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


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

Rev_Devilin 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

It's not a contradiction for 2 reasons:

1. The former statement only admits to CERTAIN religions, NOT ALL religions. The latter makes a statement about how atheological apologists refer to ALL religions.

2. Gavagai NEVER conceded that irrationality and dangerousness constitutes a mental disorder. In fact, Gavagai and I (well, mostly me actually) discussed this earlier in this thread.

 

Reverend, wasn't this same question already asked and addressed earlier?

"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

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

 

Reverend, wasn't this same question already asked and addressed earlier?

 

Asked but not fully addressed earlier Sodium Pentothal

 

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
 

I think it's fair to give Gavagai the chance to prove his point. I want to see where he's going with this

 

So I contemplated the matter out of courtesy giving you and Gavagai plenty of time

 

 


Gavagai wrote

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

 

1. The former statement only admits to CERTAIN religions, NOT ALL religions. This is entirely correct  The latter makes a statement about how atheological apologists refer to ALL religions This is in error the latter statement refers to these people only not ALL religions


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"

 

2. Gavagai NEVER conceded that irrationality and dangerousness constitutes a mental disorder. In fact, Gavagai and I (well, mostly me actually) discussed this earlier in this thread.

Indeed did either Gavagai or your good self come to any meaningful conclusion ? 

Smiling


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:
1. The former statement only admits to CERTAIN religions, NOT ALL religions. This is entirely correct The latter makes a statement about how atheological apologists refer to ALL religions This is in error the latter statement refers to these people only not ALL religions


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"

Whether the latter statement refers to "these people" or all religions can be easily verified by going back to Gavagai's text to examine the context in which this was said. I can't be bothered though; as I've already told Gavagai, I'm just generally lazy when it comes to research, and reason #2 below still stands.

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
2. Gavagai NEVER conceded that irrationality and dangerousness constitutes a mental disorder. In fact, Gavagai and I (well, mostly me actually) discussed this earlier in this thread.

Indeed did either Gavagai or your good self come to any meaningful conclusion ?

Smiling

What conclusions Gavagai and I arrived at is completely irrelevant to whether it's a contradiction. Reason #2 alone not only proves that he did not contradict himself, but also reminds us that it's the atheist's burden to prove to Gavagai that irrationality and dangerousness constitutes a mental disorder. In fact, I'm not convinced as well (please see my earlier posts for why).

P.S. Even though it's completely irrelevant, I'll tell you that not every conversation needs to be a debate, let alone arrive at a "conclusion." We actually did come to a conclusion though (well, at least for myself; I presented my case for atheists and NOT theists, and I'm not going to spend any more time to argue my case, so it's up to atheist whether to accept my case) - a framework/angle in which atheists should approach theists with regarding religion being a mental disorder.

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


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
gavagai, i learned alot from

gavagai, i learned alot from this thread and im thrilled that so many philalosphers and men of science , believe in god to me this is the right way, study life through gods perspective and you can see him . thanks for the info!!!


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote: gavagai, i

pm9347 wrote:
gavagai, i learned alot from this thread and im thrilled that so many philalosphers and men of science , believe in god to me this is the right way, study life through gods perspective and you can see him . thanks for the info!!!

pm9347 Smiling  Isaac Newton himself described certain aspects of the Bible fictional

gavagai list

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

Socrates hard to tell, he was accused at his trial of being an atheist to suggest he was a definite theist would-be pushing it, as it is unclear what Gods if any this man believed in

Plato again unclear he believed the stories of the gods were probably myths

Aristotle  believed in a god that was neither caring for us or for our worship  

Most of the rest were born after Christianity was founded and philosophers such as Galileo Galilei were threatened with torture and execution for promoting any ideas that were against biblical teaching  Smiling unsurprisingly many of the latter philosophers believed in God the Christian god or else Smiling

What these philosophers would have written in a free society where radical and controversial ideas wouldn't result in the philosopher getting burned at the stake for heresy we shall never know, and to believe they were all happy devout theists would be unwise at best

Christianity and the Bible as we kown it today were founded by a Roman emperor called Constantine, usual kind of Roman emperor covered in blood and he was happily murdering and torturing anybody that he perceived as a possible future threat including his own brother-in-law, whilst declaring the ideals of Christianity, he was obviously inspired by God (go on cut their throats) , subsequently Christianity itself was involved in murdering and torturing, anybody that didn't convert to god's love Christianity gave us such inspirational ideals as the inquisitions the dark ages the list is almost endless and it still continues with its love today, we can thank Christianity for backstreet abortions in many countries, the declaration from the Catholic Church that condom should not be used in AIDS riddled countries again the list is almost endless

To see the world through a Christians gods perspective is truly a horrific perspective,

 


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Sodium,  Sometimes no

Sodium,

 Sometimes no matter how much you explain a very simple and plausible concept to people here, it's as though they can't grasp a word of it. This is the case with Rev. He continues on about the "contradiction" because he simply doesn't understand logic; he doesn't know what a real contradiction is.  I think the most you can do in these unfortunate cases is save yourself some time and let your interlocutors have the last word -- intelligent readers will see your point and understand.

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


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

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Whether the latter statement refers to "these people" or all religions can be easily verified by going back to Gavagai's text to examine the context in which this was said. I can't be bothered though; as I've already told Gavagai, I'm just generally lazy when it comes to research, and reason #2 below still stands.

original context

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.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

#2. Gavagai NEVER conceded that irrationality and dangerousness constitutes a mental disorder. In fact, Gavagai and I (well, mostly me actually) discussed this earlier in this thread.

Indeed I cannot see how irrational and dangerous behavior cannot be perceived as a distressing mental disorder, I am a persistent Devil Smiling am I not

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

P.S. Even though it's completely irrelevant, I'll tell you that not every conversation needs to be a debate, let alone arrive at a "conclusion." We actually did come to a conclusion though (well, at least for myself; I presented my case for atheists and NOT theists, and I'm not going to spend any more time to argue my case, so it's up to atheist whether to accept my case) - a framework/angle in which atheists should approach theists with regarding religion being a mental disorder.

Although I see your point

I'm quite happy with Gavagai definition at the moment


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

Gavagai wrote:

Sodium,

Sometimes no matter how much you explain a very simple and plausible concept to people here, it's as though they can't grasp a word of it. This is the case with Rev. He continues on about the "contradiction" because he simply doesn't understand logic; he doesn't know what a real contradiction is. I think the most you can do in these unfortunate cases is save yourself some time and let your interlocutors have the last word -- intelligent readers will see your point and understand.

Obviously bypassed Socratic questioning in his education


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Pm93,I'm glad you found

Pm93,

I'm glad you found those sources useful. Anybody who has taken even an introductory course in Greek philosophy knows that Socrates' enemies accused him of being an "atheist" merely to gain a political advantage over him; it was the surest way to ruin Socrates' credibility, since atheism was frowned upon in his time. (The same thing happened to many early Christians when they were persecuted by the Romans.) The fact is, Socrates did believe in God. He accepted monotheism instead of the polytheism that was popular in his day. It is an uncontroversial fact that he believed in God. The same goes for Plato, who explicitly argued for God's existence with great care. Aristotle also believed in God, but not a God that is always concerned with human affairs. This is why in my original post I made sure to specify that these people accepted a theism of "some sort". They believed (or do believe) in a God. That's all. (As it turns out, most of them were Christians. Some, not.)

But none of them believed merely because they thought they would be tortured or punished otherwise. This is evidenced by the fact that almost all of them deeply integrated theism with their philosophical and scientific work. Nearly all of them also defended theism or the coherence of theism. Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, and the others were sincere men of God. When atheists suggest conspiracy theories, such as "so-and-so just pretended to believe in God, because otherwise so-and-so would be tortured" ask the atheists for textual evidence in support of such a theory. Where did "so and so" indicate that he never really believed in God? Atheists won't provide such evidence.

And they can't provide such evidence. Because there is none. To the contrary, we have truckloads of textual evidence demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that people like Galileo and Newton loved God, were extremely interested in matters theological, and routinely discussed God in their philosophical and scientific work. So the atheist who offers these conspiracy theories is really offering armchair speculations that are contrary to fact. Many of them simply don't like the idea that really smart and rational people often believe in God. Many atheists pretend to extol the virtues of rationalism. What's ironic is that many of them don't actually read the rationalists. So it shocks them when they find out that nearly all the rationalists were theists of some sort, especially the core members of rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz). 

 It's also a popularized myth that the Church alone persecuted Galileo for merely theological reasons. This is only a part of what happened.  As scholars have suggested, it was also largely groups of competing aristotelian scientists that hated Galileo for abandoning the geocentric model. It's simplistic to view it as "science vs. religion"; it was largely science vs. science. And Galileo himself would agree, since he thought science and the divine reality don't conflict.

Needless to say, hundreds of the brightest philosophers alive today are thoroughgoing theists. Last I checked, nobody is outside being burnt at the stake for not believing in God. So what conspiracy theory would the atheist adopt in this case to dismiss the evidence? One wonders.

Of course, it's important to realize that just because so many brilliant philosophers believe in God, that doesn't necessarily mean God exists. Even if everybody on the planet believed that God exists, it might be that God doesn't exist. I provided those resources merely for your own research. If you'd like more, feel free to PM me. (It might take me a while to respond, though, because I don't check it everyday.)

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Sodium, "Gavagai NEVER

Sodium,

"Gavagai NEVER conceded that irrationality and dangerousness constitutes a mental disorder."

Right. And even if I did, it wouldn't make much of a difference. Suppose I went with "mental disorder". My claim would then be that certain religious beliefs really express underlying mental disorders-- most everybody already knows this. But I disagree that religious belief has this feature. Perhaps next you can give Rev a lesson on the semantic difference between "some" and "all". (Assuming you don't agree with my suggestion about letting unreasonable interlocutors have the last word.)

Cheers,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Most of the rest

Quote:

Most of the rest were born after Christianity was founded and philosophers such as Galileo Galilei were threatened with torture and execution for promoting any ideas that were against biblical teaching  Smiling unsurprisingly many of the latter philosophers believed in God the Christian god or else Smiling

What these philosophers would have written in a free society where radical and controversial ideas wouldn't result in the philosopher getting burned at the stake for heresy we shall never know, and to believe they were all happy devout theists would be unwise at best

 

To me, this looks like the No True Scotsman fallacy in disguise. They said they were Theists, but they weren't TRUE Theists. It has been pointed out that they were Theists.  

 


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Good stuff, Gavagai. As

Good stuff, Gavagai. As usual, as sensible and rational as a sensible and rational man should be. Most Christians I have no patience for when discussing their faith (I get the impression that you're a Christian). Some people may accuse you of having an "attitude," but who really cares if you're able to respond rationally.

Gavagai, if it's not too much trouble (and I know it can be, especially if it will involve a lot of writing), I would like to hear why you believe in your god(s), or at least provide a link or quote if you have already explained your reasons. I can't promise you that I will have the time to dissect your beliefs; in fact, I can already tell you that I'll most likely not have the time to invest in a respectably thorough response. Nonetheless, I am curious, and who knows - I may be so emotionally moved that I can't help but to respond! Smiling

 

P.S. I was going to link you todangst's "'God' is an incoherent term," but then I realized that his essay seems to only refute the Christian god and not theism in general. It may still interest you though, and would also be interested in your thoughts. I did once start a thread, calling all Christians for their thoughts, but did not get a single satisfactory/coherent response. Rather disappointing. Sad

http://www.rationalresponders.com/god_is_an_incoherent_term

"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
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Quote:

Most of the rest were born after Christianity was founded and philosophers such as Galileo Galilei were threatened with torture and execution for promoting any ideas that were against biblical teaching Smiling unsurprisingly many of the latter philosophers believed in God the Christian god or else Smiling

What these philosophers would have written in a free society where radical and controversial ideas wouldn't result in the philosopher getting burned at the stake for heresy we shall never know, and to believe they were all happy devout theists would be unwise at best

 

To me, this looks like the No True Scotsman fallacy in disguise. They said they were Theists, but they weren't TRUE Theists. It has been pointed out that they were Theists.

 

 

Deist Smiling Cpt_pineapple and thank you for pointing out that I wasn't 100% clear in my post

let me clarify

Aristotle was a Deist not a Theists this is without question

Socrates one cannot be completely certain, he was accused of being an atheist at his trial, a charge which he did not deny, Socrates claimed that the concept of goodness, instead of being determined by what the gods wanted, actually precedes it. which leads me to believe he may have been a Deist

As for the philosophers of post Roman Catholic times I am uncertain and I would need to research each one individually but it would be a brave man indeed that suggested he knew the most intimate thoughts of these philosophers in those troubling times

Reading Isaac Newton, Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, leads me to believe he may have been a Deist at best

Deist/theists this can be perceived as only a small technical point but I am by nature quite anally retentive in such matters Smiling


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

Gavagai wrote:

Sodium,

"Gavagai NEVER conceded that irrationality and dangerousness constitutes a mental disorder."

Right. And even if I did, it wouldn't make much of a difference. Suppose I went with "mental disorder". My claim would then be that certain religious beliefs really express underlying mental disorders-- most everybody already knows this. But I disagree that religious belief has this feature. Perhaps next you can give Rev a lesson on the semantic difference between "some" and "all". (Assuming you don't agree with my suggestion about letting unreasonable interlocutors have the last word.)

Cheers,

Gavagai

I'm all for education Gavagai please enlighten me

? would you consider any religion that sets out strict inflexible guidelines for moral excellence, to be amongst such irrational and dangerous religions

 


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

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Good stuff, Gavagai. As usual, as sensible and rational as a sensible and rational man should be. Most Christians I have no patience for when discussing their faith (I get the impression that you're a Christian). Some people may accuse you of having an "attitude," but who really cares if you're able to respond rationally.

Gavagai, if it's not too much trouble (and I know it can be, especially if it will involve a lot of writing), I would like to hear why you believe in your god(s), or at least provide a link or quote if you have already explained your reasons. I can't promise you that I will have the time to dissect your beliefs; in fact, I can already tell you that I'll most likely not have the time to invest in a respectably thorough response. Nonetheless, I am curious, and who knows - I may be so emotionally moved that I can't help but to respond! Smiling

P.S. I was going to link you todangst's "'God' is an incoherent term," but then I realized that his essay seems to only refute the Christian god and not theism in general. It may still interest you though, and would also be interested in your thoughts. I did once start a thread, calling all Christians for their thoughts, but did not get a single satisfactory/coherent response. Rather disappointing. Sad

http://www.rationalresponders.com/god_is_an_incoherent_term

Thanks, Sodium. I would gladly have a discussion like this with you. How about through PM?

As far as the post you linked to, I'll have to set aside some time to review it in detail. From a cursory reading, though, it seems like the author is just trying to argue for noncognitivism about religous discourse. This is an old view which was strongly advocated by Antony Flew, one of the world's greatest atheist philosophers. (I should note that Flew is actually no longer an atheist; he has recently rejected atheism, and now believes that a deistic God exists.) In any case, the rough idea is that bits of religious language literally have no truth-value: they're cognitively meaningless. The statement "God does not exist" is neither true nor false. It's like asserting "gooble widgetee foink": meaningless nonsense. Views like this oftentimes turn on some pretty controversial issues from the philosophy of language.

For one thing, they tend to presuppose a referential theory of meaning. According to referentialism, utterances (or bits of text) are meaningful in virtue referring to nonlinguistic entities. (These entities can be either mental or extramental objects.) If an utterance doesn't refer to anything, it's meaningless. Theories like this are highly problematic. I've been fortunate enough to receive formal training in graduate seminars in contemporary philosophy of language, and I can tell you that it's rare nowadays to find philosophers who still endorse naive referentialism. But I won't go into the problems with referentialism here, since it may be the case that the author of the post doesn't presuppose such a theory. As I say, I'll have to look at it more carefully. Perhaps sometime tomorrow I'll post a response.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


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

Rev_Devilin 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"

It appears Gavagai no longer wishes to communicate with me nevertheless I shall take the opportunity to see if Gavagai wishes to add more insults to my intelligence / semantic / logic, or maybe he wishes to pour scorn upon my "unreasonable" request to explore this apparent contradiction further

I now hold no hope for anything more than insults. it must be a Christian thing

 


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

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. In your next post, please explain in specific terms why you think the sentences I used are nevertheless contradictory.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


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

Gavagai wrote:

Suppose I went with "mental disorder". My claim would then be that certain religious beliefs really express underlying mental disorders-- most everybody already knows this. But I disagree that religious belief has this feature

lo Gavagai Smiling Can we pick this up from here ?

 


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

?


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

Gavagai wrote:
?

Smiling

Ok we have

"certain religious beliefs really express underlying mental disorders"

vs

"But I disagree that religious belief has this feature"

? how would you define a difference between religious beliefs and religious belief 


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

Rev,

A conjunction of statements like 

 (S1): Some particular instances of X are such-and-such,

and

(S2): X per se is not such-and-such

is not contradictory. 

 

 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
i did some more research on

i did some more research on those early pioneers that believed in god, i ll stay with newton. i clearly dont have the education that most seem to have here but ill try to make my points relevant. i did find this quote from newton : In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being. now here is a totaly rational scientist that states god must be in control of the universe, so why atheist say god is not rational sounds odd to me , when a man of ecience declares it . i dont hear in this mans voice mental schizophernia?? or how about William Tyndale the scholar who was burned at the stake for translating the bible to english they didnt fear what men could because of a true believe in god , look at vom or voice of the martrys. their website shows people dying everday for their faith , these people dont live in fear they state it out loud that god exist and they get killed for it. that inst a mental disorder . its dedication.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Interesting point. If there

If there is just a single person who believes in God and who does not have any mental disorders, it is false that theism is a mental disorder. (And this is a valid inference in first-order quantificational logic: (∃x)~(Fx) ~(∀x)(Fx).) As it turns out, there are thousands of such people. Therefore, theism is not a mental disorder. To explain this away, many here have invented ad hoc hypotheses out of thin air, like "they must not really believe in God" or "well, they appear sane in other areas of life, but since they still have a particular belief that a higher form of intelligence exists, a God of some sort, they must nevertheless be mentally ill." Bizarre speculations like this stifle freethought and hinder sincere, rational discussion.

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
im including a link that im

im including a link that im going to post as possible proof to the legitamcy of the old testament, im posting to you first. what do you think?? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/11/ntablet111.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox  later pat


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavaqai, we all suffer from

Gavaqai, we all suffer from all of the classically defined mental disorders it's just too what extent these are expressed, that defines whether we fit within the understanding of socially acceptable thus sane and rational, or outside the socially acceptable thus insane and irrational with variations in-between ie eccentric delusional and so on

Would you accept this as true Gavaqai ?

 

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 perhaps you would

pm9347 perhaps you would wish to read Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, by Isaac Newton

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

 

 


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Quote: we all suffer from


Quote:
we all suffer from all of the classically defined mental disorders

 I don't. Speak for yourself, Rev. 

 

 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote: im including

pm9347 wrote:
im including a link that im going to post as possible proof to the legitamcy of the old testament, im posting to you first. what do you think?? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/11/ntablet111.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox later pat


 

Posted by Dr. Hector Avalos on July 12, 2007 5:25 PM

Before people become too excited, let’s
examine more carefully the implications of this
tablet. I can read cuneiform, and I know Dr.
Irving Finkel, who is an excellent scholar.

This tablet an important find, but it does
not have the more exaggerated biblical
fundamentalist implications that are being
assigned to it by some.

First, it is a mistake to assume that because
one biblical claim mentioned in the Bible is
confirmed by an independent source, then ALL
claims in the Bible are true. This tablet certainly
would confirm nothing about the supernatural
claims in the Bible.

Second, if one is going to assume that
everything is true in the Bible because one claim
is proven true, then one must apply this rationale
to all religions, including the Babylonian
religion.

After all, we could just reverse this rationale and
say that the Babylonian records are confirmed by
the biblical records, and so Babylonian claims
about the supernatural are correct.

Third, we are not completely sure that
“Nabu-sharrusu-ukin, the chief eunuch” is the
very same official mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3,
where the name is vocalized (in English
transcription) as Sarsechim (or Sarsekim).

But note that Sarsekim lacks the “Nabu”
part which we would expect in other names
(“Nebu-chadnezzar”) has it. Likewise, Nebu-
zaradan (2 Kings 25:8-11) retains the “Nebu”
part of the name, which refers to the god, Nabu
(or Nebo).

The issue is further complicated because in
Jeremiah 39:13 “The Rabsaris” (“the Chief
Eunuch”) is named Nebushazban, which is a
different name deriving perhaps from the
Babylonian Nebu-shuzibanni (= “Nabu deliver
me”).

Because of these problems, it has been
proposed that the name prior to Sarsekim in
Jeremiah 39:3 be redivided so that the “nebo” of
“Samgar-nebo” be joined with Sarsekim, which
would now yield Nebo-Sarsekim, a name closer
to the name found on the British Museum tablet.

Professor Michael Jursa, therefore, opted for
a re-division of the Hebrew text to get Nebo-
Sarsekim (so does the NIV, but not the KJV or
RSV).

However, this would mean that the biblical
text (or at least the standard Masoretic edition of
the Hebrew text) was WRONG in how it
transcribed the Babylonian name, or that
the text has been corrupted. It would mean that
we had to use Babylonian texts to CORRECT the
biblical mangling of the Babylonian name. That
should not inspire much confidence that biblical
scribes were always accurate.

Note also that the New American Bible
omits Sarsechim altogether in Jeremiah 39:3, and
substitutes Nebushazban (from Jeremiah 39:13).
So now one has to be specific as to WHICH
VERSION of “the Bible” one believes is
“confirmed.” The NAB would be proven wrong by
this tablet.

So, yes, thank goodness for Mesopotamian
texts which have helped us immensely to
understand how mythological and how textually
corrupted biblical texts can be.


 pm9347 it's interesting stuff, and certain worth further investigation into the possible implications of the narrative of Jeremiah, good find thank you


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

Gavagai wrote:

Quote:
we all suffer from all of the classically defined mental disorders

I don't. Speak for yourself, Rev.

Then perhaps you would be interested in this bumper sticker " I am perfectly sane. The voices in my head said so "


 

? have you ever believed that somebody was plotting against you without evidence

? have you ever deceive anybody

? shall I continue Smiling if you haven't become too paranoid, or will you concede the point


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Rev, I hope you don't me

Rev,

I hope you don't me frankly asking you what the hell bumper stickers have to do with any of this.  I have no idea what you're trying to argue about right now. Please use your next post to state coherently whatever argument it is that you have in mind, organized with numbered premises and conclusions. Thanks.

Cheers,

Gavagai
 

 

 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


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

Gavagai wrote:

Rev,

I hope you don't me frankly asking you what the hell bumper stickers have to do with any of this.

Hi Gavagai my apologies I thought you were joking when replying to my earlier post

"we all suffer from all of the classically defined mental disorders"

"I don't. Speak for yourself, Rev."

Only a madman would consider themselves perfectly sane and rational, I was obviously mistaken in believing this was a widespread and intuitive concept 

I didn't realize you were serious,

Do you consider yourself perfectly sane ? seriously


If we are to have a discussion involving the concept of a mental disorder, then we must establish an understanding of what constitutes a mental disorder 

"certain religious beliefs really express underlying mental disorders" "But I disagree that religious belief has this feature"

This will be a discussion about psychology, the key feature is of a psychological nature is it not ?

 


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

Rev,

 Where is your argument? I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. State your argument in your next post, with numbered premises and conclusions.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


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

I agree with Gavagai that none of that is contradictory.  Actually, that is to put it too lightly.  It's confirmed by logic that it's not contradictory.  In layman's terms, certain religions != ALL religions.  Gavagai's latter statement refers to ALL religions.  It's a common IQ test question: If some Shnarkies are Bedzus, and all Bedzus are cold-blooded, are all Shnarkies cold-blooded?  (the answer is "no," by the way)

 

However, whether to believe in a religion is indicative of a mental disorder might require consulting psychology to establish what EXACTLY constitutes a mental disorder.  Once that is established, then I think we can determine whether religion really is a mental disorder.

 

P.S. Yo Gavagai, I took up on your offer a while back to PM you.  Still interested in PMing me back why you believe in your religion? 

"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
Yes, I read your PM. I'm

Yes, I read your PM. I'm leaving town this week, so I'll rarely be posting here. But I'll have something for you when I get back.

 Take care,

Gavagai 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Hi Sodium Pentothal  Not

Hi Sodium Pentothal Smiling
 
Not quite my line of thinking

let me demonstrate

Gavagai said
"certain religious beliefs really express underlying mental disorders" "But I disagree that religious belief has this feature"

First you would need to define which religious beliefs Gavagai meant specifically, and from that point determine what part of the religious ideology Gavagai was referring to specifically, I'm sure by now you would realize the conclusion of this

Secondly we would need to get a rough definition of mental disorders. to show how this affects reasoning, then demonstrate how ideology affects reasoning

Can you see my line of thinking now Sodium Pentothal ? It was not my intention to invoke Shnarkies in the contradiction that I perceived, cute as they are

I was attempting to agree a rough definition of what defines a mental disorder with Gavagai, but Gavagai seems unwilling or unable to comprehend the difference between the  psychology of reasoning (psychology) and the correct principles of reasoning (logic)

Which would make a future conversation pointless, until Gavagai has at-least a rough idea of what a mental disorder is, and how the principles and language of psychology work