Just Wondering.

[Rev R]

In my early career, a friend said to me: "Often the flaws we see in others mirror our own."

[badpuppy]

@Oroboros I'm sorry I wasn't hearing the things you were trying to say. I know that's frustrating.

[badpuppy]

In my early career, a friend said to me: "Often the flaws we see in others mirror our own."

 

And sometimes the flaws we see in others are just things that irritate us. Fundamentalism irritates us all about Christians and yet most people here aren't fundamentalists still (Christian or non.) We can still be annoyed/fed-up/irritated with something without it necessarily being some reflection of our own character flaws.

 

I also get irked by rapists, murderers, genocidal maniacs, and people who kick puppies. Doesn't mean I do or would ever do any of those things.

 

I don't pretend to be a perfect person but I also don't think "I'm right, period" and everybody who disagrees with me is stupid, delusional or uninformed. I also haven't leveled that accusation against anybody on this thread, so me being irritated that the phenomenon exists sometimes on this forum should not be interpreted as me thinking anyone participating in this thread is any kind of fundamentalist.

 

And I'm not saying you said any of that. I'm just responding to this general idea about what flaws we see in others often mirror. That isn't necessarily some empirical truth statement that can be applied unilaterally everytime someone gets annoyed.

[Rev R]

So what exactly is the purpose of this battle?

[badpuppy]

So what exactly is the purpose of this battle?

 

I don't know. I got out of control. I was irritated by the Luna thing, then I got on a diatribe. Though I can't think of any one individual in this thread I'm "personally" irritated with. Like Vigile and MM I was just having a discussion with. I have no issues with them. And Oroboros as well, though that didn't go very far because for some reason I wasn't seeing what he was trying to say. But it's this sort of "idea" of this "attitude" that freaking pisses me the hell off. And while I'm happy to continue any productive discussion with anyone I've already started, I do need to stop this. Because that's my big weak point. I don't care if someone calls ME delusional. But I get pissed off when i see someone else hurt, it's like I'm fighting for other people to not HAVE to just "accept" that they are irrational or delusional just because someone else said so even though those who say it can't prove their position either. Either way, though, that anger on someone else's behalf somehow morphed into something else and now is merely self-indulgent.

 

I don't know what to do about that. It's a pattern that repeats itself with me. But I also don't think I'm lying or in denial when I say that I don't care if someone else calls me delusional over something like this. I really don't feel that I care. I just know I DO have logical arguments and I hate seeing other people feeling somehow harangued by someone else's assumption that there CAN'T be a smart way to be spiritual. So I feel compelled sometimes to get into it. Ultimately it's pointless though.

 

If my purpose had been, like to get into a discussion with Vigile on a neutral turf to discuss our specific views of the world in the spirit of sharing, that would be one thing. But it isn't fair for me to use it as some platform due to irritation over a fundamentalism he isn't even expressing. Does any of that make sense?

[mymistake]

So what exactly is the purpose of this battle?

 

Trying to get certain people to calm down because the whole thing was a misunderstanding. The problem is some want to believe that certain words are code words and they want to believe these code words have secret meanings that are super offensive. Trying to explain that this isn't the case gets met with talk about "group think" and atheists just saying that "to feel superior". No it isn't a code word and it doesn't mean the secret meaning. Just relax people.

 

Someone should not threaten to kill herself just because some one else wants his soul mate to be an atheist.

[badpuppy]

So what exactly is the purpose of this battle?

 

Trying to get certain people to calm down because the whole thing was a misunderstanding. The problem is some want to believe that certain words are code words and they want to believe these code words have secret meanings that are super offensive. Trying to explain that this isn't the case gets met with talk about "group think" and atheists just saying that "to feel superior". No it isn't a code word and it doesn't mean the secret meaning. Just relax people.

 

Someone should not threaten to kill herself just because some one else wants his soul mate to be an atheist.

 

Agreed. But calling someone delusional is offensive to most people. It's not a conspiracy of "secret meanings" of paranoid people who can't see intent. Most of the time when someone says: "religious people are delusional", in context of what is being said... there is obvious DERISION. I don't know why people don't want to own this. If there isn't obvious derision, again, understand most people see phrases like that as judgmental and perhaps there is a less abrasive way to state the thought. But they don't WANT to be less abrasive about it. And that's fine. But someone else can be hurt or offended by it. How can anybody with Spock-like logic fail to see "delusional" has negative connotations to most people. Most people do not want to be seen as "delusional". It's not like saying: "Oh, she's got red hair."

[mymistake]

It seemed that you were since it appeared you felt you weren't allowed to say anything.

 

I can't blame the people who laughed at me for that. It wasn't my best writing. It was very poorly worded. What I was getting at is that I don't understand the rules but I don't want to break them. Furthermore I don't understand the injured person and I don't know how to reach her or what pushes her away. So that puts a lot of limitations on what I can say. Perhaps the rules are a lot more forgiving that I thought they were.

 

So the suicide statement happened in that thread.

 

Actually it was the OP of this thread. I've been watching all sorts of status updates that scare the hell out of me. I don't know what to make of them but it's clear that I can't help because of what I said in Dating In A Christian World.

 

I didn't necessarily think it was a real suicide threat.

 

I hope you're right.

 

back to what I said earlier about the black person hanging out with the white people who use the N word

 

I guess from now on I'm going to write out "strongly held belief that is not grounded in fact and is held in spite of strong evidence to the contrary" every time I want to communicate that idea. I can't take this kind of stress every time the topic comes up. I would rather write out the above or perhaps "SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC" for short. Some people are not ready to give up their "SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC" that the word "delusion" does not mean "insane".

[mymistake]

How can anybody with Spock-like logic fail to see "delusional" has negative connotations to most people. Most people do not want to be seen as "delusional". It's not like saying: "Oh, she's got red hair."

 

(Sigh)

 

The word was "delusion". There is no "A" in the word delusion.

 

It was not the word delusionAL.

 

You guys are mixing them up.

 

Saying religion is "delusion" is not calling everyone with a religion "delusionAL"

 

These two words have very different meaning despite strongly held belief that are not grounded in fact and are held in spite of strong evidence to the contrary.

 

I'm sorry if American or world culture up through the 20th century put a negative connotation on all mental illness and all concepts related to mental illness but we know better than that now so we can move forward and ignore those connotations.

 

SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC is that safe feeling you have just before disaster strikes. We all have it.

SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC is the reason most people vote for whatever political candidate they vote for.

SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC is why you pay almost double for a name brand product that is just slightly better than generic.

SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC is how the human mind operates.

History books are full of disasters that were caused by SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC.

 

"too big to fail"

"unsinkable"

 

That people operate with SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC does not mean they cannot function in life. It doesn't mean insane.

 

And yes most religion is SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC as well.

 

Those who think there is religion that isn't SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC should offer Interested counter examples. That is the way to demonstrate your ideas are grounded in evidence. You could tell him that your belief isn't strong. Or you could tell him that you change your beliefs to match the evidence.

[badpuppy]

MM, I can understand where you're coming from. I guess my question is... why can't people just say: "I don't accept X because I don't think that's where the evidence leads". I mean, if people don't want to be PC or polite, that's fine. It just seems to be a case of wanting to have cake and eat it too. If people want to say: "that's stupid, that's delusional, etc. etc." Fine. Someone will not like it and maybe that will be the last straw and they get really emotional about it. We're all human beings. But, there are other ways to state things "if" one wishes to avoid creating drama... i.e. simply stating that you don't accept something because you don't think the evidence leads in that direction or whatever. It seems like people want to say things as harshly and forcefully as they want to say them and they want to defend their right to do that but... they don't want to accept that not everybody is going to like it and other people may react negatively to their words. It's a difficult landscape to navigate because we all naturally want to express ourselves in an authentic way. At the same time saying every thought in our head exactly as we first think it will necessarily provoke reactions from others we may or may not want to deal with.

 

Whether or not the word "delusion" means "insane" is not the issue. The issue is that most people consider it "derogatory" and it does tend to be LINKED with the insane. It is at least considered a mentally deficient state to be in. And people who don't feel their beliefs are examples of mental deficiency don't appreciate being labeled as such.

[badpuppy]

How can anybody with Spock-like logic fail to see "delusional" has negative connotations to most people. Most people do not want to be seen as "delusional". It's not like saying: "Oh, she's got red hair."

 

(Sigh)

 

The word was "delusion". There is no "A" in the word delusion.

 

It was not the word delusionAL.

 

You guys are mixing them up.

 

Saying religion is "delusion" is not calling everyone with a religion "delusionAL"

 

These two words have very different meaning despite strongly held belief that are not grounded in fact and are held in spite of strong evidence to the contrary.

 

I'm sorry if American or world culture up through the 20th century put a negative connotation on all mental illness and all concepts related to mental illness but we know better than that now so we can move forward and ignore those connotations.

 

SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC is that safe feeling you have just before disaster strikes. We all have it.

SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC is the reason most people vote for whatever political candidate they vote for.

SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC is why you pay almost double for a name brand product that is just slightly better than generic.

SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC is how the human mind operates.

History books are full of disasters that were caused by SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC.

 

"too big to fail"

"unsinkable"

 

That people operate with SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC does not mean they cannot function in life. It doesn't mean insane.

 

And yes most religion is SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC as well.

 

Those who think there is religion that isn't SHBTINGIFAIHISOSETTC should offer Interested counter examples. That is the way to demonstrate your ideas are grounded in evidence. You could tell him that your belief isn't strong. Or you could tell him that you change your beliefs to match the evidence.

 

I can see where you're coming from... and yet... it's still too charged a word IMO. You are free to use it but some may be offended by it. That's the point. And generally people who hold delusions are considered "delusional" so really it doesn't help. It's a negative connotation either way.

[badpuppy]

I also think it's problematic to say someone with a religious belief holds a delusion when you can't actually empirically know if what they believe is the truth or not. It seems like materialism (there's that word again) feels like it is above reproach in this area. There is apparently no need to PROVE it because it isn't "supernatural". That's an assumption. Saying that anyone who views the world differently than you view it has a delusion is saying you somehow KNOW what's true. Which in itself, IMO is fundamentalism when it comes to unprovable assertions.

 

So it's not just the issue that the word delusion has negative connotations it's that it's arrogant and not factual to state something is a delusion that you don't know is true or not. There may be some ideas and beliefs that are easy to knock down, but lumping ALL non-materialistic conceptions of reality into that category is faulty reasoning. Just because A is demonstrably false doesn't mean B, C, and D are. Nor does it mean E is automatically true because it isn't "supernatural".

 

Also, the OP in this thread has stated she's struggled with mental illness in the form of anxiety and depression so for HER the word "delusion" is going to be extremely sensitive. That shouldn't be hard to figure out. Again, people can use whatever words they want to use, but they can't then get upset anytime someone else is hurt by them especially when they are descriptive words with negative connotations that many normal people might take offense to or be hurt by, and especially when it's not even an accurate empirical statement.

[badpuppy]

One other thought... "illusion" and "delusion" both seem to convey the same sort of idea that you're trying to convey and yet illusion seems to have far less baggage than delusion. Thoughts?

[Antlerman]

But I don't consider praying to your cat for guidance to be natural, nor praying to a rock or a pice of wood for healing, but if you put two planks together in a cross and pray to it because it symbolizes a dead human, then we're supposed to accept it as normal. I don't. Do you see where I'm going with this and the difference I make?

I'm trying to get caught up on this thread I didn't see at all today. Just one thought to offer you to what you said here to challenge you to a new perspective, if I may? Taking your examples above, to someone who doesn't share such a belief it may seem like madness or irrational, that it is contrary to evidence, etc. But if those actions are in their essence symbolic acts, then in fact belief that a rock or piece of wood can heal aides that person in an act of self-healing, it's really no different than belief in gods.

 

They are real, in the sense that they allow the believer to tap into that power in themselves through that object of faith. Even though they may externalize it, imbue that object with magical power, the magic is in fact real, even if it really comes from within. Belief, or faith, is a way to get past the barriers of the "not-possible" views we wall around ourselves. Obviously reason has to balance out faith. Your belief in an eagle-god will not in fact grow you wings where you step off the ledge of a building into open air. Yet to believe and reach for something beyond what you feel is possible for you through focus in an object of faith, is in fact - rational.

[mymistake]

One other thought... "illusion" and "delusion" both seem to convey the same sort of idea that you're trying to convey and yet illusion seems to have far less baggage than delusion. Thoughts?

 

Thank you. It is easier than typing out that other phrase. Yes, thank you.

[NotBlinded]

@Vigile, we don’t “know we evolved via a naturalistic means”, that’s an metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality. But... either way, in order for ANY of that to happen, abiogenisis has to be proven as actually possible first. I don’t even want to “touch” big bang, mindless evolution, etc before we nail down abiogenisis.

 

When self-replicating and evolving life can spontaneously spring to life in a lab via some chemical soup, then I will accept materialism “may” be the correct philosophical worldview. I’ll have to suspend disbelief a little since just randomly putting what is most convenient into your chemical soup seems a bit contrived, but... since I don’t think actual self-replicating and evolving life can ever arise from non-life no matter how convenient the set-up, then I’m not really that worried about having to address that issue. (Spontaneous generation was disproven already but apparently only applies to things like maggots in meat and moths in clothing and there is somehow an exception billions of years ago that we can’t witness or replicate. Um, okay. Sorry but not logical to me. Though I will and do respect if it is logical to you.)

 

But I’m happy to say I’m wrong if the evidence ever comes in. It would still be a long way toward proving the entire narrative I’ve been told about “what really happened”, but it would at least be a start toward some credibility for this way of thinking.

 

If abiogenesis somehow requires billions of years to happen, isn’t observable, isn’t replicable, and isn’t falsifiable, then... by definition it’s not science. It’s a materialistic creation myth.

 

The problem is... many materialistic atheists ARE making a hard claim. They may not be saying god did it or aliens did it but they are saying “abiogenesis did it” and claiming that makes it more rational because it’s not “supernatural”. But it may as well be. It’s equally weird, unsupportable, and just plain absurd in my opinion.

 

Weighing the evidence as it’s presented is all fine and good, but in order to posit an idea such as abiogenesis you should be able to at LEAST demonstrate it’s possible. If you can’t demonstrate it’s possible and you have no way set up in which it can ever be falsifiable then you aren’t dealing in the realm of science. I can’t just say any random crackhead think I want to say and then expect you to accept it without even proving it’s true. (Note that though what I DO think may be some random crackhead thing to you I have not insisted, as materialistic science has about the nature of reality, that you accept it or be deemed delusional or unintelligent.)

 

I already know dreams are possible. I do NOT know abiogenesis is possible. I feel absolutely no compulsion to accept what I consider a ludicrous concept before even the most basic repeatable science has been successfully performed.

 

WHEN it is, then that will be then and I’ll amend my position. I don’t see why it would be logical for me to hold any other position until then. I’m already ahead of you. Dreams are demonstrably real. Now give me some abiogenesis and we can proceed from there.

 

Re: random... I understand how natural selection works. Me using the word “random” to portray my personal perception of how weird it is should not be taken to mean I don’t understand Darwin’s theory. Nor should it be taken to mean I don’t believe any evolution has taken place. I do accept evolution happens. I just don’t think it happens in the way materialists think it happens.

 

Also... I am not positing a “god out there” as some “first cause” who therefore “needs to be created”. The universe can and does “self-create” if that’s it’s nature. But... you have to have a way that nature can be expressed. The materialistic version of this is in no way explanatory. Mind and dream ARE explanatory. And minds and dreams aren’t supernatural.

Hi badpuppy, I don't know if you have read any of this thread here: http://www.ex-christ...entific-givens/ but I bet you would like it. It's kinda old, and I think I forgot much of the information, but it's really good and I think you would enjoy it. Maybe we could even revive it and Luna may want to join too.

[badpuppy]

One other thought... "illusion" and "delusion" both seem to convey the same sort of idea that you're trying to convey and yet illusion seems to have far less baggage than delusion. Thoughts?

 

Thank you. It is easier than typing out that other phrase. Yes, thank you.

 

LOL you're welcome. Happy New Year.

[mymistake]

I can see where you're coming from... and yet... it's still too charged a word IMO. You are free to use it but some may be offended by it.

 

Yes I understand. However that old baggage is the same nonsense that held gay to be insanity. Mental illness is no different n should be any more an insult than any other kind of illness. Yes there is baggage. Lots of people are afraid of seeing a therapist because they buy into the social stigma. So yes we do have much to overcome.

 

My own brother in law's first marriage fell apart partly because he and his wife were both afraid to see a counselor. They were more afraid of that stigma than they were of losing their family. Can't see a counselor because I'm not crazy!

 

That's the point. And generally people who hold delusions are considered "delusional" so really it doesn't help. It's a negative connotation either way.

 

Everybody holds delusions. Everybody. An example of delusion is this baggage you mention. People like to pride themselves as having reasonable beliefs. It's kind of like how about 75% of drivers describe themselves as being above average drivers. Some of them have a delusion about their own driving skills.

 

It's how the human mind works. It's why we won't spend money unless people die. Some engineer says a machine is not safe. We dont' listen unless tragedy strikes.

[blackpudd1n]

My take on it all? it's all just a matter of opinion. If someone wants to have an opinion that religion is a delusion, that's fine by me, I can live with that. If someone else wants to hold to a belief or a certain kind of spirituality, that's fine by me, too. We all have and hold our own opinions on everything. Myself, I prefer to fence sit- "atheist with a soft spot for paganism". The walking conundrum. But then again, I am Libran

 

But please, people, we all have different opinions on everything. Why can't we just accept that? Why all this need to battle over what is, essentially, a matter of opinion?

[badpuppy]

 

Hi badpuppy, I don't know if you have read any of this thread here: http://www.ex-christ...entific-givens/ but I bet you would like it. It's kinda old, and I think I forgot much of the information, but it's really good and I think you would enjoy it. Maybe we could even revive it and Luna may want to join too.

 

 

Okay, you tempted me with your evil. I just posted a comment in that thread.

[badpuppy]

@MyMistake I was about to mention the stigma of mental illness. I think that's part of it. Delusion is tied closely to mental illness and mental illness carries stigma. But I also think that most people aren't equipped to determine who does and doesn't have a delusion and who is or isn't suffering from even mild mental illness. The last time I checked that sort of diagnosis was supposed to be left to mental health professionals and most of them would not class spiritual belief as automatically delusional/deluded.

 

And I agree from a strict definition that we all hold delusions, I just find the word too problematic and loaded. It seems better to simply say we all are wrong about some stuff. The problem is... we know what we're wrong about... and a further problem in this case is... how does the materialist KNOW they are right? i.e. from what high peak of epic knowledge can they proclaim another person's delusion? This problem is also compounded by the fact that human language is woefully inadequate to deal with matters of spirituality/philosophy sometimes, so it's even easier to label something a delusion that you merely don't "get". There is plenty of stuff i don't "get". It doesn't make the other person wrong. It also doesn't make them right, but I think we should be careful when we try to pronounce our full understanding of "truth" and who has it and our magical powers of seeing inside someone else's mind to understand exactly how they feel/what they mean that may or may not come across in the words they use with us.

[badpuppy]

My take on it all? it's all just a matter of opinion. If someone wants to have an opinion that religion is a delusion, that's fine by me, I can live with that. If someone else wants to hold to a belief or a certain kind of spirituality, that's fine by me, too. We all have and hold our own opinions on everything. Myself, I prefer to fence sit- "atheist with a soft spot for paganism". The walking conundrum. But then again, I am Libran

 

But please, people, we all have different opinions on everything. Why can't we just accept that? Why all this need to battle over what is, essentially, a matter of opinion?

 

I think if everybody thought like you we would merely have discussions with the intent to just learn about each other's viewpoints with nothing more heated than that. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't know the difference in opinion and fact.

[Thurisaz]

If religion/spirituality is such a horrid delusion and mental defect, why is this section here? [...]

 

Okay the thread as a whole is tl;dr to me but I'll throw my 2 cents worth into the ring

 

It's not a delusion per se; religious belief is irrational, that much I gladly grant all skeptics. But in one of the rare cases where morontheists get it right for a change, they like to say "So what? Love's irrational too, is it bad therefore?".

 

It's the things it motivates you to say and do which may mean a problem, not whatever it is you happen to believe in. Even if you happen to believe that Azathoth the demon sultan of H. P. Lovecraft's Chulthu mythos stories really exists and rules the universe, and that belief doesn't make you harm yourself or others in any way... where's the wrong with it?

 

It should go without saying that the morontheism most people in this forum suffered from at one time is causing harm to many people; but I do say (and I think everyone knows that, technically) that the how does the harm, not the fact of belief itself.

 

I don't blame people ranting about/against religion as a whole normally, not in this place; I consider it part of the healing many people have to go through. Only if people get personal against myself I might want to retaliate in some way.

[Vigile]

@Vigile, we don’t “know we evolved via a naturalistic means”, that’s an metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality. But... either way, in order for ANY of that to happen, abiogenisis has to be proven as actually possible first. I don’t even want to “touch” big bang, mindless evolution, etc before we nail down abiogenisis.

 

Be careful not to confuse abiogenesis with evolution. They are two separate areas of study.

 

We do know for a fact we evolved from a very simple form of life. Life remained relatively simple for billions of years before it began to gain complexity. At issue is merely the very beginning and that very first, very simple form of life. All we know is we are here and something happened at a time in the very distant past. It makes no sense to me to presuppose magic may have been involved or some other form of intelligence may have been involved when we know for a fact that there was no intelligence or magic involved over those billions and billions of years hence.

 

But if there was, what does it have to do with us today? It seems to me it was very much an absentee entity over 99.999999999...% of biological development.

[Vigile]

In my early career, a friend said to me: "Often the flaws we see in others mirror our own."

 

One of life's many truisms, that.