather than the dictionary definition, since everyone has a different concept of God. It's pointless to talk about God unless you both agree what you mean by it.

What I'm saying is that it's hard to reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into, and yes - in many cases they do have an ulterior motive, which is protecting the emotional value they get from their religion as described in my original post.

What it is trumping is reason, logic, empiricism. Believing in pseudoscientific woo is a human weakness - as pattern seeking mammals we have evolved to seek agency in what happens in our environment to identify danger - of our ancestors, those who heard a rustle in the grass and assumed it was a predator but were wrong were more likely to survive and pass on their genes than those who didn't think they had enough evidence yet to conclude that it was a predator, until a tiger jumped out and ate them. We have to consciously override our primitive, fallible superstitious nature of we want to have a world view that comports with reality.

It's very true. I am extremely aware of superstition creeping up on me. I start to come to flawed conclusions, based on the scarcest of data. I have to police myself.

Reason 6: MENTAL ILLNESS

It occurred to me that many religious people talk about God speaking to them, hearing the voice of God in their head, and talking to God as though he is a real person.

In some cases this could be a culturally validated imaginary friend, in other cases it is probably a schizophrenic delusion that has been interpreted and encouraged by a religion.

There are probably many people who have some mental illness and others who have had hallucinations or intrusive thoughts and believe they come from God, Jesus, Allah or and Angel. Some people wouldn't want to debate or discuss such personably phenomena but they could constitute a hidden factor that keeps them convinced of their religious beliefs in the face of evidence and reason to the contrary.

Religion is especially cruel for people who have actual hallucinations. It's even harder for them to see through the indoctrination, I imagine, when their brains are feeding off of the mythology that's been pumped into their brains.

And a lot of religious people talk as if they are having hallucinations. I don't expect most of them actually are; rather they are just imagining things, or perhaps saying what they wish they were experiencing. I imagine it makes genuine mental illness harder to diagnose and treat.

(June 17, 2016 at 4:44 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: RoadRunner

When we are talking about a person's belief in God, their concept of God is what matters rather than the dictionary definition, since everyone has a different concept of God. It's pointless to talk about God unless you both agree what you mean by it.

Are you saying, that you do not agree with the definition in the dictionary?

Quote:What I'm saying is that it's hard to reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into, and yes - in many cases they do have an ulterior motive, which is protecting the emotional value they get from their religion as described in my original post.

What it is trumping is reason, logic, empiricism. Believing in pseudoscientific woo is a human weakness - as pattern seeking mammals we have evolved to seek agency in what happens in our environment to identify danger - of our ancestors, those who heard a rustle in the grass and assumed it was a predator but were wrong were more likely to survive and pass on their genes than those who didn't think they had enough evidence yet to conclude that it was a predator, until a tiger jumped out and ate them. We have to consciously override our primitive, fallible superstitious nature of we want to have a world view that comports with reality.

Forgive me, but this seems to be low on reason, logic, empiricism; and high on pseudo-scientific woo.  My experience has been with a number of atheists, who while quick to claim victory, and logical superiority and to use poisoning the well tactics, upon further inspection and scrutiny of their claims, they turn out to be fairly hollow.

It was kind of amusing (and also a little sad), but I had a guy the one time, who kept insisting that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument was special pleading and fallacious.   I questioned him on this, and tried to reason with him.  His position was; that any statement that uses the word "everything" and then excludes some things was special pleading and incorrect.  I tried to explain to him how this argument was suicidal; but, the problem and I seen in other discussions, that this person, just assumed that he was being logical, and the Christian was illogical.  But when the claims where inspected, this didn't prove to be the case.

The dictionary definition does not necessarily match to any one individual's concept of God, and most people's definition is unique in some way, so it is necessarily to define terms with each individual. It is for the individual who is making the claim that a God exists to define what they mean by the word, and then demonstrate that it in fact does exist.

As for Kalam, take a look at this: https://youtu.be/1u9ZIQ33a8c

---

Or to be more exhaustive:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

(June 17, 2016 at 9:09 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: The dictionary definition does not necessarily match to any one individual's concept of God, and most people's definition is unique in some way, so it is necessarily to define terms with each individual. It is for the individual who is making the claim that a God exists to define what they mean by the word, and then demonstrate that it in fact does exist.

As for Kalam, take a look at this: https://youtu.be/1u9ZIQ33a8c

---

Or to be more exhaustive:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

I did provide a definition... I do agree, that it is good, that we are discussing the same thing.  

As to your video; I agree, the caller didn't do very well.  I think there was some weak points on the side of the hosts, but also some good ones.  If it where a debate, then I would say that the hosts won the debate (if the caller had the affirmative position).  I'm not going to judge a position over who won a debate however.  I look at all the arguments and evidence, think that the best (from multiple sources) is what we should base our decision on.

Fair enough - did you read the link at the bottom to Iron Chariots wiki page detailing the Kalam and why it doesn't hold up?

If you think there is a way of presenting it that does hold up are welcome to put it forward here. So far I don't find it convincing. It's cleaver, but on closer inspection it is ultimately flawed.

RoadRunner79 Wrote:

Veritas_Vincit Wrote:RoadRunner

When we are talking about a person's belief in God, their concept of God is what matters rather than the dictionary definition, since everyone has a different concept of God. It's pointless to talk about God unless you both agree what you mean by it.

Are you saying, that you do not agree with the definition in the dictionary?

Quote:What I'm saying is that it's hard to reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into, and yes - in many cases they do have an ulterior motive, which is protecting the emotional value they get from their religion as described in my original post.

What it is trumping is reason, logic, empiricism. Believing in pseudoscientific woo is a human weakness - as pattern seeking mammals we have evolved to seek agency in what happens in our environment to identify danger - of our ancestors, those who heard a rustle in the grass and assumed it was a predator but were wrong were more likely to survive and pass on their genes than those who didn't think they had enough evidence yet to conclude that it was a predator, until a tiger jumped out and ate them. We have to consciously override our primitive, fallible superstitious nature of we want to have a world view that comports with reality.

Forgive me, but this seems to be low on reason, logic, empiricism; and high on pseudo-scientific woo.  My experience has been with a number of atheists, who while quick to claim victory, and logical superiority and to use poisoning the well tactics, upon further inspection and scrutiny of their claims, they turn out to be fairly hollow.

It was kind of amusing (and also a little sad), but I had a guy the one time, who kept insisting that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument was special pleading and fallacious.   I questioned him on this, and tried to reason with him.  His position was; that any statement that uses the word "everything" and then excludes some things was special pleading and incorrect.  I tried to explain to him how this argument was suicidal; but, the problem and I seen in other discussions, that this person, just assumed that he was being logical, and the Christian was illogical.  But when the claims where inspected, this didn't prove to be the case.

In your opinion. You seem to reflect the same flaws you are trying to point out in Veritas.

(June 17, 2016 at 10:02 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Are you saying, that you do not agree with the definition in the dictionary?


Forgive me, but this seems to be low on reason, logic, empiricism; and high on pseudo-scientific woo.  My experience has been with a number of atheists, who while quick to claim victory, and logical superiority and to use poisoning the well tactics, upon further inspection and scrutiny of their claims, they turn out to be fairly hollow.

It was kind of amusing (and also a little sad), but I had a guy the one time, who kept insisting that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument was special pleading and fallacious.   I questioned him on this, and tried to reason with him.  His position was; that any statement that uses the word "everything" and then excludes some things was special pleading and incorrect.  I tried to explain to him how this argument was suicidal; but, the problem and I seen in other discussions, that this person, just assumed that he was being logical, and the Christian was illogical.  But when the claims where inspected, this didn't prove to be the case.

In your opinion. You seem to reflect the same flaws you are trying to point out in Veritas.

Which would be?