(September 4, 2018 at 10:19 pm)Bob Kelso Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 7:09 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I don't care if you reject the notion of objects of intellect. To me that is a matter of opinion and cause for debate. What I really want to know is if you think people who believe in mathematical objects are delusional.

You’re really comparing mathematics to the concept of a deity? Really, Chad?

He's been doing that since I joined the forum. I've been over it loads of times, with him and other people.

---

(September 1, 2018 at 4:46 am)robvalue Wrote: I can kind of reverse the question here, and ask why someone would refer to their own belief as religious. What is the line that separates regular beliefs from religious ones?

---

PS: Let me add that atheists can be religious, so "God" is not an adequate cut-off point for what counts as religious belief.

Did any theists answer this one?

@ Steve and his "evidence" for god.

Quote:P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

P1 and P2 are both unsupported claims made by anonymous persons who lived long after the alleged events too place. Steve still does not grasp the principle of you can't support the claim by citing the claim as your evidence. Oh and a bonus, the reason why "early" writings agree with later ones was because when the churches coalesced in the 300's all writings were made to agree.

Ps 3 to 5 is yet more unsubstantiated assertion. Note how Steve gives no specific instances of prediction (despite saying that specific predictions were made) or of them being fulfilled. He has no actual evidence of his assertion.

P6 & P7 is Steve's personal belief and is contrary to established fact. I have a perfectly sound naturalistic explanation for my existence based on cosmology and evolutionary biology. It is not complete, but explains my existence infinitely better and more accurately than Steve's goddidit.

P8 is stating the anthropic fallacy of "the universe was created to allow us to exist". Sorry Steve, but we're not special. We're not tye reason for the universe's existence we're a consequence of it, an incidental little detail on a pale blue dot.

P9 is a straight out lie. Our minds are 100% physical, they are a consequence of our brain structure and emergent complexities of same.

P10 Morality doesn't come from a higher being, it is an emergent property of our species being a social animal. Look at any animal that exists in groups and you will see a moral animal.

P11 is false, as Ps 1&2 are unevidenced assertions of anonymous authors writing long after the fact. Notice the big gap here from Steve's claim to his conclusion. He wants you to forget that he hasn't substantiated his claim, and therefore accept uncritically his faulty conclusion.

P12 is false for the same reason as P11.

P13 is P8 with different words. Just because a few terms are changed, it doesn't follow that the arguement is suddenly validated.

Conclusion, the "evidence" is so bad and so horribly presented it doesn't even rise to failure. Steve get's a No Grade for his submission.

(September 4, 2018 at 4:28 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The idea of “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” was a revolutionary and historically unique formulation born out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I guess it is fascinating to see how much some people ignore history and reality in general - but hey it comes in a package of being deluded by Christianity.

I mean this is it: delusion in action. This is simply put neoconservative revisionist history concocted to promote its own political agenda.

The two documents the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States--contain not a single word about Christianity, Christian principles, the Bible or Jesus Christ because Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, among many others, held Deist, rather than Christian, religious beliefs.
Neither is there any mention at all of the Ten Commandments, Heaven, Hell or being saved. Not a word! The phrase "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" was a reference to the Deist Creator, rather than the God of Christianity.

Not to mention that George Washington himself negotiated in 1797 the Treaty of Tripoli which declared that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Congress unanimously approved the text of this treaty.

Moreover during the Presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson was labeled "a howling atheist" by his political opponents. Jefferson wrote in Autobiography that "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined or imprisoned." Jefferson also wrote "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Thomas Paine wrote an entire book, The Age of Reason, which directly attacked and rejected the Bible as being the Word of God.

THE REAL CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE over the Founding Fathers was King George III's absolute mandate that his subjects worship in a manner approved by the Church of England. Witch burning and mandatory church affiliation, among other factors, led the Founding Fathers to establish a "Wall of Separation between Church and State," allowing, at each citizen's discretion, freedom of religion or freedom from religion.

The bible describes killing people for not doing what God wants. Not exactly equity.

(September 5, 2018 at 3:31 am)Wololo Wrote: @ Steve and his "evidence" for god.

Quote:P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
    In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
    a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
    b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
    c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
    d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
    e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
    f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
    g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
    h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
    i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
    j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
    k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
    l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

P1 and P2 are both unsupported claims made by anonymous persons who lived long after the alleged events too place.  Steve still does not grasp the principle of you can't support the claim by citing the claim as your evidence.  Oh and a bonus, the reason why "early" writings agree with later ones was because when the churches coalesced in the 300's all writings were made to agree.

Ps 3 to 5 is yet more unsubstantiated assertion.  Note how Steve gives no specific instances of prediction (despite saying that specific predictions were made) or of them being fulfilled.  He has no actual evidence  of his assertion.

P6 & P7 is Steve's personal belief and is contrary to established fact.  I have a perfectly sound naturalistic explanation for my existence based on cosmology and evolutionary biology.  It is not complete, but explains my existence infinitely better and more accurately than Steve's goddidit.

P8 is stating the anthropic fallacy of "the universe was created to allow us to exist".  Sorry Steve, but we're not special.  We're not tye reason for the universe's existence we're a consequence of it, an incidental little detail on a pale blue dot.

P9 is a straight out lie.  Our minds are 100% physical, they are a consequence of our brain structure and emergent complexities of same.

P10  Morality doesn't come from a higher being, it is an emergent property of our species being a social animal.  Look at any animal that exists in groups and you will see a moral animal.

P11 is false, as Ps 1&2 are unevidenced assertions of anonymous authors writing long after the fact.  Notice the big gap here from Steve's claim to his conclusion.  He wants you to forget that he hasn't substantiated his claim, and therefore accept uncritically his faulty conclusion.

P12 is false for the same reason as P11.

P13 is P8 with different words.  Just because a few terms are changed, it doesn't follow that the arguement is suddenly validated.

Conclusion, the "evidence" is so bad and so horribly presented it doesn't even rise to failure.  Steve get's a No Grade for his submission.

Steves still pushing that bullshit the early church was like the later church to deny the bible narrative was added  too  and that Luke wrote acts despite it being in doubt  and the fact Paul undermines his whole case.

---

(September 5, 2018 at 3:31 am)Wololo Wrote: @ Steve and his "evidence" for god.

Quote:P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
    In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
    a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
    b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
    c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
    d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
    e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
    f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
    g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
    h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
    i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
    j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
    k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
    l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

P1 and P2 are both unsupported claims made by anonymous persons who lived long after the alleged events too place.  Steve still does not grasp the principle of you can't support the claim by citing the claim as your evidence.  Oh and a bonus, the reason why "early" writings agree with later ones was because when the churches coalesced in the 300's all writings were made to agree.

Ps 3 to 5 is yet more unsubstantiated assertion.  Note how Steve gives no specific instances of prediction (despite saying that specific predictions were made) or of them being fulfilled.  He has no actual evidence  of his assertion.

P6 & P7 is Steve's personal belief and is contrary to established fact.  I have a perfectly sound naturalistic explanation for my existence based on cosmology and evolutionary biology.  It is not complete, but explains my existence infinitely better and more accurately than Steve's goddidit.

P8 is stating the anthropic fallacy of "the universe was created to allow us to exist".  Sorry Steve, but we're not special.  We're not tye reason for the universe's existence we're a consequence of it, an incidental little detail on a pale blue dot.

P9 is a straight out lie.  Our minds are 100% physical, they are a consequence of our brain structure and emergent complexities of same.

P10  Morality doesn't come from a higher being, it is an emergent property of our species being a social animal.  Look at any animal that exists in groups and you will see a moral animal.

P11 is false, as Ps 1&2 are unevidenced assertions of anonymous authors writing long after the fact.  Notice the big gap here from Steve's claim to his conclusion.  He wants you to forget that he hasn't substantiated his claim, and therefore accept uncritically his faulty conclusion.

P12 is false for the same reason as P11.

P13 is P8 with different words.  Just because a few terms are changed, it doesn't follow that the arguement is suddenly validated.

Conclusion, the "evidence" is so bad and so horribly presented it doesn't even rise to failure.  Steve get's a No Grade for his submission.

It's small novel of apologist assertions and sophistry

---

Quote:The idea of “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” was a revolutionary and historically unique formulation born out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Bullshit 

---

(September 5, 2018 at 3:42 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 4:28 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The idea of “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” was a revolutionary and historically unique formulation born out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I guess it is fascinating to see how much some people ignore history and reality in general - but hey it comes in a package of being deluded by Christianity.

I mean this is it: delusion in action. This is simply put neoconservative revisionist history concocted to promote its own political agenda.

The two documents the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States--contain not a single word about Christianity, Christian principles, the Bible or Jesus Christ because Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, among many others, held Deist, rather than Christian, religious beliefs.
Neither is there any mention at all of the Ten Commandments, Heaven, Hell or being saved. Not a word! The phrase "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" was a reference to the Deist Creator, rather than the God of Christianity.

Not to mention that George Washington himself negotiated in 1797 the Treaty of Tripoli which declared that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Congress unanimously approved the text of this treaty.

Moreover during the Presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson was labeled "a howling atheist" by his political opponents. Jefferson wrote in Autobiography that "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined or imprisoned." Jefferson also wrote "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Thomas Paine wrote an entire book, The Age of Reason, which directly attacked and rejected the Bible as being the Word of God.

THE REAL CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE over the Founding Fathers was King George III's absolute mandate that his subjects worship in a manner approved by the Church of England. Witch burning and mandatory church affiliation, among other factors, led the Founding Fathers to establish a "Wall of Separation between Church and State," allowing, at each citizen's discretion, freedom of religion or freedom from religion.

He will try and push the idea that because founders at one point belonged to Christian denominations they were Christians which is BS reasoning .In no way were the founders referring to Christianity when they wrote those words. Christianity is a religion of feudalism not democracy .

---

In the same vein i will point to this letter from Adams to Jefferson

Quote:Who composed that army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants “qui ne croyent rien.” [“who do not believe anything”]. Very few, however, of several of these species; nevertheless, all educated in the general principles of Christianity and the general principles of English and American liberty.

Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics? Or those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Methodists, or those of the Moravians, or those of the Universalists, or those of the Philosophers? No. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united and the general principles of English and American liberty in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence.

Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles.

In favor of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Frederic of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame.

Adams is making it pretty clear that American principles were founded on good philosophy be it Christian or not only stating his personnel belief it came from a Christian principle and not stating it as a NATIONAL principle . So Wooter is full of it .

---

As for the idea this such principle is unique to Christanity .Cicero half a century before Jesus supposedly existed wrote vthis 

Quote:There is in fact a true law, from right reason, which is in accordance with nature, applies to all people, and is unchangeable and eternal. By its commands this law summons men to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them from doing wrong. … To invalidate this law by human legislation is never morally right nor is it permissible ever to restrict its operation, and to annul it wholly is impossible. … For there will be one law, eternal and unchangeable, binding at all times and upon all people. And there will be, as it were, one common master and ruler of men, that is God, who is the author of this law, its interpreter and its sponsor.

---

Or how about Thomas Paine 

Quote:“What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude.”

Pagan Athens .....

Quote:Those men, whom Jewish and Christian idolaters have abusively called heathen, had much better and clearer ideas of justice and morality than are to be found in the Old Testament (so far as it is Jewish), or in the New. The answer of Solon [the Athenian] on the question, “Which is the most perfect popular government?” has never been exceeded by any man since his time, as containing a maxim of political morality. “That,” says he, “where the least injury done to the meanest individual is considered as an insult on the whole constitution.” Solon lived above 500 years before Christ.

Hmm..... very intresting

(September 4, 2018 at 9:52 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 8:03 am)polymath257 Wrote: There is no restriction on delusions that they cannot be shared with others: (from Marriam-Webster)

Definition of delusion

1 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

• under the delusion that they will finish on schedule
  

• delusions of grandeur
  

b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

• the delusion that someone was out to hurt him
  

; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

-------------------

Does this apply to religions? At the very least, it applies to beliefs in supernatural deities that affect day-to-day lives of people. Combined with the confabulation (called apologetics) that is typical of religion (and delusions), it is hard to see a way that most religions are NOT delusional.

As I mentioned, antipsychotics help with psychotic delusions. They have no effect on religious beliefs commonly held.

Unfortunately, they don't help with all delusions.

---

(September 4, 2018 at 4:28 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 3:32 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: … my question about the disanalogy between beliefs like the existence of human equality and that of the existence of God.  That's still valid in lieu of an objection.

If you don’t like the analogy then use mathematical realism as a better one. I would like to see you argue that considering mathematical objects real is delusional.

Mathematical objects are language constructs and have no existence outside of a formal system.

---

(September 4, 2018 at 7:09 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 5:36 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Mathematical truths aren't objects.  Numbers aren't objects.  Your own words betray you.

I don't care if you reject the notion of objects of intellect. To me that is a matter of opinion and cause for debate. What I really want to know is if you think people who believe in mathematical objects are delusional.

Mathematical objects exist *as language constructs*. If you are claiming that deities only exist in the same way, you might be able to avoid the delusion label.

Platonism was the first major philosophical mistake.

Added: If you pray to the number 2 and think you get an answer, you are delusional. if you think any mathematical object has an intelligence, you are delusional.

(September 5, 2018 at 7:52 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 7:09 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I don't care if you reject the notion of objects of intellect. To me that is a matter of opinion and cause for debate. What I really want to know is if you think people who believe in mathematical objects are delusional.

Mathematical objects exist *as language constructs*. If you are claiming that deities only exist in the same way, you might be able to avoid the delusion label...Platonism was the first major philosophical mistake.

Is there anyone who will fucking answer the question clearly and without caveat!!! Is it or is it not delusional to be a Platonist and/or believe in intellectual objects such as 'The Good'? YES or NO?

(September 5, 2018 at 9:29 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 5, 2018 at 7:52 am)polymath257 Wrote: Mathematical objects exist *as language constructs*. If you are claiming that deities only exist in the same way, you might be able to avoid the delusion label...Platonism was the first major philosophical mistake.

Is there anyone who will fucking answer the question clearly and without caveat!!! Is it or is it not delusional to be a Platonist and/or believe in intellectual objects such as 'The Good'? YES or NO?

NO AND YES

(September 5, 2018 at 3:42 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 4:28 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The idea of “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” was a revolutionary and historically unique formulation born out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I guess it is fascinating to see how much some people ignore history and reality in general - but hey it comes in a package of being deluded by Christianity...

The two documents the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States--contain not a single word about Christianity, Christian principles, the Bible or Jesus Christ because Thomas Jefferson,...Not a word!

Learn to read what people write and not what you think they wrote.

I did not say anything about the Declaration of Independence explicitly identifying the United States as a Christian nation. I said that in Western civilization belief that in human equality arose out of a Judeo-Christian culture and intellectual tradition. That is indisputable.

You were wrong. It arose out of enlightenment fascination with earlier pagan philosophies. These infected your own religion at various points..as well..just as secularism has shaped your christianity.