(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.

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.

I understand your frustration. Theists dragged philosophy and fucked it around like a cheap whore. Math however, is just out of their reach. It's a hard mistress, needs attention and careful thought. I should know. Contrary to theology (lel), where one just makes things as they go.

No person with any basic understanding of math could equate it to a god. It has been the foundation of mankind progress ever since goat herders made marks on sticks to count the lifestock. Way before they were able to write the silly fables of gods.

There is no limit for ignorance. Math requires formal proof and consistence. Its work in process. But then, theists of the delusional kind just piss and shit on everything on their personal path.

(September 5, 2018 at 11:57 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 5, 2018 at 11:50 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that the answer is that morality is subjective until you call someone by the wrong pronoun, or refuse to bake a cake. And testimony is not evidence, until a rather shady character, testified under pressure against  a president that you don’t like.

Morality is subjective.  That doesn’t mean some subjective morality can’t through the mechanism adopted by a society to regulate itself be imposed also upon those who disagree.

Think of it this way, even though our morality is technically subjective, if you behave in some ways that you might think is not inconsistent with its being subjective, we will hang you.  Got it?

So then you cannot accuse a state or a culture of immorality.   You cannot appeal to rights, accept those given to you by the majority.   There are no inalienable rights as stated in the U.S. constitution.  There is no true evil, it's all dependent on the subject.  I don't find that most who claim that morality is subjective, really act like this, when not discussing the ontology of morality.  Then they become moral objectivity.  Otherwise, they couldn't appeal to morality outside of the person, or in this case the group of people. 

Quote:Testimony doesn’t convince me jesus rose again, because there is no evidence other than those testimonies that any such thing is possible at all, much less such a thing instantiated a particular occurance on that occassion.  Testimony doe convince me sufficiently trump is criminal during his election Champaign because there is ample evidence besides those testimony that such a thing is possible, and ample evidence the particular criminal trump imstantiated similar occurances of criminal behavior.    Got it?

Ok... so then testimony is evidence, but does not convince you, when you don't want to believe it.

"Testimony" needs to stand up to cross examination before it is evidence.  Produce your witnesses.

If you can find them.

(September 5, 2018 at 12:15 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(September 5, 2018 at 11:57 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Morality is subjective.  That doesn’t mean some subjective morality can’t through the mechanism adopted by a society to regulate itself be imposed also upon those who disagree.

Think of it this way, even though our morality is technically subjective, if you behave in some ways that you might think is not inconsistent with its being subjective, we will hang you.  Got it?

No, not really.

Morality is based on something, some subjective baseline. Once the baseline is agreed, OBJECTIVE assessments can be made as to morality with regard to that baseline.

So what is the baseline subjectively? The bible? The Koran? Gilgamesh? All of those would have us butchering each other. With the imprimatur of whichever deity.

What Neo is talking about, and what I was talking about, was the ontology or nature of morality; not how you know what is moral.  When you are talking about "objective assessments"  you are talking about something else.

(September 5, 2018 at 3:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: "Testimony" needs to stand up to cross examination before it is evidence.  Produce your witnesses.

If you can find them.

Their names are jack and shit and jack left town

If someone wants to contend that abstract concepts "exist" then it's up to them to explain what that means, and to demonstrate that it's true. The only way they've been shown to exist is by representation in the configuration of brains.

(September 5, 2018 at 4:07 pm)robvalue Wrote: If someone wants to contend that abstract concepts "exist" then it's up to them to explain what that means, and to demonstrate that it's true. The only way they've been shown to exist is by representation in the configuration of brains.

Wooter and his Platonic mystics deny this .

(August 31, 2018 at 10:01 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: From the tail end of another thread…

Quote:Whether or not a theist's perceptions of God represent a "delusion" (in the sense of being a firmly maintained yet irrational belief) was the conversation I was interested in having.

So I say, lets have that conversation.

Let me first say that, as a Christian, this is very difficult conversation to not take personally. ‘Delusion’ has a very negative connotation, even when used colloquially. For many Christians, and I suppose believers in general, their religious convictions are central to their identity and serve as the core around which their values and principles develop. Having it maligned is perceived as dismissive and disrespectful.

At the same time, sincere and thoughtful believers are very much aware that there are seriously disturbed people who truly believe supernatural entities have directed them to do dangerous and/or heinous acts (a mother drowning her three children in a bathtub because she thought they were demons, comes to mind). For a non-believer, to lump mainstream Christians in with people who are clearly mentally ill and failing to acknowledge various safe guards (that are by no means infallible) built into religious traditions, is at best IMHO thoughtless and at worst offensive and provocative.

So for the purposes of this conversation, I will assume that ‘delusion’ is being used moderately by atheists, not indicative of actual mental illness, but rather as something that hinders reasoning. As such, what criteria must be met for a belief to qualify as a delusion? Some I have heard some of the following proposed and with which I agree:

- Unquestionable certainty.
- Resistance to scrutiny.
- Contrary to what is demonstrably false.

bold mine. 
Clarification needed here. If it's to be considered a delusion, wouldn't the thinking have to be contrary to what is demonstrably true?

Quote:That said, the devil is in the details. My initial question to atheists is this. How do you justify the claim that all religious beliefs, or those most commonly held, satisfy the above criteria (or others you may propose that are not listed)?

For me personally, I justify the claims of believers fitting the above criteria (with the third one being corrected) because 
1. There is no certainty or guarantee that your beliefs are true and correct, regardless of what the bible says.
2. Whenever any religion is up for scrutiny and doesn't pass the litmus test, believers go all on the defensive and immediately close their minds to the facts that science has provided, which can't be ignored by those possessing logic and reason. 
3. Comes back to the second point. If things are demonstrably true, as has been tested by the Scientific Method, believers still refuse to come around to seeing the logic and reason for the non-existence of a god or gods. 

So I pose the following question to you: 

If you can show me why any of the Greek gods are false, then please do. I'll be happy to use your own reasons and explanations as to why the Abrahamic god you follow is also false. [/quote]

(September 5, 2018 at 3:33 pm)Wololo Wrote:

(September 5, 2018 at 11:00 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: How many are on yours? No idea, but you just sent me PM stating that I am on your ignore list.
.

He does that whiny "I'm puuting you on ignore because you're a mean bully".  Strangely enough people get on it as soon as they start posing questions he can't answer or start breaking down his shitty apologetics.

I'll make an admission.  I've a number of people on my ignore list, half of whom are banned.  I have two categories, a) neo-nazis and b) people who are too thick to breathe and walk at the same time and are proud of it (think Rikky).  Interestingly enough Wooters manages to be in both categories, the only person to have managed it.

I know, but it is amusing to watch him flail about for his sky daddie.

(August 31, 2018 at 10:07 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Another bullshit thread by Wooter filled with snark and empty babbling 

Yawn 

No one said you had to participate in it. 

Your post is exactly why some believers here feel like they can't have any sort of meaningful conversations with non-believers about anything. No matter the subject.

Normally, I like about 97% of your posts but you seem to just want to troll here and that's sad.