koti Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: That is a very harsh view of faith. Faith in a god is nowhere near comparable to schizophrenia. Such a comparison is an extreme overstatement. Not having any physical evidence to support it does not make it immediately false, nor does it make a belief in such delusional. You can't make the claim that a belief in a god is delusional. Such a claim represents a very extreme view. It is harsh enough to sound as if it was filled with hatred and contempt towards the mere concept of faith. There is one significant difference between a medical psychotic state and the delusion of faith, the former has no choice and the latter willingly chooses to engage in the delusion. 4 minutes ago, Prometheus said: Mental illness is defined in terms behavioural or mental dysfunction. This functioning is usually assessed in terms of interactions with and deviations from social norms. Given the ubiquity of religious faith in the human condition and the fact that the vast majority of such people can navigate life, i think equivocations of faith to mental illness are not only inaccurate but inflammatory. I adressed the inaccuarcy above. -1
Endercreeper01 Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 9 minutes ago, beecee said: you said..... I replied....... referring to this extract in my post addressed to you thus..... The first sentence above was in reply to your statement that evolution did not explain consciousness....Obviously since evolution is indisputable, and we are conscious, this consciousness seems to be a step in the evolutionary ladder. The second statement was in reply to your claim that consciousness is not being properly addressed. Perhaps your denial that I had answered your questions/statements, was more a reaction in giving you a history lesson as to how far science has taken us and at the same time, how it has demolished any need for baseless faith and hope in mythical situations? Let me soften his approach then. Faith, and hope in some extraordinary higher power, is more to do with individuals wanting and needing comfort and solace, and a desire for some purpose in their life and being terrified of the fact that one day they will be nothing more then an empty carcass, left to decompose and in time be scattered amongst the stars from whence he or she, along with all of us came. This thread is not the place to discuss consciousness, it is about faith. Faith can arise based on someone's understanding of reality and existence that leads them to such beliefs. 5 minutes ago, koti said: There is one significant difference between a medical psychotic state and the delusion of faith, the former has no choice and the latter willingly chooses to engage in the delusion. I adressed the inaccuarcy above. Such a harsh view of faith only sounds of hatred towards faith. It's not fair at all to call faith a delusion. -1
Prometheus Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 1 minute ago, koti said: There is one significant difference between a medical psychotic state and the delusion of faith, the former has no choice and the latter willingly chooses to engage in the delusion. I would dispute this too. No one chooses the society they are born into and the conditioning they are subjected to. Also, some mental illnesses could be attributed to choice in the same way some physical illnesses - alcohol and other drugs use for instance. The problem seems to be that you expect humans to think and behave rationally when exposed to certain teachings. While that does seem happen gradually on a societal level, it seldom seems to happen on an individual level.
koti Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: Faith can arise based on someone's understanding of reality and existence that leads them to such beliefs. No. The more you understand about reality the more you understand that gods are not needed to explain it. That is if you use reason ofcourse. Quote Such a harsh view of faith only sounds of hatred towards faith. It's not fair at all to call faith a delusion. Harsh - I can agree with that. Hatred - not exactly, more like pity towards wasting time on delusional thinking. 50 minutes ago, Prometheus said: The problem seems to be that you expect humans to think and behave rationally when exposed to certain teachings. I think this is the crux of the matter, I do expect that from humans and I don’t see it as a problem. Edited June 16, 2018 by koti
Endercreeper01 Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, koti said: No. The more you understand about reality the more you understand that gods are not needed to explain it. That is if you use reason ofcourse. Harsh - I can agree with that. Hatred - not exactly, more like pitty towards wasting time on delusional thinking. I think this is the crux of the matter, I do expect that from humans and I don’t see it as a problem. I sounds more like hatred and contempt than anything else. You shouldn't just compare the two concepts of faith and delusion so easily without very proper reasoning. It is a very bold statement for one to make. Edited June 16, 2018 by Endercreeper01
beecee Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 25 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: This thread is not the place to discuss consciousness, it is about faith. Agreed, so I take it you will give yourself a rap over the knuckles for raising it? I was just responding to your mentioning of it. 1 hour ago, beecee said: Has anyone yet informed you that "faith" is independent of "reason"? You may also be interested in the following.......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason#Evolution_of_reason Evolution of reason: " A species could benefit greatly from better abilities to reason about, predict and understand the world. French social and cognitive scientists Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier argue that there could have been other forces driving the evolution of reason. They point out that reasoning is very difficult for humans to do effectively, and that it is hard for individuals to doubt their own beliefs (confirmation bias). Reasoning is most effective when it is done as a collective – as demonstrated by the success of projects like science. They suggest that there are not just individual, but group selection pressures at play. Any group that managed to find ways of reasoning effectively would reap benefits for all its members, increasing their fitness. This could also help explain why humans, according to Sperber, are not optimized to reason effectively alone. Their argumentative theory of reasoning claims that reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with the search for the truth." Any response to the above?
Endercreeper01 Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, beecee said: Agreed, so I take it you will give yourself a rap over the knuckles for raising it? I was just responding to your mentioning of it. Any response to the above? My response is: what is your point?
Prometheus Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 38 minutes ago, koti said: I think this is the crux of the matter, I do expect that from humans and I don’t see it as a problem. Maybe, but humans failing to live up to your expectations are not mentally ill because of it.
koti Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: I sounds more like hatred and contempt than anything else. You shouldn't just compare the two concepts of faith and delusion so easily without very proper reasoning. It is a very bold statement for one to make. This thread is not about my alleged contempt and alleged hatred, its about what the concept of faith is. I don’t care how it sounds to you, I stated very clearly in my previous post how I feel, if you have difficulties in distinguishing between pity and hatred then you need to adress that issue - preferably outside of this thread in your own time. As for faith being a delusion, we can discuss the figurative meaning of the word „delusion” if you’d like. I already adressed the minor differences between a medical psychotic state and the state of a mind believing in god/gods. 1 minute ago, Prometheus said: Maybe, but humans failing to live up to your expectations are not mentally ill because of it. Sure they’re not - they’re delusional. -1
Strange Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 5 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said: I am discussing how reasoning can support faith and belief. It can’t. Faith is ... well, faith. It doesn’t need reason or evidence. Pretty much by definition. If it were based on evidence or reason, it wouldn’t be faith. (Ditto belief.)
beecee Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 44 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: My response is: what is your point? Actually all your responses can be summed up in nothing more then repeated rhetoric, ignoring of what others are trying to explain to you, the usual obtuseness and stubborn arrogance. Again care to comment on my link?
Endercreeper01 Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 53 minutes ago, beecee said: Actually all your responses can be summed up in nothing more then repeated rhetoric, ignoring of what others are trying to explain to you, the usual obtuseness and stubborn arrogance. Again care to comment on my link? I'll ask you again: What is the point of your link? I don't exactly understand what point you are making with such a link. 58 minutes ago, Strange said: It can’t. Faith is ... well, faith. It doesn’t need reason or evidence. Pretty much by definition. If it were based on evidence or reason, it wouldn’t be faith. (Ditto belief.) That doesn't necessarily make faith illogical. Faith can be a result of one's own understanding of the world leading one to faith. 1 hour ago, koti said: This thread is not about my alleged contempt and alleged hatred, its about what the concept of faith is. I don’t care how it sounds to you, I stated very clearly in my previous post how I feel, if you have difficulties in distinguishing between pity and hatred then you need to adress that issue - preferably outside of this thread in your own time. As for faith being a delusion, we can discuss the figurative meaning of the word „delusion” if you’d like. I already adressed the minor differences between a medical psychotic state and the state of a mind believing in god/gods. Sure they’re not - they’re delusional. It shouldn't be considered delusional if it is not something that has an obvious falsehood to it. You act as if everyone would agree that faith is completely false. When there is a debate about if such is true or not, it doesn't make sense to claim that one is delusional for believing in such.
koti Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: That doesn't necessarily make faith illogical. Faith can be a result of one's own understanding of the world leading one to faith. It shouldn't be considered delusional if it is not something that has an obvious falsehood to it. You act as if everyone would agree that faith is completely false. When there is a debate about if such is true or not, it doesn't make sense to claim that one is delusional for believing in such. Logic is either a branch of mathematics or a methodology of reasoning which establishes a causal correlation between assumptions and conclusions. Since such a correlation can be established only by evidence and faith/religion has exactly zero evidence in its corner therefore there is as much correlation between logic and faith as in Mother Teresa being a noble individual. I can’t disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns just as I can’t disprove the existence of gods. Frankly I do not care whether there are debates over „issues” like this, if someones understanding of the world leads him/her to faith it simply means that this person doesn’t understand the world very well. It is well established that the less general knowledge you have, the more prone you will be to religious beliefs. Faith is in fact many things - fear of being alone in this world being a significant factor or fear of being excluded from your environment. And yes, hundreds of billions of people being stuck in a delusion for thousands of years is a probable scenario. Is it more or less probable than god/gods creating and ruling the universe is up to you.
beecee Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: I'll ask you again: What is the point of your link? I don't exactly understand what point you are making with such a link. Sure you do....remember telling lies makes little baby Jesus cry... you have said many many times, or words to the same effect, Quote I'm only trying to use philosophical thinking in my arguments, though my reasoning is not always understood by others. ......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason#Evolution_of_reason Evolution of reason: " A species could benefit greatly from better abilities to reason about, predict and understand the world. French social and cognitive scientists Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier argue that there could have been other forces driving the evolution of reason. They point out that reasoning is very difficult for humans to do effectively, and that it is hard for individuals to doubt their own beliefs (confirmation bias). Reasoning is most effective when it is done as a collective – as demonstrated by the success of projects like science.They suggest that there are not just individual, but group selection pressures at play. Any group that managed to find ways of reasoning effectively would reap benefits for all its members, increasing their fitness. This could also help explain why humans, according to Sperber, are not optimized to reason effectively alone. Their argumentative theory of reasoning claims that reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with the search for the truth." :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: So much for your faith based reasoning. Edited June 17, 2018 by beecee
Endercreeper01 Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, beecee said: Sure you do....remember telling lies makes little baby Jesus cry... you have said many many times, or words to the same effect, ......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason#Evolution_of_reason Evolution of reason: " A species could benefit greatly from better abilities to reason about, predict and understand the world. French social and cognitive scientists Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier argue that there could have been other forces driving the evolution of reason. They point out that reasoning is very difficult for humans to do effectively, and that it is hard for individuals to doubt their own beliefs (confirmation bias). Reasoning is most effective when it is done as a collective – as demonstrated by the success of projects like science.They suggest that there are not just individual, but group selection pressures at play. Any group that managed to find ways of reasoning effectively would reap benefits for all its members, increasing their fitness. This could also help explain why humans, according to Sperber, are not optimized to reason effectively alone. Their argumentative theory of reasoning claims that reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with the search for the truth." :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: So much for your faith based reasoning. I don't understand how that takes away from any of my arguments... 38 minutes ago, koti said: Logic is either a branch of mathematics or a methodology of reasoning which establishes a causal correlation between assumptions and conclusions. Since such a correlation can be established only by evidence and faith/religion has exactly zero evidence in its corner therefore there is as much correlation between logic and faith as in Mother Teresa being a noble individual. I can’t disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns just as I can’t disprove the existence of gods. Frankly I do not care whether there are debates over „issues” like this, if someones understanding of the world leads him/her to faith it simply meanlegitims that this person doesn’t understand the world very well. It is well established that the less general knowledge you have, the more prone you will be to religious beliefs. Faith is in fact many things - fear of being alone in this world being a significant factor or fear of being excluded from your environment. And yes, hundreds of billions of people being stuck in a delusion for thousands of years is a probable scenario. Is it more or less probable than god/gods creating and ruling the universe is up to you. Such is debatable, although debating a higher power's plausibility is not the focus of this thread. My point is that faith has more legitimacy than delusion. Edited June 17, 2018 by Endercreeper01
iNow Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 15 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: My point is that faith has more legitimacy than delusion. In what ways, specifically?
beecee Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 32 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: I don't understand how that takes away from any of my arguments... It most certainly puts your "claimed" legitimate faith based reasoning as being faulty at best. Quote Such is debatable, although debating a higher power's plausibility is not the focus of this thread. Any faith is divorced from reasoning, as evidenced by your own faulty reasoning. Any plausibility of faith in any higher power, defies reasoning, science and the scientific methodology. Quote My point is that faith has more legitimacy than delusion. http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=2260.0definition of faith: A feeling, conviction, or belief that something is true or real, without having evidence.definition of delusion: A belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.
Endercreeper01 Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 27 minutes ago, iNow said: In what ways, specifically? It is simply because faith is not based in insanity or insane beliefs. A higher power is neither proven or disproved, so it is still possible that it exists. 1 minute ago, beecee said: It most certainly puts your "claimed" legitimate faith based reasoning as being faulty at best. Any faith is divorced from reasoning, as evidenced by your own faulty reasoning. Any plausibility of faith in any higher power, defies reasoning, science and the scientific methodology. http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=2260.0definition of faith: A feeling, conviction, or belief that something is true or real, without having evidence.definition of delusion: A belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts. Faith should not have to be based in science to have a certain form of legitimacy.
iNow Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 40 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: It is simply because faith is not based in insanity or insane beliefs. Neither is delusion, as Beecee so kindly already explained for you. Would you like to try again? In what ways is faith more legitimate than a delusion? Be specific.
Endercreeper01 Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, iNow said: Neither is delusion, as Beecee so kindly already explained for you. Would you like to try again? In what ways is faith more legitimate than a delusion? Be specific. To be specific, faith is being put into an idea with a certain form of legitimacy in the eyes of the collective. Such legitimacy involves the recognition as such an idea as being possible or being considered a possibility out of a set of ideas about something. Delusional beliefs are placed in ideas that don't have any such recognition. Edited June 17, 2018 by Endercreeper01
beecee Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said: Faith should not have to be based in science to have a certain form of legitimacy. As analogous to magical spaghetti monsters, or fairies at the bottom of your garden if you have one. Obviously we have no evidence to any of those three myths. 22 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: To be specific, faith is being put into an idea with a certain form of legitimacy in the eyes of the collective. Such legitimacy involves the recognition as such an idea as being possible or being considered a possibility out of a set of ideas about something. Delusional beliefs are placed in ideas that don't have any such recognition. Here's some more accepted definitions: https://www.google.com.au/search?ei=u9MlW4q0JIXM0gTW9pvYDA&q=faith+&oq=faith+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i131i67k1j0i67k1j0i131i67k1j0l2j0i67k1j0l2j0i131k1j0.4753.4753.0.5494.1.1.0.0.0.0.184.184.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.183....0.xEyHEJPU3eA FAITH: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. . strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< https://www.google.com.au/search?q=delusions&oq=delusions&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5743j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 delusion an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder. the action of deluding or the state of being deluded. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So we can see the similarities in that both lack the need for evidence, reason or logic. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate Religion of course takes faith or a belief in something without evidence.
Endercreeper01 Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, beecee said: As analogous to magical spaghetti monsters, or fairies at the bottom of your garden if you have one. Obviously we have no evidence to any of those three myths. Here's some more accepted definitions: https://www.google.com.au/search?ei=u9MlW4q0JIXM0gTW9pvYDA&q=faith+&oq=faith+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i131i67k1j0i67k1j0i131i67k1j0l2j0i67k1j0l2j0i131k1j0.4753.4753.0.5494.1.1.0.0.0.0.184.184.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.183....0.xEyHEJPU3eA FAITH: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. . strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< https://www.google.com.au/search?q=delusions&oq=delusions&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5743j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 delusion an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder. the action of deluding or the state of being deluded. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So we can see the similarities in that both lack the need for evidence, reason or logic. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate Religion of course takes faith or a belief in something without evidence. Faith in a higher power has a form of legitimacy to the collective that gives it credibility as an idea. The difference lies in the commonly accepted and shared view of reality of the collective, that makes one belief legitimate and another belief a delusion. Delusions are typically in direct and obvious contradiction with the reality that is agreed upon as legitimate by the collective. Faith in a higher power is not the same as believing in mythical things. Faith in a higher power is about believing in a certain idea about reality. Belief in mythical creatures involves belief in a thing, not an idea. Edited June 17, 2018 by Endercreeper01
iNow Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said: faith is being put into an idea with a certain form of legitimacy in the eyes of the collective. Such legitimacy involves the recognition as such an idea as being possible or being considered a possibility out of a set of ideas about something. Delusional beliefs are placed in ideas that don't have any such recognition. So, if I understand you correctly, faith (in your opinion) is more legitimate because it’s a delusion many people happen to share, as opposed to a lone delusion held just by one individual. Is that correct? If so, the obvious next question is why your faith is any more legitimate than the faith of someone else who happens to believe in something different... Something nearly as common and just as popular. For example, Christianity versus Islam. Both are rather popular, extremely common, and are beliefs held by many millions of humans, but I suspect you don’t accept faith in Islam as legitimate. This suggests your reasoning is fallacious and your central claim untrue Both Christianity and Islam claim to represent an absolute truth. Either one or both of them must be wrong since both make contradictory claims and so both cannot, by definition, be true in parallel. One doesn’t need to be an expert in statistics and probability to recognize the likelihood that both are just equally silly and worthy of dismissal. Why is the faith of a Muslim less legitimate than the faith of a Christian, or Jew, or Buddhist, or tribal shaman? Why is your presonally preferred brand of woo supposed to receive undue deference and be treated as any more legitimate than the delusion of a lone individual? You keep claiming that your faith is rooted in reason. What are those reasons? Edited June 17, 2018 by iNow 1
beecee Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: Faith in a higher power has a form of legitimacy to the collective that gives it credibility as an idea. The difference lies in the commonly accepted and shared view of reality of the collective, that makes one belief legitimate and another belief a delusion. Delusions are typically in direct and obvious contradiction with the reality that is agreed upon as legitimate by the collective. Obviously your faith in this "higher power" and as non specific as you purposely make it, is delusional as both aligning with the fact that zero evidence exists supporting such concept/s. But that's your perogative. But please tell me, what inconsistencies in what you believe and try and advertise on this forum, along of course with your other apparent questionable qualities like racism that you have started threads on, drives you to arrogantly advertise them and crusade for them, on a science forum no less, that has over the last century or so, further pushed your need and faith in any higher power, into near oblivion? I really don't expect you to answer that question, as you have failed to answer it at least twice previously. In the meantime..... https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/chapters/1022-1st-dawk.html Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal. Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that "God" can of course be replaced with your "higher power"claim, and the Faith/delusion you have in him/her/it. Again of course both delusions and faith are without evidence. 21 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: Faith in a higher power is not the same as believing in mythical things. Faith in a higher power is about believing in a certain idea about reality. Belief in mythical creatures involves belief in a thing, not an idea. Is that your own specific made up on the spur of the moment definition? We have no evidence for any higher power, which makes it a delusional belief based only on the faith of that individual. Those are the facts, as opposed to your made up on the spur of the moment definition of delusion/faith.
Endercreeper01 Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, iNow said: So, if I understand you correctly, faith (in your opinion) is more legitimate because it’s a delusion many people happen to share, as opposed to a lone delusion held just by one individual. Is that correct? If so, the obvious next question is why your faith is any more legitimate than the faith of someone else who happens to believe in something different... Something nearly as common and just as popular. For example, Christianity versus Islam. Both are rather popular, extremely common, and are beliefs held by many millions of humans, but I suspect you don’t accept faith in Islam as legitimate. This suggests your reasoning is fallacious and your central claim untrue Both Christianity and Islam claim to represent an absolute truth. Either one or both of them must be wrong since both make contradictory claims and so both cannot, by definition, be true in parallel. One doesn’t need to be an expert in statistics and probability to recognize the likelihood that both are just equally silly and worthy of dismissal. Why is the faith of a Muslim less legitimate than the faith of a Christian, or Jew, or Buddhist, or tribal shaman? Why is your presonally preferred brand of woo supposed to receive undue deference and be treated as any more legitimate than the delusion of a lone individual? You keep claiming that your faith is rooted in reason. What are those reasons? The focus is not on any one particular system of beliefs, rather it is on the belief in a higher power that unites all religions. The belief in a higher power is a belief about reality itself. It is essentially choosing to personally accept, as truth, of one view of reality over another. Faith in a higher power has a higher relevance to the topic of existence, and as such should be treated with a form of legitimacy as a possibile explanation of existence, at the very least. Delusional beliefs do not have any higher relevance in this regard. 37 minutes ago, beecee said: Obviously your faith in this "higher power" and as non specific as you purposely make it, is delusional as both aligning with the fact that zero evidence exists supporting such concept/s. But that's your perogative. But please tell me, what inconsistencies in what you believe and try and advertise on this forum, along of course with your other apparent questionable qualities like racism that you have started threads on, drives you to arrogantly advertise them and crusade for them, on a science forum no less, that has over the last century or so, further pushed your need and faith in any higher power, into near oblivion? I really don't expect you to answer that question, as you have failed to answer it at least twice previously. In the meantime..... https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/chapters/1022-1st-dawk.html Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal. Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that "God" can of course be replaced with your "higher power"claim, and the Faith/delusion you have in him/her/it. Again of course both delusions and faith are without evidence. Belief in an idea about reality cannot be proven with physical evidence as it is based in the abstract and non physical rather than the physical. Faith of something as abstract and non physical as a higher power cannot be proven or disproven by physical evidence, being abstract. Rather, one can be led to the path of faith through other ways. Delusions have no such context and as a result cannot be equated with faith. Edited June 17, 2018 by Endercreeper01
Recommended Posts