When is a Religious Belief Delusional?

[Anomalocaris]

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?

Ohhhhh, the Wooster is using bad words.   What he imagines to be his commendably slick oiliness must have been scraped dry.

[Amarok]

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?

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?

Sad thing is he doesn't and likely never will get it. It does not matter how many times you correct him on why testimony cannot make the bible or magic claims credible or how many times you point out that even morality were subjective you can still say something is wrong . He will just repeat the script in over and over .

[Abaddon_ire]

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?

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.

[Minimalist]

LOL, was added to Neo's ignore list.

Wheeee. What fun. Me too.

Neo is going "LaLaLa" with fingers in ears. The meltdown is amusing to observe.

Why does he care so much what Greeks living 2,000 years ago thought?  Who gives a shit?  The dumbest human today knows a metric fuckton more about the world than they did.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

That is the kind of quibble akin to saying the top floor of a two story house built on sand is really not built on sand.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

What do you mean by a mathematical object? That's a term of art, and it's not clear what your question is.

I say that triangularity would exist in potential even if the physical universe had never come into being to manifest objects that sentient organisms would recognize as triangular. Is my belief in triangularity wrong or delusional?

[downbeatplumb]

What do you mean by a mathematical object?  That's a term of art, and it's not clear what your question is.

I say that triangularity would exist in potential even if the physical universe had never come into being to manifest objects that sentient organisms would recognize as triangular.  Is my belief in triangularity wrong or delusional?

To have wild speculation in unproven things is healthy. 
To act as thought they are true when the evidence does not support it is delusional.

Religion is all about the second one.

[Amarok]

I say that triangularity would exist in potential even if the physical universe had never come into being to manifest objects that sentient organisms would recognize as triangular.  Is my belief in triangularity wrong or delusional?

Pure Edward Feser drivel that in way reflects reality triangles neither require platonic nonsense or require a god to exist or be recognized as what they are.

[LastPoet]

O man, Neo, you gave them enough hits for one day.

Let them digest it for now!

You will stop when you find out you are blowing christian cock.

[Pat Mustard]

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.