Iggy

Sorry, man. Genetic fallacy

4 + 5 = 10 is a mistaken conclusion (a wrong conclusion) 4 + 5 = 9 is the correct conclusion Many people make the conclusion that they should convert from atheism to religion later in life. If you look at how someone does it: It is usually either a mistaken personal experience, or a mistaken conclusion drawn from a personal experience. Regardless, the decision not to believe is often just as cultural as the decision to believe. Your point: and iNow's map going with it, neglect the fact that eastern Asia and parts of Europe are mostly irreligious. There are areas where people mostly follow Christianity, others where people mostly follow Islam, and others where people mostly don't follow. So, your question can be just as easily turned around... What are the chances that a non-believer when asked why they don't believe will simply say "My parents weren't religious, so I just grew up never believing." I've heard it at least a few times. I should add that there are religious people who recognize that they are a specific religion because of where they grew up, but still don't grant your premise. Dinesh D'Souza (a Christian born in India) answered that charge like so:

I think worst should read: those of a different view. I wish it could do more to get people on the same page, yes. Preferably a page that doesn't include indifference to crimes against humanity. Indeed. I remember the brave-new-world feeling after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Finally, we could all work together to accomplish anything! Of course, at 13 I was pretty naive. I wouldn't presume to speak for most Americans, and I wouldn't trust a wikipedia section cited with nothing but six [citation needed]'s, but I am confident you missed my point. I'm saying that the UN has become a tool that nations can use to obstruct the moral efforts of the international community. You say the US has a veto and you point to a wiki section which says that the US has blocked international efforts regarding the Israel / Palestine conflict. Certainly you're demonstrating my point... the UN is working against its own mandate. I'm sure we should all read Kofi Annan's 1999 Report on Srebrenica to the general assembly, but it is 155 pages. Let me quote some things Kofi Annan said that really, really highlight the problem that the UN is displaying today (he figured it all out): "Through error, misjudgment and an inability to recognize the scope of the evil confronting us, we failed to do our part to help save the people of Srebrenica from the Serb campaign of mass murder... No one laments more than we the failure of the international community to take decisive action to halt the suffering and end a war that had produced so many victims" “a deliberate and systematic attempt to terrorize, expel or murder an entire people must be met decisively with all necessary means." "...we tried to keep the peace... when there was no peace to keep" "...pervasive ambivalence within the United Nations regarding the use of force in the pursuit of peace... prism of moral equivalency" "Srebrenica crystallized a truth understood only too late by the United Nations and the world at large: that Bosnia was as much a moral cause as a military conflict. The tragedy of Srebrenica will haunt our history forever," "Rather than attempting to mobilize the international community to support the enclave’s defense, we gave the Security Council the impression that the situation was under control, and many of us believed that to be the case" "The day before Srebrenica fell we reported that the Serbs were not attacking when they were. We reported that the Bosniaks had fired on an UNPROFOR blocking position when it was the Serbs. We failed to mention urgent requests for an air power... illustrative of a more general tendency to assume that the parties were equally responsible for the transgressions that occurred." "Even in the most restrictive interpretation of the mandate, the use of close air support against attacking Serb targets was clearly warranted... We were, with hindsight, wrong to declare repeatedly and publicly that we did not want to use air power against the Serbs except as a last resort and to accept the shelling of the safe areas as a daily occurrence,” "...an institutional ideology of impartiality even when confronted with attempted genocide..." "the United Nations global commitment to ending conflict does not preclude moral judgments, but makes them necessary." But, the UN, and even Kofi Annan himself, have already forgotten the lesson. On the 27th Annan said “I don't see a military intervention in Syria... Further militarization of the conflict, I'm not sure that is the way to help..." One wonders if they've read their own "responsibility to protect" doctrine. When al Assad fails to protect his own people it becomes the international community's *responsibility* to do it. We don't have a choice. If Russia tries to stop us or not. By the UN's own charter... it is now our responsibility -- whatever it takes.

An interesting consequence is that you can drop any animal about the size of a mouse and smaller from any height and it'll walk away. Larger animals have roughly the same density, but a larger terminal velocity with their larger mass and radius.

I certainly agree it's long overdue. It's awful what we've all allowed to happen there, and it didn't just start getting awful. Of course, two years ago when some of us started saying "Syria really needs some help", everybody said that it wasn't that bad. Some of us said they would use chemical weapons, but... you know... that would have been a "preemptive strike". and the worse it gets, the less intervening will sound like it will help. Syria broke itself, and the worse the break gets, the less the international community is willing to do. Like the British PM said in the '30s... for true collective security to work requires "not only that every country is to be ready for war; but must be ready to go to war at once". No single country can fix this problem, and we have given up on collective security. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the UN. I wish it could do better than the worst of its collective members. I really do.

In 1935 Ethiopia appealed to the League of Nations for assistance after attacked by a group of Italian-backed Somalis. The comedy that followed demonstrated that the League was impotent if a permanent member of the League so wanted it. Peter Wilson, for example, writes in League of Nations: Wikipedia likewise writes on the demise of the League: Veto power gave any permanent member the ability to completely abrogate the function of the League of Nations. It wasn't lost on the British PM when it happened: Unfortunately, it looks like nations that could commit to collective security, are once again abandoning it, and the UN is slowly and predictably dying the same death of the League. The UK voted yesterday not to respond to Syria's crimes against humanity no matter how conclusive the evidence, or how vast the atrocity (no matter what inspectors report) unless Russia allows it (UN veto binds them). So... the intentional slaughter of hundreds of civilian woman and children by nerve agent ends up not being something the international community can respond to if the war crime is backed by an obstructionist member of the security council. It is sad enough that the death of the League of Nations replays itself as the UN is infected with the same impotence, but the UN really does turn itself into an actively useful tool for countries to ratchet appeasement down on other nations as this death happens. What a terrible way to go.

And also... if you've heard of dual process theory... it isn't exactly that 'the three of them' are critical thinkers, and other people might not be -- but, rather that everyone with a healthy mind both thinks critically, and thinks intuitively. Daniel Kahneman is a superstar in psychology (Nobel prize and whatnot). His latest book says something that I find very relevant to the thread: To set the quote up... psychologists call judgments based on emotion and intuition System 1, and judgments based on critical examination and logic System 2: So... constant rational thought, and an inability to think without logic, would be psychologically unhealthy. It says elsewhere in the book: So... yeah, I'm afraid cognitive illusions are all too normal.

Here's a good page on the topic. It's detailed... I'll quote a snippet,

I can't argue... you do have a way with words. I seriously am stepping out of the thread though. You call 80% of the population delusional and that's all fine by the staff, but I insinuate as much about one person and get stomped on. That's some really unorthodox shit. I get that this is a science forum and everybody has a bias against religion, but that was just really weird and not something I want to stick around for.

I didn't break any rules. Your slander is getting way past annoying. I committed the crime of defending religious people. I've therefore been run off. I get it. You can stop beating the dead horse now.

Apparently, I'm not allowed to do that. You get to call 90% of the population delusional, and I don't get to return the favor even when I politely prove it by your own standard. It figures. You all can have this thread. Peace out.

I know what you mean. To me it is detrimental and awful that people believe this nonsense. I understand. But, I know so many intelligent and rational people who do believe it that that I wouldn't call them delusional. And, I certainly w0uln't call them liars. I don't think that is too fine a line to draw. They could simply be mistaken. You know? I'm looking for some help here.

Yes. Yes, that really is what I'm saying. I think you and iNow are lost on the same point... that it is illogical. I was saying that people often believe in the illogical. I was saying that people aren't lying when they say they believe in the illogical. You know... people think they see the supernatural. I was just saying that it doesn't make them delusional. That's all.

I've done that at least a couple times and felt embarrassed each time. Don't think anything of it.

I just don't know, iNow. Earlier you said that the experiences are "real to them", now they could be lying. Earlier you said, and confirmed, that all people who believe in God are delusional, but now they could be hallucinating. It does get confusing where you stand. Well... you are a bit slippery and hard to grasp, if it comes to that. Perhaps your earlier posts were made just for the sake of argument and shouldn't be taken seriously, or perhaps your latest one. I don't know. When a person contradicts themselves every other post it gets a bit difficult to reply. Perhaps, but you should be careful with that. Let's look again at that DSM-5 definition you keep thumping: You certainly have a fixed belief that is not amenable to change. The theme is certainly religious. I dare say that your same-culture peers do not share your belief on this topic. And, obviously it is a strongly held idea with a great degree of conviction, despite 90% of the people in this culture thinking they hold evidence against it. Yikes! I think you just qualified! You know... people approaching a mental professional often are hesitant because they don't know what to say. All you need to say is "my friend thinks I needed to see you". They will take it from there. Earlier I said to you that I had no such experience and I don't believe in God. I'm correcting you. You are wrong. I have no fear of being labeled broken.

Tar, you are no better fit to care what happens in this world 500 billion years from now than any of the rest of us. We all have trouble enough putting ourselves in our contemporary's shoes. You aren't helping. Your insights are a more than a little fleeting. Not being broken doesn't mean such grandiose things. Have you planted that flag in camp atheism already? Are you willing to say "God doesn't exist"? Let's hear a three word reply.

So, they aren't lying or hallucinating. I thought I'd have to pry that out with pliers. I am correct then, that anyone who says they have a personal relationship with Jesus is delusional... anyone who believes in God is delusional... (and psychologically fit to be so)? Mental wards for them all! That is your position? I hate to put a fine point on it, but I have to snare this trap before it gets away from me.

exhausting. Yes. Do I need to make you understand what "mistaken" means? Yes, believing something illogical doesn't make a person delusional. Pointing out that it is illogical doesn't help you. Actually, no you aren't. I welcome you to read your previous comment: Apparently you said "they were either lying or delusional". I'll go with that and ignore what you just said about "or at the very least hallucinating". and I've responded to all that before. You didn't answer my question. You said that you didn't contradict what the Hitch said when he said "[seeing Jesus] is real to them". That means that they aren't lying. Do you still agree? Have you changed your mind? edit: I apologize, you did answer that question. When you said "Yes, I'm saying that people who say they have these personal relationships are deluded, or at the very least hallucinating..." you answered it. When you originally answered you said that people were lying, delusional, or had recently ingested a hallucinogen. We've now squarely crossed off the hallucinations and the lying. I'm to understand that most of the people with whom you converse are delusional by your account. Yes? /edit I could do that, or I could quote the same site that says: Cherry Picking! HA! There isn't a reputable psychologist on this planet that would draw the conclusion you've drawn :-D

Sorry, I'm sure that was an accident. Let's see... "clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers" Yes, it says the same thing. Tar, what you have said is not "clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers". It is both understandable and well-understood. Belief in God is not a delusion.

That is more than I could have hoped for. While I don't share your belief in God (or the divine or whatever you might call it), I certainly recognize the category of experiences you're addressing. I don't think them odd at all. In this case, you aren't just one guy. It is actually relevant. Earlier in the thread Inow quoted the newest version of the DSM (a version that isn't on most psychologist's shelves yet), and it says the following: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). Now... Inow wants to call belief in God delusional based on the above. I would suggest, obviously, that what you've felt and experienced is something "ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture". It is also "an article of religious faith". It isn't delusional, and don't let anyone tell you that it is. That's hate speech! Amen, brother. Well... not every belief is broken, but some consequences of faith clearly need stomped out.

I'm curious, besides life grandeur, or a general sense of the divine, have you ever seen anything specific (maybe even when you were young) that seemed supernatural and religious?

The simplest answer is usually right. They can simply be mistaken without hallucinating, being delusional, or lying. We can at least eliminate some of your options. Starting with lying... you said that you weren't contradicting the quote "the experience is real to them". If it is real to them then they aren't lying, so unless you've changed your mind that's nix on lying. That leaves us with everyone who says they have a personal relationship with Jesus is hallucinating or delusional by your account, yes?

I answered that question completely and honestly in post 1556 immediately after you asked it. Don't accuse me of evading. If you need more clarification then ask.

Is that your final answer? Almost half of it. by which I mean... You truly think this? yes I really don't know how much more thought I can give this. You think that almost everyone who lives near you (I assume you still live in Texas) is delusional or lying. I give my neighbors more credit. Either way, it is a matter of opinion. You think most people are mentally ill, and I don't. It is just what it is.

I think you overestimate my abilities, but ok, I agree :-D You should have gone with "Science replaces private prejudice with public, verifiable evidence" by Dawkins. It isn't true, but it sure sounds good.