Believing in Deities is a Form of Psychosis

[Little Rik]

That is correct MA.
However the point I was making was about the fact that people here are not able to distinguish between spiritual love and delusion.
Most atheists think that to believe in God (God only not a myriad of deities in which case most probably is a delusion) is a delusion when in fact for most theists is real spiritual love.
With a physical entity you may well fail and your love for that physical entity may well turn into a delusion but with God that can not happen.
He can not refuse to answer and to reciprocate to your attention if you act with sincerity that is why this relationship can not turn into a delusion.

You can be genuinely in love with something that doesn't return you affection, or even something that isn't actually real. Your love isn't evidence of anything but what YOU feel.

Oh, well........
You been there and done that, isn't it so now you have the solid evidence that spiritual love isn't evidence.

I guess that to be real we got to see, touch, smell, taste and hear even if the party in question is not a physical entity, isn't it MA?
Right?    

[Mister Agenda]

You can be genuinely in love with something that doesn't return you affection, or even something that isn't actually real. Your love isn't evidence of anything but what YOU feel.

Are you seriously humoring that troll? Well, whatever floats your boat. Never mind the fact that we can perform biological tests to evaluate something as advanced as brain states for various emotional responses and feelings. So while the emotional feeling is subjective, there's evidence galore that it's having an effect on the body consistent with specific types of emotions. Not that shit-eater is capable of comprehending this.

I usually leave the thread when Rik shows up, but in this case, in his replies to me personally, he's been tolerable. Besides, I'm mainly in it for the benefit of the audience, not necessarily the person I'm responding to.

---

You can be genuinely in love with something that doesn't return you affection, or even something that isn't actually real. Your love isn't evidence of anything but what YOU feel.

Oh, well........
You been there and done that, isn't it so now you have the solid evidence that spiritual love isn't evidence.

I guess that to be real we got to see, touch, smell, taste and hear even if the party in question is not a physical entity, isn't it MA?
Right?    

It isn't evidence that the spirit you love is real.

How to prove the reality of a party that can't be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, heard, detected by any instruments devisable by science, or discernible indirectly by effects for which it is the most probably explanation is certainly a conundrum. Imaginary friends share all of those qualities, unless you define them as a specific kind of brain activity. The brain activity is certainly real.

[Little Rik]

You can be genuinely in love with something that doesn't return you affection, or even something that isn't actually real. Your love isn't evidence of anything but what YOU feel.

Are you seriously humoring that troll? Well, whatever floats your boat.

It must be sad for you to see that other people got a thinking brain, isn't it Ast?  

Never mind the fact that we can perform biological tests to evaluate something as advanced as brain states for various emotional responses and feelings. So while the emotional feeling is subjective, there's evidence galore that it's having an effect on the body consistent with specific types of emotions. Not that shit-eater is capable of comprehending this.

You are a total fool Ast.  
Where is the evidence that the consciousness can be understood in full by analyzing the brain?  

---

It isn't evidence that the spirit you love is real.

How to prove the reality of a party that can't be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, heard, detected by any instruments devisable by science, or discernible indirectly by effects for which it is the most probably explanation is certainly a conundrum. Imaginary friends share all of those qualities, unless you define them as a specific kind of brain activity. The brain activity is certainly real.

The science you are talking about is called physical science for a reason.
It is physical MA not abstract.
Consciousness on the other hand is something abstract and therefore got to be understood by a science that is not physical.
You never heard of?
Well, you are not the only one MA.
That however is a different story.
Sooner or later you like everybody else will hear of.
There is all the eternity to find out.
Nothing is lost.  

[Mister Agenda]

The science you are talking about is called physical science for a reason.
It is physical MA not abstract.
Consciousness on the other hand is something abstract and therefore got to be understood by a science that is not physical.
You never heard of?
Well, you are not the only one MA.
That however is a different story.
Sooner or later you like everybody else will hear of.
There is all the eternity to find out.
Nothing is lost.  

Cannot your non-physical science produce independently verifiable results regarding the existence of unembodied spirits? If not, why call it science?

For instance, if I could send five graduate students to pay surprise visits to five of the holiest non-physical science practitioners available, and the practitioners could provide the same correct answer to a question for which only I know the answer and which can't be physically ascertained by anyone else, that would be evidence that they have access to information in a way that physical science can't yet duplicate. Even two out of five would be significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Without evidence of that caliber, all you're providing are unsupported assertions.

[FatAndFaithless]

Rik is the type of theist that uses "science" as a derogatory term when trying to disagree with it, but then as a term of prestige when trying to justify something with it.

[brewer]

[edit]
Consciousness on the other hand is something abstract and therefore got to be understood by a science that is not physical.
[edit]

Can my physical science alter your abstract consciousness?

The answer is yes. Therefore "consciousness" is at least partially explained and impacted by physical science.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Can my physical science alter your abstract consciousness? The answer is yes. Therefore "consciousness" is at least partially explained and impacted by physical science.

The mind/body problem largely concerns the relationship between quantitative effects that are subject to the scientific method and qualitative affects which generally aren't. I'm pretty sure this conversation won't go anywhere beyond bare assertions, since I don't believe either Rik or Astonished are well versed in the relevant literature. Astonished doesn't even know who Thomas Nagel is and is too stupid to understand why he matters.

[Harry Nevis]

Can my physical science alter your abstract consciousness? The answer is yes. Therefore "consciousness" is at least partially explained and impacted by physical science.

The mind/body problem largely concerns the relationship between quantitative effects that are subject to the scientific method and qualitative affects which generally aren't. I'm pretty sure this conversation won't go anywhere beyond bare assertions, since I don't believe either Rik or Astonished are well versed in the relevant literature. Astonished doesn't even know who Thomas Nagel is and is too stupid to understand why he matters.

Why does he matter?

[Astonished]

Rik is the type of theist that uses "science" as a derogatory term when trying to disagree with it, but then as a term of prestige when trying to justify something with it.

Like a certain Gullible Cretin we all know and laugh at.

[drfuzzy]

Well, now that Sicky Rikki has joined the party, we might have a much more cogent argument for/example of "religious" psychosis.