interesing news

pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
interesing news

i got a brief moment in my busy life to checkout some really interesting news, the first reakky shocked me but, can you believe newton a renowned scientist someone who had to be a concrete fact finding person , believed in god and christ he even went on to try and predict the end of the world. He was hoping to stop other people from making outrageous claims and therefore keep the scriptures from being ignored. this man feared god.

 

i also got a chance to see the vatican put out the ten commandments of driving. ok now im a thiest i beleve in jesus christ, to see religion do something like that just makes me shake my head in amazment. what was the vatican thinking.

later pat


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
nonbobblehead wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Oh, yeah, bubblehead is here.

Abandon all rational discourse and productive conversation.

Quote:

And this proves that many of the heroes of Atheism are not smart.:

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins

\\\

Hey Dick,

How many Universities were founded by Christians? Look no further than your own paycheck. Now go out and get an education.

Lot's of universities were founded by Christians. I didn't go to one, I went to a GOOD school.

Now please excuse us, the adults are trying to have a conversation.

And my name isn't Dick. I'm, Mike. It's a displeasure to meet you, though you do reinforce every stereotype I hold - so thanks for that Eye-wink

Nothing better typifies the pinheaded nature of the atheist position than your free use of invective and vitriol.

Right, because you calling me "dick" was all full of warm and fuzzy feelings of peace and love generated by your god beliefs.

Do you even read what you write?

[ignores actual vitriol spouted by you and will no longer reply to you in the future].

Seriously, man, we TRY to have intellectual and productive conversations here. If you want to troll, there are better places to do it.

Let me educate you yellow_is_the_color_of_urine,

I was writing to "Richard Dawkins" in a fictional jest. "Dick" is a nickname for Richard.

Just like you using "bubblehead" as a comeback to my jest on "Freethrinkerism."

Atheism is not logical. Nor is the Christian-bashing of the common position here at Rational Responders.

I came here to see what all the fuss was about, and find the same old tired attempts to trick the uneducated that Skeptics.Freethinkers/Atheists, et al are the group to join.

You guys don't like desaling with what you dish out. If you wanted just the intellectual debate, you wouldn't allow so many Freethinkers to look and act so typical of the breed when presenting their positions about Christians.

Why do you think I am trolling when I use curse words and epithets in response to curse words and epithets? Shouldn't you apply the same standards to the fine individuals that represnt the anti-Godian position? How many atheists/skeptics/freethinkers et al have you guys suspended for being mena to Christians here?

I left deludedgod alone to his work on protiens so that the world will be a better place because of his immense and important work. Wasn't that nice and open-minded of me?

I'll be back after Church. And no, I'm not going to here from God. (I can do that anywhere) I'm going to see my friends.

It's all about cause and effect huh?

 

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote:

nonbobblehead wrote:

Let me educate you yellow_is_the_color_of_urine,

I was writing to "Richard Dawkins" in a fictional jest. "Dick" is a nickname for Richard.

Just like you using "bubblehead" as a comeback to my jest on "Freethrinkerism."

Atheism is not logical. Nor is the Christian-bashing of the common position here at Rational Responders.

I came here to see what all the fuss was about, and find the same old tired attempts to trick the uneducated that Skeptics.Freethinkers/Atheists, et al are the group to join.

You guys don't like desaling with what you dish out. If you wanted just the intellectual debate, you wouldn't allow so many Freethinkers to look and act so typical of the breed when presenting their positions about Christians.

Why do you think I am trolling when I use curse words and epithets in response to curse words and epithets? Shouldn't you apply the same standards to the fine individuals that represnt the anti-Godian position? How many atheists/skeptics/freethinkers et al have you guys suspended for being mena to Christians here?

I left deludedgod alone to his work on protiens so that the world will be a better place because of his immense and important work. Wasn't that nice and open-minded of me?

I'll be back after Church. And no, I'm not going to here from God. (I can do that anywhere) I'm going to see my friends.

It's all about cause and effect huh?

Look,

You whined and cried about being banned, claiming you were just here for discourse and meant no ill will. Since you have been back you have exhibited the same old tactics. You are not discussing the topics at hand rather, you are still trying to sling the same old mud.

Your ears are closed, your eyes are closed and you are swinging at a pinata that isn't even in the room. You left Deluded alone because you couldn't hang, couldn't understand the science and were making assertations you couldn't support. You seem to be using a commonly known psychological tactic called 'projection'. You see the faults and irrationality of your world view but are afraid to open the door to your mind and actually let some thought occur, therefore you attack the persons on these forums with ad hominems rather than discuss the topics. This is what Yellow#5 is referring to as trolling.

One thing you must understand, your scared cornered badger stance does nothing to help your arguments, it does not make your point in the least.

You are the one displaying the irrational behaviour, and I would highly suggest buying a mirror.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
When does he get the asshat

When does he get the asshat avatar? If I have a vote I vote for rebanning him.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: How

nonbobblehead wrote:

How many people that claim skepticism and Freethinkerism, must boldly declare that "now" or lose their funding in the scientific world? The bobbleheads exist in the science community now far, far, more than anything the plethora of Theistic communities have to offer.

Declare what now?

Bobble Head wrote:

And "even" Einstein did not believe in 0 x 0 = the observable and unseen universe.

But Einstein was not a theist. He was perhaps pantheist and mostly in the metaphorical sense.

Bobble Head wrote:

It would be better for the Skeptic/Freethinker crowd to admit they are goofy about non-godianism and just declare their refusal to believe that the Creator of the universe is or has personhood. It is at least honest the way that atheists are finally coming out of the closet for their rabid hatred of Christians.

It would better serve logic and reason, if atheists/skeptics/freethinkers/progressives/liberals/

leftists/humanists/secularists/ et al, etc., etc., etc., were to just declare their "personal" higher power is better than everyone else's "personal" higher power and stand that ground, as they do their atheistic position. There are a lot of healthy-minded rational thinking people that believe that atheism is not a sound ideology.

Yet again lumping vast varieties of people into one big generalised group. Atheism is not an ideology. Atheism is a lack of belief in the absurd. I personally do not hate Christians, I hate idiocy, a lot of the time the two overlap.

Bobble Head wrote:

Claiming that there is no Creator, no actual cause,  for the seen and unseen universe by claiming random processes drove us to our current state, does not give anyone non-atheistic, confidence that the atheist's position is grounded on anything other than their personal frustration at a world that they themselves cannot understand.

The absense of a creator is not the absense of a cause. The Big Bang does not have to be the beginning of the universe. Whatever caused the big bang, was more likely to be a physical cause than some supernatural hyperbeing by the name of God, who then sent his son/self down to Earth, a planet in a remote corner of the universe to perform miricals that contradict the laws of physics. Hmm.

You keep on with this whole 0 x 0 = Science/ Atheism, and yet you don't actually know a thing about real scientific research, or what atheists actually think and believe. You've been here a while now, you could perhaps take your head out of your arse and read some of the posts.

Bobble Head wrote:
Why do bad people do good things?

Cognitive dissonance to a guy like Richard Dawkins I'm sure.

There is no such thing as bad, to random processes, except when an atheist changes his or her mind on atheism. Then they are treated badly by those that won't budge.

You've gone a long way to saying nothing there.

Bobble Head wrote:
I was once an atheist.

What happened? 

Bobble Head wrote:
And this proves that many of the heroes of Atheism are not smart.:

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins

\\\

Hey Dick,

How many Universities were founded by Christians? Look no further than your own paycheck. Now go out and get an education.

Wow! You're telling Richard Dawkins to get an education? My oh my! That's pretty fucking bold for an ignorent troll like yourself! Do you have a phD? Are you a world reknowned expert on Biology and Zoology? Have you even been to University? What's your IQ? My guess would be 60. Koko the gorilla scored between 71-91 on several occasions


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Um, throw out your first year physics book then. He wrote the laws of motion and gravity with his blood already well steeped in quicksilver. I'm sure I mentioned that before.

Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727

Newton singled out 1665-1666 the prime of my age for invention (invented gravity discovered cat Flaps )

alchemy and chemistry He began intensive experimentation in 1669

Published

Geographia 1672

letters on optics appeared in print from 1672 to 1676 ( or how to poke your-self in the eye with a sharp stick )

Principia ( gravity and suft) 1687 revised in 1713 and 1726 and translated into English in 1729 Book III of the Principia 1733

Opticks in 1704 revised edition in Latin appeared in 1706

The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended 1728

The System of the World 1728

Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St John 1733

Eloise wrote:

Um, throw out your first year physics book then. He wrote the laws of motion and gravity with his blood already well steeped in quicksilver. I'm sure I mentioned that before.

Indeed and I try to correct you, but will they listen aye Sad

 


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: When

MattShizzle wrote:
When does he get the asshat avatar? If I have a vote I vote for rebanning him.

Count in my vote too please.

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm actually against banning

I'm actually against banning Nonbobblehead. So far I have seen, ignorence and idiocy from him. He has not created too much antagonism so far. I do think he should receive a warning though. He does need to learn to listen to other people and perhaps question his position.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Nonbobblehead:

Nonbobblehead:

Just to be clear.

You were allowed to return to the forums under the condition you would be here to discuss the topics at hand. Your last few posts have been overly antagonistic and basically a mud slinging campaign.

Please review the rules Here, especially this portion.


 

2.1. Antagonism.
Antagonism is giving one or more members a hard time. Cases typically comprise a series of provocations, each not necessarily sanctionable in its own right. Incidents can include, but are by no means limited to the following:

  1. Slander/Libel
  2. Clear intent to not argue a position, but to merely attack a person
  3. Trolling
  4. Abuse
  5. Bullying

The notoriously fickle and blurry nature of such exchanges makes it near-impossible to draw up a hardcoded definition of what exactly constitutes Antagonism. Moderators are more often than not simply forced to draw upon their vast and collective experience to adjudicate when enough is enough and take whatever steps they deem necessary in order to keep the peace, good will and reputation of the board.


 

Please consider this your one and only warning. Your return carried with it a very short leash and it is now stretched to the limit. Return to discussing the topics and you may continue to post.

 

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote: Actually,

Gavagai wrote:

Actually, many of the brightest thinkers throughout history were theists of some sort. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Boethius, Duns Scotus, Pascal, Ockham, Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Reid, Kant, Hegel, Bayes, Kierkegaard, Jacobi, Husserl, Brentano, Frege, Wittgenstein, Whitehead, James, Godel, Cantor, Planck, Santayana, Kripke, Polkinghorne, and hundreds more. As for contemporary philosophers: Geach, Anscombe, William Wainwright, Kvanvig, Alexander Pruss, Peter Forrest, Michael Bergmann, William Vallicella, Lynn Rudder Baker, Robert Koons, Douglas Groothius, Nicholas Rescher, Bas van Fraasen, Timothy McGrew, John Hawthorne, Dean Zimmerman, Hud Hudson, Richard Davis, Eleonore Stump, Robin Collins, Antony Flew, Peter van Inwagen, William Alston, Keith Derose, Michael Sudduth, Timpe, Beebe, Dougherty, Mullins, and hundreds of others. Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder, or that they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists.

It's possible that some of them didn't actually suffer from the delusional disorder known as theism, some of them may have just been smart enough to weigh their options..... believe in god and be free, don't believe in god and get burned at the stake.

Threads like these are pointless. The "atheist" video on youtube is one of the most viewed, the one that shows an equally amazing list of atheists. I don't host the video on my site, nor do I even like it, I've never once thought to make a list of smart people up who don't believe in god, because intelligent people aren't compelled from such data.

You have a list of smart people who suffered from the delusion of theism, I COULD make a list of famous atheists who didn't, but I wont insult your intellect like that.

 

From google:

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

  1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
  2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
  3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

 

 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote:

Gavagai wrote:

Yellow,

First, nowhere have I argued from "here's a list of many brilliant theists" to "God exists" or even to "theism has a one-up on atheism". I've made my intentions perfectly clear already. I was providing those names for the person who started this thread, merely because I thought he'd be delighted to know about it. I hope he does some research on these brilliant people and learns that they seriously supported theism.

Did you qualify your post for him so that he knows that the list of smart people who believed, ultimately means absolutely nothing towards the truth or non truth of theism?

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: Gavagai

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Gavagai wrote:

I know of not a single, well-respected philosopher or historian of philosophy (naturalist or theist) who would disagree with me.

Obviously they don't let you out much

Gavagai, when you took the time to make your irrelevant list of individuals for the o.p. it appears as if you were researching the exact opposite of what you should have been.  

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Hello Brian,Why would I

Hello Brian,

Why would I have to make qualifications about something that's totally absent from my post? I agree, if I were arguing from

(i) Many brilliant philosophers and scientists believe in a God of some sort

to

(ii) Therefore, probably God exists,

that would not be such a good argument. But it's perfectly clear from my post that I made no such argument. 

You claim that theists have a mental disorder, so please provide concrete, empirical evidence that at least some of those philosophers I linked to (all of whom are theists) have disorders. Please begin with Nicholas Rescher. In your next post, reveal the empirical, psychological evidence you've gathered that leads you to conclude Nick (specifically) suffers from a mental disorder to the extent that he's a theist. Then explain why you think professional psychologists would agree with your diagnosis of Nick. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Rev_Devilin

Sapient wrote:
Rev_Devilin wrote:

Gavagai wrote:

I know of not a single, well-respected philosopher or historian of philosophy (naturalist or theist) who would disagree with me.

Obviously they don't let you out much

Gavagai, when you took the time to make your irrelevant list of individuals for the o.p. it appears as if you were researching the exact opposite of what you should have been.  

I am much more familiar with the work of naturalist philosophers than I am with that of theists. Please cite a living, widely-respected, credentialed, naturalistic analytic philosopher who has published his view that "belief in God is a mental disorder".

Most living naturalist philosophers I know of agree that theism is rationally acceptable, and a few others I know of think certain forms of it can be irrational. But I've found none who deem it a "mental disorder". So it will be interesting to see your findings.

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote:

Gavagai wrote:

I am much more familiar with the work of naturalist philosophers than I am with that of theists. Please cite a living, widely-respected, credentialed, naturalistic analytic philosopher who has published his view that "belief in God is a mental disorder".

Most living naturalist philosophers I know of agree that theism is rationally acceptable, and a few others I know of think certain forms of it can be irrational. But I've found none who deem it a "mental disorder". So it will be interesting to see your findings.

 

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)"

 

His book is advertised at the bottom left-hand page of this site

? if you would like help finding other credited philosophers also advertised on this site just ask


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Harris is a Ph.D.

Mr. Harris is a Ph.D. student in neuroscience, not philosophy. He has not gone through 5 years or more of intellectually rigorous training in a formal environment to receive a doctorate in philosophy, nor have I been able to find any articles by him that have been recently published in academic philosophy journals; at most, I think he earned a bachelors. So he is not what I asked for: a widely-respected, credentialed, naturalistic analyitc philosopher who has published his view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder". And in any case, Harris, although he's an atheist, believes that spiritual or mystical experiences can have a rational basis (e.g. through long periods of deeply reflective meditation). He merely doubts some of the strong metaphysical conclusions that people tend to draw from such experiences.

Please cite what I asked for.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: Eloise

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Um, throw out your first year physics book then. He wrote the laws of motion and gravity with his blood already well steeped in quicksilver. I'm sure I mentioned that before.

Indeed and I try to correct you, but will they listen aye Sad

 

 

W. W. Rouse Ball wrote:

It seems also to have been due to the influence and tact of Halley at his visit in November, 1684, that Newton undertook to attack the whole problem of gravitation, and practically pledged himself to publish his results: these are contained in the Principia. As yet Newton had not determined the attraction of a spherical body on an external point, nor had he calculated the details of the planetary motions even if the members of the solar system could be regarded as points. The first problem was solved in 1685, probably either in January or in February. ``No sooner,'' to quote from Dr. Glaisher's address on the bicentenary of the publication of the Principia, ``had Newton proved this superb theorem - and we know from his own words that he had no expectation of so beautiful a result till it emerged from his mathematical investigation - than all the mechanism of the universe at once lay spread before him. When he discovered the theorems that form the first three sections of book I, when he gave them in his lectures of 1684, he was unaware that the sun and earth exerted their attractions as if they were but points

Of the three fundamental principles applied in the Principia we may say that the idea that every particle attracts every other other particle in the universe was formed at least as early as 1666; the law of equable description of areas, its consequences, and the fact that if the law of attraction were that of the inverse square the orbit of a particle about a centre of force would be a conic were proved in 1679; and, lastly, the discovery that a sphere, whose density at any point depends only on the distance from the centre, attracts an external point as if the whole mass were collected at its centre was made in 1685. It was this last discovery that enabled him to apply the first two principles to the phenomena of bodies of finite size.

The draft of the first book of the Principia was finished before the summer of 1685, but the corrections and additions took some time, and the book was not presented to the Royal Society until April 28, 1686

 

`A Short Account of the History of Mathematics' (4th edition, 1908) by W. W. Rouse Ball.

Or

J J O'Connor and E F Robertson wrote:

Newton's greatest achievement was his work in physics and celestial mechanics, which culminated in the theory of universal gravitation. By 1666 Newton had early versions of his three laws of motion. He had also discovered the law giving the centrifugal force on a body moving uniformly in a circular path. However he did not have a correct understanding of the mechanics of circular motion.

/edit/

 

M Nauenberg writes an account of the next events:-

After his 1679 correspondence with Hooke, Newton, by his own account, found a proof that Kepler's areal law was a consequence of centripetal forces, and he also showed that if the orbital curve is an ellipse under the action of central forces then the radial dependence of the force is inverse square with the distance from the centre.

This discovery showed the physical significance of Kepler's second law.

In 1684 Halley, tired of Hooke's boasting [M Nauenberg]:-

... asked Newton what orbit a body followed under an inverse square force, and Newton replied immediately that it would be an ellipse. However in De Motu.. he only gave a proof of the converse theorem that if the orbit is an ellipse the force is inverse square. The proof that inverse square forces imply conic section orbits is sketched in Cor. 1 to Prop. 13 in Book 1 of the second and third editions of the Principia, but not in the first edition.

 


http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Newton.html

 

But whatever, Reverend, I have no quarrel with you. I know I'm not wrong and I can be a bit stubborn about things like that.   

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote: Mr. Harris

Gavagai wrote:

Mr. Harris is a Ph.D. student in neuroscience, not philosophy. He has not gone through 5 years or more of intellectually rigorous training in a formal environment to receive a doctorate in philosophy, nor have I been able to find any articles by him that have been recently published in academic philosophy journals; at most, I think he earned a bachelors. So he is not what I asked for: a widely-respected, credentialed, naturalistic analyitc philosopher who has published his view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder". And in any case, Harris, although he's an atheist, believes that spiritual or mystical experiences can have a rational basis (e.g. through long periods of deeply reflective meditation). He merely doubts some of the strong metaphysical conclusions that people tend to draw from such experiences.

Please cite what I asked for.

Cheers,

Gavagai

 Sam Harris has a degree in philosophy from Stanford University

( book review ) Harris calls for the end of religious faith in the modern world. Not only does such faith lack a rational base, he argues, but even the urge for religious toleration allows a too-easy acceptance of the motives of religious fundamentalists. Religious faith, according to Harris, requires its adherents to cling irrationally to mythic stories of ideal paradisiacal worlds (heaven and hell) that provide alternatives to their own everyday worlds. Moreover, innumerable acts of violence, he argues, can be attributed to a religious faith that clings uncritically to one set of dogmas or another. Very simply, religion is a form of terrorism for Harris 

He also says mysticism is a rational enterprise; religion is not

? would you disagree with this philosophy Gavagai

? I cannot see the relevance of a philosopher even an accredited philosopher in this field as it has more to do with psychology than philosophy. could you please demonstrate that you have the right credentials to hold a educated view in this matter Gavagai ie a Ph.D in psychology

like this man REICH, WILHELM psychologist


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Rev,

Hi Rev,

I've heard that Harris received a bachelors from Stanford. Do you think that people who do their undergraduate work in philosophy are ipso facto professional philosophers, widely-respected, who've published in academic philosophy journals, and so on? Interesting.

Quote:

I cannot see the relevance of a philosopher even an accredited philosopher...

Here's how it's relevant to the context of our discussion.

My claim was: every living, naturalist and theist philosopher I know of would not agree that theism is a "mental disorder".

You responded to my claim by saying I should get out more, or something along those lines.

And perhaps you're right. Perhaps I've overlooked a huge number of philosophers out there who regularly assert that "theism is a mental disorder". That's possible. So I'm asking you to show me which living, analytic naturalist philosopher, credentialed (Ph.D.) and widely-respected in the academic community, has published his view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder". It's really that simple.

In any case, no I don't have a degree in psychology. But I certainly agree with you that psychology is a relevant field for evaluating the status of religious beliefs. I know that certain psychologists (though by no means all) have looked disapprovingly upon religious belief. And I agree that certain forms of religious belief can not only be positively irrational, but extremely dangerous. I've never argued otherwise. So this much is uncontroversial.

 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


gatogreensleeves
gatogreensleeves's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

This sort of name dropping is ultimately pointless, and you should know that.

It ends up being, I see your Spinoza and raise you a Sagan or Dawkins.

This does nothing for us.

Yeah, it seems disengenuous to pretend that this is not an appeal to authority.  Sorry.  Ingersoll mentioned this kind of name dropping in The Great Infidels/Appeal to the Cemetery, when he said that the early skeptics of Christianity could have used a comparable list against the unique theology of the early Christians.  It would be overwhelming to present the "list of Steves" here and expect someone to research and argue against the contentions of each Steve on their own.  The arguments themselves must be presented and taken on their own merits (or lack thereof). 

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote:

Gavagai wrote:

I've heard that Harris received a bachelors from Stanford. Do you think that people who do their undergraduate work in philosophy are ipso facto professional philosophers, widely-respected, who've published in academic philosophy journals, and so on? Interesting.

You think Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, were widely-respected ipso facto professional philosophers with Ph.D's ? Interesting

Gavagai wrote:

Here's how it's relevant to the context of our discussion.

My claim was: every living, naturalist and theist philosopher I know of would not agree that theism is a "mental disorder".

You responded to my claim by saying I should get out more, or something along those lines.

And perhaps you're right. Perhaps I've overlooked a huge number of philosophers out there who regularly assert that "theism is a mental disorder". That's possible. So I'm asking you to show me which living, analytic naturalist philosopher, credentialed (Ph.D.) and widely-respected in the academic community, has published his view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder". It's really that simple.

? could you please quote me were I said "huge number of philosophers out there regularly assert that "theism is a mental disorde" Smiling maybe your reading too much into my post

Actually you originally said " Please cite a living, widely-respected, credentialed, naturalistic analytic philosopher who has published his view that "belief in God is a mental disorder"."

I pointed to one under your nose, then you change the criteria

" Could you please provide an example of a living, analytic naturalist philosopher, credentialed (Ph.D.) and widely-respected in the academic community "

I believe what ever examples are provided would prove inadequate as the criteria would again change


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:   But

Eloise wrote:

 

But whatever, Reverend, I have no quarrel with you. I know I'm not wrong and I can be a bit stubborn about things like that.

I'm almost always wrong. self skepticism can be enlightening

 

http://www.isaacnewton.ca/daniel_apocalypse/

 

 Perhaps you would like to read Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733)

And tell me what you think this work, if you have the time


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote:  And I

Gavagai wrote:

 And I agree that certain forms of religious belief can not only be positively irrational, but extremely dangerous. I've never argued otherwise. So this much is uncontroversial. 

Gavagai wrote:

Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder, or that they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists.

? would you care to clarify this contradiction Gavagai


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Hello again Rev,

Hello again Rev,

Yes, I think Plato and Socrates are widely-respected. No, they don't have their doctorates (because they died long before the practice of awarding doctorates to people).

Quote:
? could you please quote me were I said "huge number of philosophers out there regularly assert that "theism is a mental disorde" Smiling maybe your reading too much into my post

No, you never explicitly stated that. So perhaps I've misunderstood you. Let's review. I said I don't know of a single naturalist analytic philosopher who'd agree that all theists have a "mental disorder". You responded by suggesting that I don't get out much. What did you mean by that response, if not that I was wrong, and there really are dozens of serious analytic philosophers around who believe all theists have mental disorders to the extent that they believe in a god?

Quote:

Actually you originally said " Please cite a living, widely-respected, credentialed, naturalistic analytic philosopher who has published his view that "belief in God is a mental disorder"."

I pointed to one under your nose, then you change the criteria

I'll still be happy to perform this task for you but just to make sure the criteria doesn't change again

Yes, by "credentialed" I mean "has a Ph.D." Doing undergraduate work in philosophy doesn't count as something that the rest of professional philosophers would regard as seriously credentialed. So my criteria, in very specific terms: (i) currently alive, (ii) practitioner of analytic philosophy, (iii) naturalist, (iv) widely-respected in their corresponding academic community (i.e. most other analytic philosophers think of them highly as an intellectual), (v) credentialed (i.e. has a Ph.D. in philosophy from an accredited institution), and (vi) has published their view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder" in a peer-reviewed philosophy journal.

I know of many philosophers who satisfy (i) - (v), but who would disagree that theism is a mental disorder, for example William Rowe, Quentin Smith, Richard Gale, et al.

Quote:
Could you please provide an example of a living, analytic naturalist philosopher, credentialed (Ph.D.) and widely-respected in the academic community

Sure: Ned Markosian. (And he would also disagree that theism is a mental  disorder.)

Take care,

Gavagai

 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: Gavagai

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Gavagai wrote:

And I agree that certain forms of religious belief can not only be positively irrational, but extremely dangerous. I've never argued otherwise. So this much is uncontroversial.

Gavagai wrote:

Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder, or that they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists.

? would you care to clarify this contradiction Gavagai

 
Which contradiction would that be?

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote: Rev_Devilin

Gavagai wrote:
Rev_Devilin wrote:

Gavagai wrote:

And I agree that certain forms of religious belief can not only be positively irrational, but extremely dangerous. I've never argued otherwise. So this much is uncontroversial.

Gavagai wrote:

Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder, or that they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists.

? would you care to clarify this contradiction Gavagai


Which contradiction would that be?

The big obvious one


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Rev,  A contradiction

Hi Rev, 

A contradiction takes the form of the following schema: p and ~p. I don't see any sentences in the above quotation of mine that fit this schema. Perhaps you could explain in specific terms why you think there is nevertheless a contradiction there. Thanks!

 Cheers,

Gavagai 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote: And I


Gavagai wrote:

And I agree that certain forms of religious belief can not only be positively irrational, but extremely dangerous. I've never argued otherwise. So this much is uncontroversial.

Gavagai wrote:

Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder, or that they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists.

 

Gavagai wrote:

A contradiction takes the form of the following schema: p and ~p. I don't see any sentences in the above quotation of mine that fit this schema. Perhaps you could explain in specific terms why you think there is nevertheless a contradiction there. Thanks!

 

Gavagai I'm at loss for words you've stumped me

But I have become extremely interested in you personally I would be interested to see if you fit into a specific character type

Would you mind if I asked you some personal questions about ethics and honest

ps

I'm currently researching On the Argument from Quantum Cosmology against Theism by Ned Markosian

 


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
I'm an atheist, but I

I'm an atheist, but I've already decided a few months ago that Gavagai is probably the coolest Christian I've ever met. I just started reading this thread again (I didn't think anymore could come of this thread after my post in this thread forewarning against appealing to authority), and I'm absolutely impressed by Gavagai's patience and degree of critical thinking. We may disagree on whether there is a god, but he commands all my respect.

 

Anyway, I've been in TONS of pedestrian debates, and appeal to authority always comes up, and I know how goddamn annoying it is (pun shamelessly intended). However, I'm sure I don't have to point out that merely talking about authority is necessarily an appeal, even if doing so is an immediate cautionary red flag, but while Gavagai's authoritarian focus seemingly treads that fine line, I say we play along and see where he's going with this (I have ideas, and they're not appeals to authority).

 

P.S. Rather than just repeating that there's a contradiction, I would also like to see it more clearly defined. 

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

he commands all my respect

So far I have seen intellectual snobbery. and a propensity to play word games in avoiding a truthful answer, which I have mimicked in response

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

P.S. Rather than just repeating that there's a contradiction, I would also like to see it more clearly defined.

lets see


Gavagai wrote

"certain forms of religious belief can not only be positively irrational, but extremely dangerous"

Anybody displaying irrational and dangerous behavior would be defined as suffering from a mental disorder

Gavagai wrote

"Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder"

Thus a contradiction


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote:

Gavagai wrote:
Yes, by "credentialed" I mean "has a Ph.D." Doing undergraduate work in philosophy doesn't count as something that the rest of professional philosophers would regard as seriously credentialed.

Seriously, a professional philosopher would completely ignore all crendentials and prejudices and solely look at the argument a person makes. Asking for "credentials" all the time, is nothing but an appeal to authority, it's like saying: "This person can't be right, because he doesn't have a Ph.D.!!!". It's so obvious that this kind of thinking is fallacious.

To me it seems like people always ask for credentials, because they are too lazy to check out the arguments themselves. "Hey, this guy has a Ph.D. so I guess it's save to assume he's right!" is what Kant so nicely referred to as "immaturity".

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Mattness wrote: Seriously,

Mattness wrote:

Seriously, a professional philosopher would completely ignore all crendentials and prejudices and solely look at the argument a person makes. Asking for "credentials" all the time, is nothing but an appeal to authority, it's like saying: "This person can't be right, because he doesn't have a Ph.D.!!!". It's so obvious that this kind of thinking is fallacious.

To me it seems like people always ask for credentials, because they are too lazy to check out the arguments themselves. "Hey, this guy has a Ph.D. so I guess it's save to assume he's right!" is what Kant so nicely referred to as "immaturity".

I'm still laughing at this

(1) I know of not a single, well-respected philosopher or historian of philosophy (naturalist or theist) who would disagree with me.

(2) ops no I meant , analytic naturalist philosopher, credentialed (Ph.D.) and widely-respected in the academic community, has published his view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder".who would disagree with me.


(3) no no no I actually meant (i) currently alive, (ii) practitioner of analytic philosophy, (iii) naturalist, (iv) widely-respected in their corresponding academic community (i.e. most other analytic philosophers think of them highly as an intellectual), (v) credentialed (i.e. has a Ph.D. in philosophy from an accredited institution), and (vi) has published their view that "belief in a god is a mental disorder" in a peer-reviewed philosophy journal,  

who would disagree with me. no no no  please stand by for more amendments if deemed necessary

 Now that's funny Smiling


 


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

he commands all my respect

So far I have seen intellectual snobbery. and a propensity to play word games in avoiding a truthful answer, which I have mimicked in response

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

P.S. Rather than just repeating that there's a contradiction, I would also like to see it more clearly defined.

lets see


Gavagai wrote

"certain forms of religious belief can not only be positively irrational, but extremely dangerous"

Anybody displaying irrational and dangerous behavior would be defined as suffering from a mental disorder

Gavagai wrote

"Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder"

Thus a contradiction

Reverend, thanks for clarifying.

However, it looks like Gavagai exempted himself from this contradiction. It even appears he anticipated this call by qualifying his former statement with "certain forms of." Gavagai was only finding common ground with his opponent by pointing out the obvious - that yes, it's conceivable that AT LEAST SOME religions could be described as a mental disorder.

All it takes is one religion (prescribed by at least "one of these people" ) that is not a mental disorder for these "atheological apologists" to be wrong.

That is the distinction that Gavagai is pointing out.

 

I also wouldn't confuse his calm and collected confidence with snobbery. If anything, I would examine your own responses as of late. Eye-wink

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Mattness wrote:

Mattness wrote:

Gavagai wrote:
Yes, by "credentialed" I mean "has a Ph.D." Doing undergraduate work in philosophy doesn't count as something that the rest of professional philosophers would regard as seriously credentialed.

Seriously, a professional philosopher would completely ignore all crendentials and prejudices and solely look at the argument a person makes. Asking for "credentials" all the time, is nothing but an appeal to authority, it's like saying: "This person can't be right, because he doesn't have a Ph.D.!!!". It's so obvious that this kind of thinking is fallacious.

To me it seems like people always ask for credentials, because they are too lazy to check out the arguments themselves. "Hey, this guy has a Ph.D. so I guess it's save to assume he's right!" is what Kant so nicely referred to as "immaturity".

Talking about authority or the status of sources isn't necessarily an appeal to authority. Again, I think it's fair to give Gavagai the chance to prove his point. I want to see where he's going with this before presuming anything.

Correlation does not imply causation. 

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Sodium,

Sodium,

Quote:
However, it looks like Gavagai exempted himself from this contradiction. It even appears he anticipated this call by qualifying his former statement with "certain forms of." Gavagai was only finding common ground with his opponent by pointing out the obvious - that yes, it's conceivable that AT LEAST SOME religions could be described as a mental disorder.

Thank you. That is exactly right. It's refreshing to encounter a genuinely intelligent atheist here. I think that certain religious attitudes (and atheistic ones) can be psychologically unhealthy, and even dangerous. But I don't agree that theism is a mental disorder. Nor, for that matter, do I think atheism is a mental disorder. There are sane and intelligent people on both sides of the fence. Likewise for rationality. Rationality involves the way in which people come to believe propositions, not the truth-value of propositions. False beliefs can be rationally held; conversely, true beliefs can be irrationally held. So I think atheism and theism can both be rational, depending on the reasons people have for being atheist or theist. I think my view is pretty sensible and modest. Then again, perhaps I'm merely practicing "intellectual snobbery".

Well, as I say, it's refreshing to see your posts here, and hopefully we can have some good discussions sometime in the future.

Take care,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal wrote: I

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

I also wouldn't confuse his calm and collected confidence with snobbery. If anything, I would examine your responses as of late. Eye-wink

 

If you would care to examine my responses extremely carefully. you'll find I was quoting Gavagai almost word for word from his earlier responses, I was quite literally acting as a mirror Smiling I know how goddamn annoying it is my calm and collected confidence Smiling kinder thing . rather childish but I couldn't resist

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Reverend, thanks for clarifying.

However, it looks like Gavagai exempted himself from this contradiction. It even appears he anticipated this call by qualifying his former statement with "certain forms of." Gavagai was only finding common ground with his opponent by pointing out the obvious - that yes, it's conceivable that AT LEAST SOME religions could be described as a mental disorder.

All it takes is one religion (prescribed by at least "one of these people" ) that is not a mental disorder for these "atheological apologists" to be wrong.

If so then why didn't he ponit this out straight away why wasn't he clear and honest from the question of contradiction ?

Thank's for you response Sodium Pentothal I will need some time to consider the rest of your response

 


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Mattness,

Mattness,

There seem to be two occurrences in this thread where people think I'm fallaciously appealing to authority. Allow me to exposit each one, and show you why I'm making no such appeal. On the one hand, there is my post with links to philosophers who are theists. As I've made clear several times now, I provided this information for the thread-starter, for his personal research. I told him I thought it was amusing that RRS and Dawkins want everybody to believe that all such theists have "mental disorders". I at no point argued from "so-and-so is smart and believes in a god" to "therefore, a god exists." Please review that post of mine to see for yourself.

On the other hand, there is the more recent request of mine for "credentialed philosophers". Why am I making this request? Well, let me provide the context and get you caught up to speed. My view is that it's false that theism is a mental disorder, so by extension it's false that all theist philosophers have mental disorders. I claimed that my view is uncontroversial. The reason I think it's uncontroversial has to do with the fact that I don't know of a single naturalist analytic philosopher who thinks "all theists have mental disorders". I'm not fallaciously appealing to authority here. I'm simply noting the fact that it's not debated by even naturalist philosophers; it's not controversial.

Reverend responded by saying that I don't get out much. I took his response to imply that, really, several naturalist analytic philsophers believe all theists have mental disorders and that I've somehow overlooked their publications. This is why I then asked Rev to cite some names. He cited Sam Harris. I responded that Sam Harris wasn't the sort of "philosopher" I had in mind. (He's not a professional philosopher; he's a student in neuroscience. Moreover, even if he were a professional philosopher, he believes that various mystical or spiritual experiences can have a rational basis (e.g. through deeply reflective meditation). Thus, it doesn't appear that he agrees that belief in a divinity is a mental disorder). So then I specified the criteria I had in mind, so it was clear to Rev. Not a single, living naturalist who's gained at least a Ph.D. in philosophy, who practices analytic philosophy, and who's respected by many other philosophers in his field, has published his view that all theists have "mental disorders".

None of this could be properly classified as the fallacy of appealing to the authority. In standard informal logic, that fallacy involves the inference from "so-and-so believes (or asserts) that p" to "therefore, p", where "so-and-so" stands for somebody who isn't an expert on matters concerning p. I've not done this. I've merely claimed that a certain view is uncontroversial in philosophy. And how else am I supposed to make good on such a claim other than by pointing out the fact that the view is not currently being promulgated or debated by any philosophers I know of?

In conclusion, I've not once appealed to authority anywhere in this thread, and I've just taken great care to explain why. My posts have been wildly misconstrued time and time again, with no reasonable basis. Dropping the name of a fallacy in contexts where no fallacy has been committed does not make one sound more intelligent, nor does it contribute to intelligent discussion. It merely indicates that one is a little too triggy happy with their favorite online "fallacy lists".

Cheers,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
research

i think thats a good idea , ill research his life to find more events in his life to explain why he was a theist.


gatogreensleeves
gatogreensleeves's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai

Gavagai wrote:

I think that certain religious attitudes (and atheistic ones) can be psychologically unhealthy, and even dangerous. But I don't agree that theism is a mental disorder. Nor, for that matter, do I think atheism is a mental disorder. There are sane and intelligent people on both sides of the fence. Likewise for rationality. Rationality involves the way in which people come to believe propositions, not the truth-value of propositions. False beliefs can be rationally held; conversely, true beliefs can be irrationally held. So I think atheism and theism can both be rational, depending on the reasons people have for being atheist or theist.  I think my view is pretty sensible and modest.

I have to say, that I pretty much agree with you on the common usage of "rational," in light of the related word "rationale," which seems to focus on reasoning within one's own boundaries of knowledge (whether true or untrue).  I don't officially speak for anyone, but I think the RRS are focusing their usage of "irrational" on the very real constituency who intentionally bely accumulations of evidence against certain theistic claims not empirically supported (and not necessarily vague deistic notions pertaining to origin).  Many of the posters here use "irrational" in this way- when theists continue to be dogmatic after certain claims are shown to have naturalistic explanations.  Do theists (or anyone) continue to hold certain beliefs after confronted with empirical evidence because of a "mental disorder?"  Depends on how one defines mental disorder.  If one takes "mental disorder" to simply mean that the mind is "not logically ordered," so as to develop a tendency to make inaccurate predictions/come to false conclusions about the natural world, then they probably do by this definition... but if one takes "mental disorder" to mean that one comes to make inaccurate predictions/false conclusions about the natural world because of some physical impairment in the brain, then I would say they probably don't hold certain beliefs because of this definition of "mental disorder."  There is, of course, much work being done identifying the "god part" of the brain, which might have a complicated relationship with motivation for holding dogma connected to the "mystical experience" of that part of the brain when stimulated, but I can't see that having a direct bearing upon what is actually true or untrue, as either actual truths or untruths may be related to that experience. 

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
good stuff

i was amazed to see the list that you provided with some of the greatest thinkers of our time , im going to research them further looking for the ones that. believed in jesus christ.  thanks for the research!!!  pat


gatogreensleeves
gatogreensleeves's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote:There seem

Gavagai wrote:

There seem to be two occurrences in this thread where people think I'm fallaciously appealing to authority.

I don't think anyone would "write you off" for your list, but it's impractical to expect anyone to rebutt them all.  Of course there were plenty of deists in history, but as was said, lists could be made for either position.  You should take an example and go from there...

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai

Gavagai wrote:

Sodium,

Quote:
However, it looks like Gavagai exempted himself from this contradiction. It even appears he anticipated this call by qualifying his former statement with "certain forms of." Gavagai was only finding common ground with his opponent by pointing out the obvious - that yes, it's conceivable that AT LEAST SOME religions could be described as a mental disorder.

Thank you. That is exactly right. It's refreshing to encounter a genuinely intelligent atheist here. I think that certain religious attitudes (and atheistic ones) can be psychologically unhealthy, and even dangerous. But I don't agree that theism is a mental disorder.

This is where I disagree with you. We both agree that any rational theist or atheist should find it obvious that at least some religious and atheist attitudes/belief systems are psychologically unhealthy. What we disagree on though is that I actually believe that not just at least some religions, but all religions are psychoglogically unhealthy. This actually now brings up another point, and one that may be out of non-studied psychologists' leagues. Can we liken this psychological unhealthiness to a mental disorder by simply consulting a dictionary? Or would this require a deeper understanding of psychology? EITHER WAY THOUGH, the POINT behind atheists' description of religion as a mental disorder is what ultimately matters. Arguing semantics over whether this psychological unhealthiness also constitutes a class B mental disorder is moot in the broader scheme of things. It's admittedly interesting though! Smiling

Gavagai wrote:
Nor, for that matter, do I think atheism is a mental disorder.There are sane and intelligent people on both sides of the fence. Likewise for rationality. Rationality involves the way in which people come to believe propositions, not the truth-value of propositions.

I am glad you pointed this out, and I couldn't love and agree with you more about how rationality is NOT determined by accuracy/the truth-value. People seem to mess this up all the time lol (and no, I'm not referring to anyone here...I'm just talking about in real life in general)!

Gavagai wrote:
False beliefs can be rationally held; conversely, true beliefs can be irrationally held. So I think atheism and theism can both be rational, depending on the reasons people have for being atheist or theist. I think my view is pretty sensible and modest.

I think your view is also quite acute. I totally agree that truths can be irrationally held too. People believe in truths all the time...but for the WRONG reasons! And then these same people assume that their reasons are right SIMPLY because their conclusions are true. Correlation does not imply causation! In fact, I can even think of an example in our last discussion, Gavagai. Remember that Pascal's Wager thread where I was trying to clarify your points for another RSS member lol?

Going back to your previous quoted point, this is also why there are irrational atheists too. Some of them think that because atheism is true (which I of course agree with), then ANY atheistic argument is true too...simply by correlation.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai

Gavagai wrote:

Mattness,

There seem to be two occurrences in this thread where people think I'm fallaciously appealing to authority. Allow me to exposit each one, and show you why I'm making no such appeal. On the one hand, there is my post with links to philosophers who are theists. As I've made clear several times now, I provided this information for the thread-starter, for his personal research. I told him I thought it was amusing that RRS and Dawkins want everybody to believe that all such theists have "mental disorders". I at no point argued from "so-and-so is smart and believes in a god" to "therefore, a god exists." Please review that post of mine to see for yourself.

I recognize that you are not making an appeal to authority. I'd also add that appeals to authority are not even necessarily fallacies in the first place, but this is a side issue.

However, I am not sure what your point is.. .is it that 'x amount of people believe in Y, ergo y is a 'sane' belief'?

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
It also just occurred to me

It also just occurred to me that there are 2 ways to convince a theist that religion is a mental disorder:

1. Prove that religion is false, or rather, expose that there is no proof that religion is true. I find many atheists abusing the mental disorder card. You can readily tell an atheist that religion is a mental order because the atheist already agrees that religion is false, but you can't tell a theist that "religion is false because it's a mental disorder," "religion is a mental disorder because it's false," or any such variation...without committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. You must FIRST demonstrate that there is no logical reason to believe in a religion, and THEN you can promote that religion is a mental disorder.

2. Instead of focusing on the hurdle of religion's veracity/truth-value (to use your own terms, Gavagai), focus on the manner by which theists accept religion. Example:

I think all religion is psychologically unhealthy (and we can call it a mental disorder or whatever we like, but we get the point), but not simply because I believe the truth-value to be false, but simply because the manner required to accept any religious premise, whether it is true, also requires a psychologically unhealthy way of thinking; atheists can further argue that religion worsens this condition.



P.S. Please don't ask me to prove why I think religion "requires a psychologically unhealthy way of thinking" and that "religion worsens this condition." I know this will require a lot of time and energy, and I am just too lazy to pursue this lol. Maybe other atheists will be able to stand up to this challenge. Smiling As for method #1, I think RSS already does a good enough job with that.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: However, I

todangst wrote:
However, I am not sure what your point is.. .is it that 'x amount of people believe in Y, ergo y is a 'sane' belief'?

 I presented those names for the fellow who started this thread. He was amazed that Newton was a theist, so I thought he'd be delighted to hear about the others. As it turns out, he was.

 Cheers,

 Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Sodium,

Sodium,

Thanks for your reply. You've suggested that all religion is a mental disorder (or, at least, it's psychologically unhealthy). Of course, my first thought when I saw your statement was, "Well, why should I believe that? And what exactly is being said here, i.e. what does he understand by "religion" and "mental disorder" and "psychologically unhealthy"?"

Answering my questions in a serious way would require a lot of heavy-lifting on your part, as you recognize. For one thing, it's notoriously difficult to give a satisfying definition of "religion". And it would be unfair of me to demand that you do so. So to make things easier for you, let's narrow our sights on theism. Everybody has a better idea about how to define that. Thus, let's understand your claim hereafter as "theism is a mental disorder" or "theism is psychologically unhealthy". By extension, in your view all theists have mental problems. I'm a theist, so naturally I'm surprised to learn this about myself. I believe God exists. There. Just like that. I've said it. Now, why on earth does this mean I have a mental disorder or some other serious mental illness?

You move on to suggest that the phrase "mental disorder" may ultimately be rather insignificant. It's really the point behind this phrase that matters. My response: then why mention it? Intellectual responsibility includes inter alia upholding the virtue of clarity, saying what you mean when you say it, and saying it clearly. The phrase "mental disorder" is quite a suggestive piece of language that conjures up some pretty vivid imagery. If a literal "mental disorder" is not really what those who use the phrase have in mind, then at best they're abusing ordinary language, and at worst employing propaganda and sophistry to further whatever agenda it is that they have.

Of course, getting clear on the terms you want to use is just the first half of the battle. You still need to explain to me why I should believe all of this. It seems like you'd take up this task by showing me that the way in which people come to believe that theism is true, of necessity, requires that they engage in a variety of psychologically unhealthy habits. Then I now extend the invitation to you that I've previously provided for Brian Sapient and Scottmax: I invite you to show me, specifically, why each and every theistic philosopher out there exhibits such habits. How did you determine in each case that they have these habits? Did you conduct interviews with them during which they admitted it to you? Or what? Let's begin with, oh, Paul Moser. Reveal your diagnosis in the next post.

You might think this seems like an unfair request. It isn't. Because you've made an extremely bold claim, you should be perfectly prepared and willing to back that claim up. If you expect me to believe the claim that all theists, of necessity, engaged in psychologically unhealthy habits when they came to believe in God, great, then show me. Until that time, I don't see any good reason to believe such a claim.

Nevertheless, I see that you don't want to take the time to get into too much detail. Understandable. I hope you'll likewise get a sense of why I refrain from believing the view that theism is a mental disorder (or whatever you want to call it).

Take care,

Gavagai

 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai

Gavagai wrote:

Sodium,

Thanks for your reply. You've suggested that all religion is a mental disorder (or, at least, it's psychologically unhealthy). Of course, my first thought when I saw your statement was, "Well, why should I believe that? And what exactly is being said here, i.e. what does he understand by "religion" and "mental disorder" and "psychologically unhealthy"?"

Answering my questions in a serious way would require a lot of heavy-lifting on your part, as you recognize. For one thing, it's notoriously difficult to give a satisfying definition of "religion". And it would be unfair of me to demand that you do so. So to make things easier for you, let's narrow our sights on theism. Everybody has a better idea about how to define that. Thus, let's understand your claim hereafter as "theism is a mental disorder" or "theism is psychologically unhealthy". By extension, in your view all theists have mental problems. I'm a theist, so naturally I'm surprised to learn this about myself. I believe God exists. There. Just like that. I've said it. Now, why on earth does this mean I have a mental disorder or some other serious mental illness?

Fair enough. I can agree to semantically converge on "theism." Good point.

And yes, I agree that by extension, all theists have mental problems too.

Do I think you have a mental disorder? Yes. Smiling Do I think you're a bad or insane or idiotic person? No on all three accounts. As you say later on, mental disorders carry a negative stigma, but I think that stigma is perpetuated mostly by misunderstanding. I'm not a studied-psychologist, so my understanding of mental disorders or psychological unhealthiness may be a bit liberal, but I think (a) practically everyone suffers from some mental disorders and (b) mental disorders are not necessarily debilitating, especially the "lighter-weighted" ones. This is how I reconcile the seeming contradiction some might perceive in describing an intelligent person as also psychologically unhealthy.

P.S. At this rate, we may also need to agree on whether to use the term "mental disorder" or "psychological unhealthiness;" or perhaps both are indeed interchangeable.

Gavagai wrote:
You move on to suggest that the phrase "mental disorder" may ultimately be rather insignificant. It's really the point behind this phrase that matters. My response: then why mention it? Intellectual responsibility includes inter alia upholding the virtue of clarity, saying what you mean when you say it, and saying it clearly. The phrase "mental disorder" is quite a suggestive piece of language that conjures up some pretty vivid imagery. If a literal "mental disorder" is not really what those who use the phrase have in mind, then at best they're abusing ordinary language, and at worst employing propaganda and sophistry to further whatever agenda it is that they have.

I'm not a studied philosopher or logician, but I believe in a philosophy where conceptual mastery outweighs linguistic mastery. I feel that a foreigner who might not have a firm grasp of XYZ language should still be able to engage in a debate, although his linguistic handicap would certainly hinder communication. I don't think the likelihood of an opponent abusing language or employing propaganda should be a qualifier; at best, communication is slowed by clarifying definitions, and at worst, an opponent is called out for being dishonest. I suppose it's also possible that communication is impossible by too great of a language barrier; hopefully we won't be seeing much of that in this thread, ha! Smiling

I agree that "mental disorder" is rather suggestive, but I think this concern exists out of insecurity or a mistrust towards an opponent. Intelligent people are not so easily misled or wooed by suggestive language/propaganda. This is also why I think this aforementioned concern is very much legitimate with less intelligent people.

Gavagai wrote:
Of course, getting clear on the terms you want to use is just the first half of the battle. You still need to explain to me why I should believe all of this. It seems like you'd take up this task by showing me that the way in which people come to believe that theism is true, of necessity, requires that they engage in a variety of psychologically unhealthy habits. Then I now extend the invitation to you that I've previously provided for Brian Sapient and Scottmax: I invite you to show me, specifically, why each and every theistic philosopher out there exhibits such habits. How did you determine in each case that they have these habits? Did you conduct interviews with them during which they admitted it to you? Or what? Let's begin with, oh, Paul Moser. Reveal your diagnosis in the next post.

My conclusion is based on several beliefs:

1. There is no logical reason to believe there is a god (I say this as a deduction rather than an induction). Thus, the only reasons to believe there is a god are illogical ones.

2. I believe that the steps required to believe in these illogical reasons (and not just illogical reasons in general...very specifically the ones that support a god) require so much of a stretch that only a psychologically unhealthy state of mind could accept this stretch.

That is probably as far as I'd go, not because I think I've reached an impasse, but simply because I'm too lazy (to go to the local library of psychology...or google up psychological disorders lol...and I don't mean to be lazy because I don't take you seriously or I'm trying to disrespect you Eye-wink ). I invite any atheist who agrees with me to elaborate on #1 and #2.

My last few posts were written more as an argument of the APPROACH and ANGLE that atheists should take rather than WHY religion is a mental disorder. Once my approach and angle is understood, whether people agree, my work is done. Smiling

Gavagai wrote:
You might think this seems like an unfair request. It isn't. Because you've made an extremely bold claim, you should be perfectly prepared and willing to back that claim up. If you expect me to believe the claim that all theists, of necessity, engaged in psychologically unhealthy habits when they came to believe in God, great, then show me. Until that time, I don't see any good reason to believe such a claim.

Nevertheless, I see that you don't want to take the time to get into too much detail. Understandable. I hope you'll likewise get a sense of why I refrain from believing the view that theism is a mental disorder (or whatever you want to call it).

Take care,

Gavagai

Your request is not unfair at all whatsoever. As I've said, I'm just too lazy to take the next step of proving the approach/angle I've now set up. In fact, it would be RIDICULOUS for any theist to concede with my last post. Again, I was only arguing the approach and angle atheists should take rather than why religion is a mental disorder. So obviously as far as evidence goes, I didn't really provide much, if any at all lol. So not only do I understand your refrain, but I 110% approve it. Smiling

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Haha, I just realized that

.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Sodium, Well, I guess I'd

Sodium,

Well, I guess I'd have to remark at this point that I agree with you when you say you haven't provided evidence in support of your claims. I understand now that your intention was merely to suggest a framework within which one could generate such evidence. Even so, it's difficult to see how that could be done. Perhaps we can revisit this issue when you have more time (or when you're not feeling so lazy).

Take care,

Gavagai 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Reverend, thanks for clarifying.

However, it looks like Gavagai exempted himself from this contradiction. It even appears he anticipated this call by qualifying his former statement with "certain forms of." Gavagai was only finding common ground with his opponent by pointing out the obvious - that yes, it's conceivable that AT LEAST SOME religions could be described as a mental disorder.

All it takes is one religion (prescribed by at least "one of these people" ) that is not a mental disorder for these "atheological apologists" to be wrong.

I think enough time has passed Smiling

? would you care to show this one rational religion

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote

Gavagai wrote

"certain forms of religious belief can not only be positively irrational, but extremely dangerous"

Anybody displaying irrational and dangerous behavior would be defined as suffering from a mental disorder

Gavagai wrote

"Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder"

 

Gavagai ? would you care to address this apparent contradiction