Iggy

I'm pretty sure exactly two posts ago I said "subjective, anecdotal, and imperfect evidence all the same". Would you like to teach me what evidence is?

Because Hugh Montefiore clearly isn't delusional, and neither would someone so clearly change their life to their own disadvantage based on a lie, and it isn't an original story. You're basically saying that people can't be mistaken about religion, which is absurd on its face. You're trying to support your own argument in the face of all reason. No, I meant truthfully.

That wasn't at all what I meant. I meant that in some people's minds there is evidence that Jesus is the creator of all earth. Be it... subjective, anecdotal, and imperfect evidence all the same. People have personal experiences and it is very hard to call them broken for believing them, because it is often a very good thing to believe one's own personal experiences.

Thank God. I've been dismissing your unevidenced claims without evidence of my own and I felt bad about it, but good to know I'm ok. and I hope humanity grows too. In the mean time... it may be a little early to call them broken for their failings yet.

And that's the thing you can't get past. In your mind Jesus has "no evidence to back it up", because you've never seen him. In another person's mind, it could be different. But, you can't put yourself in their shoes. To you, the skies are obviously empty, so all these people talking to it must just be mental... delusional (or lying). Because, you have no idea what they're talking about. That's fine. I see where you're coming from. I, likewise, have never seen Jesus and I don't believe in God. I understand. You aught to get them some psychological care immediately. I've never had a delusional child, but, wow! I don't envy you that!

You already quoted it in this thread, and I am sure. It is frankly absurd to insist that everyone who thinks they saw Jesus are either hallucinating, delusional, or lying. Your bias is bleeding all over the place.

That is fair, but, I mean.. It's obvious you're using the word "delusional" in a way that no psychologist or medical professional would ever use it. Someone is mistaken on this particular issue and by default you want to call them delusional and broken. Do you really think that a person can't be simply mistaken about feeling God and seeing Jesus... they either have to be delusional or lying? What other subject would you say that about?

Kids are by definition, either lying or delusional because they have an imaginary friend, now. Fantastic! I already did. They are simply mistaken. They've been fooled by a mechanism that is notoriously good at fooling people. It doesn't make them delusional, or liars. Obviously!

Good, because I only ever mentioned what he said. I'm willing to credit that you aren't delusional because I can follow what you're saying, and it is clear and intelligent enough. The fact that you can't credit Hugh Montefiore of all people with the same is absurd.

Neither of us were talking about that. I asked a very specific question, and likewise Hitch answered a very specific one very well. I know that you want to say that they're delusional. Probably half the people in your country when asked would say they have a personal relationship with Jesus, and you want to say they're all delusional or lying. It's plainly, blatantly, absurd, but you're locked in. Like the people who think they saw Jesus, you can't change your mind now. We all can't be Christopher Hitchens. You have your opinion. It's fine. By the way, the apostrophe goes after the s.

You're pulling my leg. I'm at a loss for words... It actually makes a person miss the Hitch. Let me find a quote... What is "of course" obvious to the Hitch is apparently just lost on most atheists. What are ya gonna do?

Fair enough. I wonder if you believe them when they say they believe in god.

They've fallen for a magic trick. They've bought into an illusion. They think they saw one thing, but really they saw something different. They aren't lying. They are mistaken. Seems reasonable to me.

They couldn't simply be mistaken? Really?

That is a good comparison because when the crazy wave of alien abductees hit, psychologists roundly decided that it didn't, in and of itself, make a person delusional. The mental wards would have been filled to the brim. But, just so I understand... all those religious people who say they have a relationship with god are all either delusional or lying. That is your explanation?

I'm not asking you to believe that you saw Jesus. When Jules says, "I felt the hand of God. God got involved", do you axiomatically believe that is a lie?

I'm ok with the word trust. You trust that your partner's fidelity exists today even though you didn't independently verify it, and have no way to prove it exists. I'm not saying it is equivalent to trust in God. You are probably just used to having that discussion, so you thought you'd do it again or something. The point is that we trust things that we don't verify, and believe things that we don't know. And, those are sometimes very good traits, so they are stricken from the 'is it broken' discussion. Next you have to grant that when a person says "I saw Jesus", they are telling the truth, in the sense that they aren't lying. Can you do that?

Separate issues. But, if I'm being flippant... did you independently verify your partner's fidelity today? If not then you're taking your relationship on faith, and that really is broken because it isn't rational. Faith isn't rational and as such it is broken and you should really know better. You see where I'm coming from despite the vulgar example.

Anything with a brain thinks, and most of it isn't rationality. You started that sentence with rationality and ended on thinking... I seriously doubt most thoughts in the animal kingdom are rational. Humans have faith and emotion and things like that because it is useful. Those things got us here too. I'm not sure I'd want to meet a purely coldly rational creature. I'm not sure such a creature could even function without help. No, I didn't give a dichotomy, false or otherwise. My point would be that religion can make people behave better or worse, but so can a lot of other things. You are the one saying that religious belief is always destructive. You said, nigh two posts ago, "but all religious faith is destructive because...". You gave kids as your primary example. Now you say "they love their kids whether they are religious or not". I'm saying that religion can help a person love their kid, and that is ok by me.

Some religious people actively exploit their own children. Some are blinded to their exploitation because they trust religious institutions. Others protect their children very well while bringing them up in an environment of healthy mentors. Others stone their children in the name of honor, and others love their children to the grave because the baby Jesus told them to forgive... you know. I just can't paint it with that broad a brush

Are you talking to me? I am in no way prepared to believe in God. Neither am I willing to say that all religious faith is destructive. I've been to Bali too. I wonder if anyone gets that reference.

Very true.

Exactly. Belief in faith healing when their is an alternative is insane. It is functionally destructive... just like honor killings being insane.

I think I'd have to otherwise I'd be calling a third of the people in Ireland mental. Belief that nose hair fuels one's vehicle is certainly a sign of mental illness. Belief in god or leprechauns or big foot or whatever, is not. I'm giving you a reason to distinguish the two. The former prevents a person from accomplishing daily tasks -- a detriment to their worldview. It is false and it gets in the way. Usually not so with the latter. Alcoholism isn't a belief.

So if 90% of Earth's population told you that there was a God then you would tend to believe even if you hadn't personally met the guy? That is where your logic ends you up. Faith isn't necessarily the problem either. If you want to have a committed relationship with a partner then you're going to need faith. I know faith in god isn't the same as faith in your partner's fidelity, but in both cases it is faith that is not independently verified. So, "faith that isn't independently verified" isn't necessarily a bad or broken thing. I think it is contextual like you're about to say... Very well put. I couldn't agree more.