If Hate Speech Doesn't incite Hatred, Then Where Does Hatred Come From? — Bitter Crank

It seems like you got it backwards. Hate speech doesn't incite hatred, it stems from hatred. Hate is first and hate speech is an effect of one's hatred. What one hate's is usually the result of ignorance, or the inductive reasoning that follows several bad experiences with a particular person, or type of person.

It seems obvious and intuitive that when people are repeatedly exposed to hate speech, extreme political, racist or sexist views, or violent drama, and pornography, over time that they would slowly adopt these views or accept the depicted behavior as normal and/or appropriate. — Bitter Crank

Isn't this the real problem - of people only listening to what confirms their biases and don't question what it is that they hear? The best way to combat things like this is through challenging those ideas in the arena a free ideas - through logic and reason.

Uh huh.... :-d

I am not making a commitment about the method of science I am attacking the notion that it is the only explanatory framework and that problems will all eventually be solved.I don't agree with your characterisation of science. It may attempt to explain things but it doesn't have to be committed to simplicity or causal closure. — Andrew4Handel

What would another explanatory framework look like if reason and logic aren't the only one's to get at the truth?

Philosophy is not asking questions about things that have already been solved. Again you seem to be basing your paradigm around the successes of science which is like only focusing on white swans to draw conclusions about black swans.
I feel you are just ignoring or misrepresenting a lot of what I said. I have been explicit that the problems which may invoke gods are explanatory gaps and unsolved problems. — Andrew4Handel

Then you don't know philosophy. Philosophy tends to especially question our deepest held solutions.

I think science definitely imposes assumptions on evidence because that is unavoidable. We would not need science if the evidence spoke for it self. — Andrew4Handel

That is what science does, but you just said that it doesn't have to be committed to simplicity.

Again, what would evidence of god look like? Stop avoiding the questions.

Your post suggests that 1) transwomen are men and that 2) it isn't violence to tell the truth. We're probably never going to agree about 1), so let's address 2):

Is telling a fat and ugly person that they're fat and ugly a form of violence? If we accept that the term "violence" covers psychological violence, and not just physical violence, then I think it is a form of violence. It's certainly something people say to bully. — Michael

Correction. My post suggest that transwomen are men that think that they are women. What is the difference between a transwoman and a man who thinks he is a woman to you?

Come on, Michael. I know you're smarter than that. "Ugly" is a subjective term, first of all, so let's dispense with that, and focus on, "fat". We have measuring sticks for measuring obesity, but not for measuring ugliness.

Is it not violent to allow themselves to keep being fat? What about calling them, "obese"? Does that have a less offensive tone to it? Is it violent to tell a person starving themselves because they think they are fat that they aren't in order to save their life? You seem to think that every time someone uses these words they intend to be insulting, just like you seem to think that someone is trying to be insulting to a person who thinks they are a woman, by telling them that they are a man who thinks they are a woman, not actually a woman. One is trying to help another out by showing them the truth. It's something people CAN say to bully, but not necessarily. That's the problem. You all tend to think that because someone doesn't agree with you, they are being offensive.

What's being attacked if the metaphor of violence is to be used is a part of the self that is essential to self-understanding (not so for all assumptions), extremely socially vulnerable (unlike most religious beliefs) and not a simple delusion (hallucinations etc). — Baden

First of all, you need to school yourself in the difference between delusions and hallucinations. All knowledge is essential to self-understanding, and getting it right (true knowledge) is even more essential. What is being attacked is an assumption. What basis does anyone claim that they are a man or a woman, when they physically aren't?

People who are delusional are extremely vulnerable to their delusion being questioned. They become humorless, offended, etc. that their premise is being questioned. That is the symptom of a delusion.

Then why are you referring to me as, "you", and refering to your post as, "my"? It seems like you don't even understand yourself. Dumb, dumb, stupid-dumb. Stop avoiding my questions.

I was responding to a different argument by you and arguing that alternative causal explanations would count as evidence against gods.
Every time you discovered a parent had taken a tooth from under a pillow that would be evidence that a tooth fairy was not involved there.

However white swans were not evidence against black swans but they were taken to be..... It was a misinterpretation of evidence. It is actually easier to find evidence against a notion of God (ironically?). I think philosophers who invoke science against God are using a smoke screen as if everything counts as evidence for their perspective but without an explicit argument so that it is more liking using white swans as counter evidence..

Gods could become causally unnecessary but still exist. The disputed claim is whether they are really causally dispensable. By causally here I am referring to the deist conception of gods which translates more as a cause, an intelligence, a motive, a reason, law giver and so on.

Personally I don'think the scientific paradigm is adequate to answer every question. It is this rather than the god issue, I am attacking. I also want a world that is more based on uncertainty rather than dogmatism and where uncertainty is acknowledged. — Andrew4Handel

This is all based on a complete misunderstanding of what science is and does. Science doesn't impose extra assumptions on the evidence. It simply explains phenomenon in the most basic, simplest way. It doesn't complicate things by creating explanations of the supernatural and god. If we ever get around to finding evidence of god, science would gladly change it's mind. Science is open to the idea of god, just as it is open to any other hypothesis, but we need evidence before we can even start down that fork in the road of proving it.

What would evidence of god look like?

What do you mean by an "I" having an effect? This is the question. Determinists stubbornly insist on a rather schizophrenic description of life, using concepts such as "I" and then turning around and denying it as an illusion. I have no problems with anyone choosing to adopt such a position, but why the heck do they insist that others have no choice to adopt a different position? We all have choices on the way we wish to live our lives. That is what life is all about. — Rich

:-} I never said "I" was an illusion. You're going on about something I never said, and decided to ignore 99% of my post, where I asked you a question that you keep avoiding. You really need some help in staying focused.

Is Calling A Trans Woman A Man (Or Vice Versa) A Form Of Violence?

Is telling a schizophrenic their hallucinations aren't real a form of violence?

Is telling someone they aren't a vampire, when they believe they are, a form of violence?

Is telling a theist their god doesn't exist a form of violence?

Is questioning anyone's assumptions a form of violence?

Great. I'm glad nobody is going to call it an illusion anymore. Very happy to hear about this new development. — Rich

Even if it were an illusion, it would still be something that exists. A mirage is the effect of real processes that are explained in a consistent way.

Yes. Both phrases/terms refer to some outside mystical force of some type that has determined everything. — Rich

It's not just "outside" forces that determine everything. I have an effect on reality as well. You do too. Everyone does. Look at what groups of humans have done in changing the surface of the Earth. Natural Selection is a process of environmental feedback and we are all part of the environment. Natural.

What is the difference between a mystical explanation and a non-mystical explanation? — Harry Hindu

Mystical would be appeal to some outside forces that are omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, e.g. God and the Laws of Nature. — Rich

What would be non-mystical then?

The Laws of Nature are not omniscient, nor omnipotent. Those are attributes of gods only. It doesn't even make any sense to say that. Laws are explanations by humans of the way things are. There is just the way things are, and then human explanations of the way things are - laws being explanations with a high degree of certainty.

What do you mean by, "observe"? How does a mind observe a mind? What keeps us from observing other minds? — Harry Hindu

One can observe one's own mind by mediation. One just observes oneself. Other minds after overbearing by the patterns they create, e.g. an artist's painting or a written posting. All are manifestations of mind. — Rich

That doesn't explain what you mean by "observe", nor how a mind observes itself. You're just going in circles.
We don't observe other minds - only their manifestations (supposedly). So, where are, and what are minds and how can they be observed?

That is what it is. It is impossible to avoid it. Even in mediation, one is observing one's own Mind. The sole exception in my experiences is when one is unconscious it's in a non-dreaming, sleep state (if such a state exists)? — Rich

What do you mean by, "observe"? How does a mind observe a mind? What keeps us from observing other minds?

What is silly is denying one's own mind in favor of some mystical Laws of Nature that determine our lives. Totally absurd on so many levels. — Rich

No one is denying the existence of minds. What is being denied is your explanation of what mind is and how it comes to be.

If the laws of nature are mystical, then doesn't that make it compatible with religion as religious laws are mystical too. Is philosophy mystical? What is the difference between a mystical explanation and a non-mystical explanation?

If God is omnipotent, he can just change the laws, and the new system of laws would be the new logical system.

Does God make judgements? If so, then does it not use logic to do so? Does God create, or have a causal effect on the things around it? If so, then there is a logical process to the acts of God.

So it doesn't seem like a valid question to ask if God can defy logic, as God defines what is logical. There could never be such thing as God being illogical, or defying logic. God would be the source of what is logical, always.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

Realistically, in such a situation, the best you can say would be that you disagree with the Biblical Literalists, and that you don't understand what other Theists believe. Does your pride prevent you from admitting that there might be people whom you don't really know? — Michael Ossipoff

Let me say again, that I used to be a believer AND I have asked these questions to more believers than I can count because they are my family, most of my friends, and people who I don't really know but engage them on the internet in religious discussions. I have met pretty much every flavor of theist/spiritualist and asked them these questions and it's all the same. They fear questioning their beliefs for fear of being punished, or what happens after they die, or what happened to their loved ones who have passed on. All of you seem to act as if I was born yesterday. For the record, I wasn't. I'm probably older than most of you and have probably asked these questions of more theists than most of you. Theists don't tend to ask these questions of other theists.

If someone can't clearly define something, why would you believe in it?!

The fact is that any definition of God is preposterous and inconsistent. Why could it no be that highly intelligent aliens had a hand in our evolution on this planet, by playing "god"? How do we know that what believers call "God" is really a god? What makes one a god?

Here's a hint: Religion isn't about proof, argument, logic, convincing or teaching. It's more a matter of impressions, and not everyone's impressions are the same as yours. And no, that doesn't make your impressions superior. — Michael Ossipoff

Exactly. Religion isn't about truth. It's about making one feel better in the face of all life's unfairness. Who would you believe more, or who would you say has a better case - the prosecutor that uses evidence and logic to find the criminal, or the prosecutor that uses "impressions"? That is part of my point - that theists use logic and reason for pretty much figuring out everything else, but throw that out the window when contemplating god. Why is that and why the inconsistency?

You're totally wrong about religion not being about convincing or teaching. Proselytizing is part of the religious playbook.

And I'm not the one starting threads attacking theists. They are the ones starting threads questioning atheists and the use of logic itself, as if they never used it and found it useful in finding truths!

But you don't know most Theists, though you seem to claim to know enough about them to evaluate them.

Maybe admit that you don't know? ...and maybe concern yourself instead with your own beliefs, investigations, study, etc.

Why this need to evaluate others? — Michael Ossipoff

Of course I can evaluate them. Like I said, I was one and am surrounded by them. You don't know most atheists and yet you make these blanket accusations, as if you do. Take some your own advice.

And if we should worry ourselves about our own beliefs, then why participate in a philosophy forum. What it seems to me is that you simply don't want to hear opposing viewpoints - a symptom of being delusional.

You could decide something was non existent because it was totally dispensable, or illogical.
You could for example say that a square circle couldn't exist or you could say a law of nature ruled out flying pigs etc. You don't need to believe in a tooth fairy for instance when you know it was a parent that took the tooth.

I think the point at which you could say there was no need for a god, was when everything was causally explained including things like semantics and mental representation and laws of nature etc.

I think explanatory gaps do allow for positing new entities. I just think that some hidden assumptions in philosophers works are insufficiently justified. — Andrew4Handel

According to your own "black swan argument" there could still be a tooth fairy even though you know the parent took the tooth.

Ever since we started to use science to explain nature and our places in it, the prior religious explanations of weather, crop failure, diseases, etc. have been replaced with better explanations. Science continues to relegate religious explanations. Scientific explanations have provided us much more useful knowledge that we can use to better our lives.

Cherry-picking my post doesn't help your argument. When you decide to respond to my whole post, we can continue.

There was no evidence of black swans in Europe but absence of evidence didn't mean evidence of absence. I am not talking about giving equal wait to basic claims but to arguments.Arguments for gods like fine-tuning and first cause do not apply to unicorns etc.

The equivalent evidence arguments would be a paw print in the snow which is indirect evidence. Indirect evidence creates a weaker commitment in my opinion but some atheists seem only to be looking for direct immediate evidence of gods when there are other forms of evidence.

I have not ruled out unicorns but nothing important hinges on their existence. I find the ambiguity of evidence and a lack of knowledge unsettling personality I feel that positions of certainty may be defence mechanisms. — Andrew4Handel

If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of god is not obvious. The Bible even states "truly, you are a god who hides himself". If there is a god, where is he, she or it? Some say that the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. I disagree. If something is truly non-existent, then the only evidence we could possible have for it's non-existence would be the absence of evidence for it's existence. While the absence of evidence is not proof, it is certainly evidence. If god is obvious, if god does exist and there is evidence for him, then why are we having this debate? We don't debate the existence of gravity, or the existence of our president, or if Saudi Arabia exists as a country. We know these things by evidence. If there is evidence of a god, then why are there unbelievers, why are there atheists? The existence of atheists is evidence that a god does not exist. It is not obvious to us atheists that such a god exists.

Another problem you have is that black swans are easily definable. We both would recognize a black swan if we saw one without ever having seen one before. Now try that with God. God hasn't been defined clearly and we've had 4000 years to do it. How would we know if we experienced God or not? What would be the evidence. Indirect evidence can be skewed to support one's own delusions. This is why you also need direct evidence. Without it, it would be illogical and unreasonable to change one's life or world view based on indirect evidence. I'd rather say, "I don't know." simply because that would be more accurate than to say that I do know that God exists.

That is the problem with most theists. They find it disconcerting to say, "I don't know." That is why they fill the gaps in their knowledge with God. I don't seem to have that fear of the unknown. I actually find the notion that we don't know exhilarating. It leaves room to make discoveries, which is what life is about.

I was a theist, and my family are theists, so I know I'm not misrepresenting them because I've asked them and many others. — Harry Hindu

Anecdotal evidence.

Where is the scientific evidence? Anti-theists always make claims like, "Religious people believe in God because it makes them feel good", but they never provide scientific evidence in support of such claims. Then they beat their chests and say that they are champions of science and its superior reliability. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Sheesh! Don't you read before posting nonsense like this? The evidence is the religious people's answers and reactions (angrily, hostile, scared) to questioning their beliefs. All you have to do is ASK theists why they believe what they believe. I have done that - more times than I can count, of so many people that I forget how many. Have you?

Are there any actual theists that will honestly answer the question of why they believe what they believe? All I'm getting are people who act like theists, but say they aren't, yet don't explain their own position. Go figure.

I'm not a theist, I've just moved beyond the anti-theism which resulted from my initial rebellion against my former beliefs. As I said, it's clear you have not, and it's still clouding your judgement. — JustSomeGuy

And as I said, twice but you are ignoring it that I didn't change my mind because I'm being rebellious. I did it because there were questions that just couldn't be answered in a consistent way. So I found a better way. Is every scientist that challenges the status quo being rebellious or simply trying to have an open-mind in order to get at the truth?

What does it even mean to move beyond anti-theism? Is that what you think I am - an anti-theist? I'm not. I'm simply someone that needs more evidence to believe something that others find so little need of evidence to believe in.

A similar issue is with God debates. I think some people are so committed to favouring gods non existence that they are not given equal weight to all arguments (but they don't explicitly state this). I suppose the difference is between looking for evidence of black swans and looking for evidence black swans don't exist (confirmation bias). — Andrew4Handel

The difference is the only evidence for God's existence are the words of human beings that have an emotional stake in their belief being true. Why don't we give equal weight to the positive claims of the existence of Thor, unicorns and Elvis being alive?

Is rational thought possible without language? — bioazer

Of course it is. How do you expect us to learn language if we weren't rational?

Similarly, is thought structured after our language? Do people speaking different languages think in inherently different ways? — bioazer

In order to learn a language, you need to have senses and a brain to interpret the sensory signals. Language is just visual scribbles and sounds (and tactile sensations with braille for the blind). To say that we think in our language is just saying that we think in visual scribbles and sounds. We can never escape our thoughts taking the forms that they do (visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory and olfactory).

My wife is bilingual. I asked her if she has to think differently when switching between speaking/writing Spanish and English. She said "No." Her native language is Spanish, yet she's very fluent in English. As a matter of fact, she's an English grade school teacher. She said that even though in Spanish, the noun comes before the adjective and in English it is the opposite, when she hears either language saying the same thing, the same concept comes into her mind. It doesn't require her to think differently to get at what is being said. She interprets what is being said by understanding the rules of the language that is being used.

You need to be very careful not to trade one God (God) for another (science). Many former theists do just that, and fail to see the irony and hypocrisy.

Accepting science without question is just as irrational as accepting the Bible without question. — JustSomeGuy

This is typical theist nonsense. Did you not read my posts where I explained how I arrived at science providing the best answers? It wasn't without questioning everything, rather because I did question everything.

Science questions itself and it's explanations are only placeholders for better explanations. Science is nothing like religion.

It's egotistical to claim that your singular life experience hasn't shown you an objective representation of billions of people?
I'm sorry, but claiming you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of billions of people because you think you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of a handful you've talked to is ridiculous. I'm surprised you don't see how irrational that is. In fact it's much more irrational than the belief in a deity.

You seem to be one of many people who have a bias against religion because you were raised religious and as a youth rebelled against it. It's very common for people who go through that experience to stay in that "rebellious" mindset for years, and indeed some never get past it. — JustSomeGuy

So it is rebellious to think logically and consistently? It does seem that way considering that most people don't seem to think that way.

I haven't spoken to just a handful of people about this. Your attempts to discredit my argument by claiming that I don't have the sufficient knowledge or experience to make that argument is ridiculous. Doctors and psychologists do it all the time.

You made the claim that belief in a deity is mental illness. Now you are implying that what you've been saying is that belief in a deity is irrational. By using these term interchangeably, you imply that they mean the same thing. Are you really saying that "irrational" is the same as "mental illness"? If so, we are all mentally ill. — JustSomeGuy

But we aren't always irrational. Religious people are only irrational when defending and explaining their delusion. That has all been posted before. You aren't paying attention.

Rereading what I wrote, I wasn't dismissive of your thoughts at all, I just disagreed with them. When I said you were dismissive, I was referring to the fact that you called theist's beliefs "delusions." — T Clark

I wasn't being dismissive. I was providing a scientific explanation for religious beliefs. Being dismissive would be to ignore the fact that anyone has an experience that they call religious. I'm not saying that they don't. I'm just saying that they are interpreting their experience wrongly.

This is more of the hubris I mentioned. It is infuriating to me when someone tries to explain my actions or beliefs in terms of their own preconceptions without knowing me. I'm not saying I'm angry at you, I am not a theist so your opinion here doesn't really apply to me, but if I were, I probably would be. — T Clark

And your anger would be part of the symptom of being delusional. Didn't you read the list of symptoms? Questioning your beliefs and providing a better explanation shouldn't make anyone angry if they are really trying to get at the truth. It would only make one angry if they have an emotional investment in their belief, the validity of which is being questioned.

Doctors, including psychologists, can explain your ailments, actions and beliefs based on their experience with other patients. The fact is that even though humans are different, we are also very similar.

Science's explanations aren't good enough for me either and, as I said, I am not a theist. I'm an engineer who loves physics. — T Clark

So, you disagree with what I have said, you'd get angry at calling your beliefs a delusion, and you don't think science provides good explanations, and you say that you aren't a theist? Mmmkkkkkay. If you really aren't a theist and don't want to explain yourself, and would rather just say, "I disagree.", without really explaining why you disagree, then I guess we are done here. Calling it hubris isn't disagreeing because you'd be calling all the doctors that diagnose people's physical and mental conditions by consulting others with similar conditions, hubris.

All I need is actual theists to respond to my posts and answer questions about why they believe what they believe. I find it strange that people who claim that they aren't theists are reacting so strongly to what I've proposed.

We are not emotionless, unfeeling computers. We are human animals with sometimes irrational, emotional, imperfect brains. Acting as though holding a belief that brings one joy or peace in this world full of suffering and pain is a mental illness shows both ignorance and a lack of maturity.

To be honest, though, you're misrepresenting theists in the first place. Who are you to say why all theists hold their theistic beliefs? That's an extremely egotistical claim to make, that you know why all of these people believe this silly thing (which you, of course, don't believe because you, of course, are not silly like they are). This, again, shows ignorance and a lack of maturity. — JustSomeGuy

I was a theist, and my family are theists, so I know I'm not misrepresenting them because I've asked them and many others. What is egotistical is to claim someone doesn't know what they are talking about when you don't know where they've come from and what knowledge they've acquired through life by asking the necessary questions, as I explained in the above post.

Of course we are emotional, and that is when we are irrational. That is my point - that when we consult our feelings rather than the empirical evidence and logic, we become irrational, and irrationality doesn't get at the truth. It only makes you feel better.

It takes a bit of hubris to think you can explain the motivations of billions of people with whom you disagree in a single dismissive sentence. To think that you're right and most everyone else is completely wrong sounds like a delusion to me. I'm not a theist but it's clear to me you are wrong in your assessment. — T Clark

It is you that is being too dismissive because you don't understand my background and my experiences.

I used to be a believer. I was raised by a religious family. I was surrounded by like-minded believers. As I reached my late teens I began to see inconsistencies and began to realize that I wasn't always right in my thinking and beliefs. I realized that getting at the truth would mean that I would have to put my emotions aside and simply go where the evidence leads me and without trying to expand on any explanation without a good reason for it (Occam's Razor).

It was scary at first. It meant that my existence might be finite, and if that were true, it made me a bit depressed, because I really didn't want to cease to exist and I wanted to be believe that my dead loved-ones still existed somewhere where we'd meet again. There was also the fear of eternal damnation.

What I began to notice was that religion itself tended to scare you into not thinking differently - that to do so would be punishable by eternal torture. I think it was the inconsistent morality of God that really got me questioning things. I also began to realize that there were many more competing religions and ideas, and that human beings were wrong about a great many things and tended to use "group think" (mass delusion), and accepted the beliefs from the culture they developed in, without ever questioning why they believe it.

I asked a lot of questions of my family and friends and received no good answers that made any sense. I explored other religions and other ideas and eventually found that science provided the best explanations and even admitted that it was wrong and accepted alternate explanations that were even better and were consistent with the rest of what we know.

When I questioned the existence of God to other believers, they would respond with questions like, "Well, what happens after we die?" and "Then, how did everything get here?". By asking these questions, they are exposing their premises that they expect to live forever, and that their loved-ones still exist, and that the universe must have a creator and therefore a purpose for it and them. There is also the fear of eternal torture that is brought up. Religion scares people into believing it and it allows a small group of people to more easily control a larger group of people. Religion is a mass delusion.

Science has begun to get at these questions and even questions about consciousness. But these explanations aren't good enough for the theist because it doesn't make them feel important. Many people correlate their having a grand purpose with their importance as an individual. They want to matter in the grand scheme of things and to the greatest entity to exist, God. God's existence proves that they have a grand purpose and that they are more important than being a collection of cells that will eventually die.

Just look at the responses to the non-belief in the supernatural and God on these forums. They are often met with statements equivalent to, "I don't like that idea.", as if the truth is beholden to what they like, or how it makes them feel.

It is interesting that the list of symptoms does not specify that the belief is false.

Suppose someone is being followed by the secret police in a country where such things happen and where nobody dares talk about them for fear of persecution. He would probably have all the symptoms listed. But he would not have a delusion. — Cuthbert

Every time that it mentions the word, "delusion", it is implying that the belief is false. That is what a delusion is - a false belief.

The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background. — Harry Hindu


You said it. Not me. — TheMadFool

First, I didn't say it, Wikipedia did.

Second, I didn't bold that particular line, so it doesn't even come into play.

Third, and finally, if a delusion was an idea that is out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background, then that means that every new denomination or sect of an existing religion that forms is a delusion. This means that Jesus was delusional because his ideas were out of keeping with the social and cultural background he found himself in.

Obviously, thinking differently isn't a symptom of a delusion. It is thinking illogically on purpose, and only in a particular case or for a particular belief, in order to avoid the logical truth, that is a delusion.

Think, people, before posting your comments.

Last I remember Delusion was defined as a strongly held belief that isn't in agreement with the current knowledge and culture. A belief that resists change despite strong counterevidene.

By that definition Theism, being part of culture, is NOT a delusion and so is NOT a mental illness. — TheMadFool

A delusion is NOT a belief that isn't in agreement with the current knowledge and culture. Here is a list of symptoms from Wikipedia. I've bolded the pertinent information, which is almost all of it.
The following can indicate a delusion:

The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background.
The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

Additional features of delusional disorder include the following:

It is a primary disorder.
It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.
The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.
The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.
The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.
The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged.


The part I underlined shows that delusional people can still function normally and think logically, but throw that logic out the window when it comes to contemplating the veracity of their delusion.

It seems more and more people all the time are coming to think that any idea or belief that they themselves do not hold is a mental illness or evil or just plain wrong. The near future of western civilization doesn't look to be very bright. — JustSomeGuy

No, it's not that it's an idea that we don't agree with that makes it a delusion. It's the fact that the beliefs theists hold are held onto because it ultimately makes them feel good and feel important. We were never guaranteed that the truths of reality will be something we like, or makes us feel good. In fact, if you wish to measure someone's lack of delusion, just ask them how many unwelcome beliefs they have.

I want to believe that I will exist forever, but the evidence contradicts that. I want to believe that everyone will get what they deserve in the end but the evidence contradicts that as well. While I want to believe these things, I know that they can't be true because of the evidence. When we eliminate these wants for these particular ideas, where is God?

i think what is most interesting about this is, who is making decisions? if every decision that is made is just a product of sub conscious that's very odd because everything that you have done up until this point has been chosen by something that you're not even aware of. the sub conscious is what acts first but it acts without your contribution and so what does this mean for us? are we even able to make a choice? — David Solman

I find it very strange to say that you aren't making decisions, when YOUR subconscious is making decisions.

I think we do make conscious decisions as well as sub- or, unconscious, ones. I think one of the reasons consciousness evolved in humans was because it provides fault tolerance for those sub- and/or unconscious decisions (instincts). There are often times where those instinctive decisions would produce dire consequences in complex social environments. Conscious decisions provides that extra layer of fault tolerance and reasoning, allowing one to override some of those instinctive responses, and to be able to fine-tune one's responses to it's environment.

This also provides the feeling of turning one's awareness back on yourself - of observing one's own behavioral responses for the purpose of fine-tuning the decision-making process.

As non-beliefism had long underlined, one need not omniscience to avoid belief, and by extension, avoiding belief does not necessitate that one is correct on every matter. — ProgrammingGodJordan

If you don't have omniscience, then what do you have if not beliefs, or models of the way things are, (which according to your own definition of belief as a model means that you have beliefs if you have models, right?)? To say that you have non-beliefs is similar to saying that you have omniscience, or true knowledge. But I already showed you the problem of saying that you have knowledge.

Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence".

In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis. — ProgrammingGodJordan

You're taking skepticism and open-mindedness and renaming it "non-beliefism".

Is that really the problem here? I think all kinds of conversations are productive without terms being defined. In my view it's the social dynamic that's fouled up here. PGJ is being silly.

Defining terms has its limits too, does it not? Because we define terms with still other terms and so on and so on. On some level people just have to (1) speak the same language and (2) actually like or respect one another enough to work through ambiguity.

Or so I see it. — dog

Words require consistent definitions that are agreed upon by those within the social dynamic. This is why the social dynamic is fouled up, because the terms haven't been clearly defined.

Defining terms can be done by showing other words, or showing you the thing the words refer to. Words refer to things, which might, or might not be other words.

Dictionary definitions (and research) had long been provided in the OP.
And contrary to your claim, apart from the sources provided in the OP, definitions (and research) were underlined several times throughout the duration of this debate.
Advice: You need to actually observe the OP and the 14 pages you claimed to have read, before "confidently" posting invalid responses. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Belief (by definition and research) is a model, that permits both science, and non-science. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Knowledge is a model too. When we find that our knowledge was wrong, did we really possess knowledge or was it only a belief?

Many psychologists view belief as an unscientific term that deserves to be phased out. Contradictory and ambiguous definitions may be to blame for this attitude. However, knowledge is even less well defined. For example, a skeptic would claim that we can never know we know anything. If this is the case, then knowledge is merely a well-supported belief that we falsely ascribe the comforting notion of certainty to.

14 pages of discussion and no one has defined belief or knowledge. How can anyone even continue this discussion in any meaningful way when neither has been clearly defined? The reason why it has continued without any clear argument being made is because neither term has been clearly defined. As usual, philosophical discussions fail to get at anything useful because the terms haven't been defined in any useful way.

That it claims to be scientific where it is simply just another faith. It has its dogma (everything is material), its God (the Laws of Nature), and its Genesis (the Big Bang). All in all, it's a manufactured religion no different from any other. — Rich

You're confusing religion with science. If you really don't know the difference, then there's no point in continuing a conversation with you.

Have you read OP? I explain the problem there so I cannot help it unless you tell me what part you don't understand. — bahman

Did you read my reply? I explain the problem with the OP there so I cannot help it unless you tell me what part you don't understand.

The mind is a form of working memory. Working memory includes the aspect of attention, or a central executive - the thing that wanders around the mind focusing on, or amplifying, certain signals, or qualia, that are relevant to accomplishing some goal.

I voted other.

Numbers are real, and establish causal relationships, and exist in space and time. Numbers exist as little scribbles or sounds that refer to a quantity. Numbers exist in space and time as little scribbles and sounds, and also the quantity they refer to exist in space and time. Some number has a different causal effect than some other number. If you need 100 points to win a game, you keep playing until you get 100 points, at which point you stop playing and start a new game.

Materialism is a system of belief which claims that everything is constituted of matter and behavior of matter can be described by laws of nature. — bahman

I would like to know of any other system of explanation that doesn't do the same thing: to claim that everything is composed of some thing, or is made of some primary substance and that the behavior of that substance can be described by the laws of reality, or nature, god, or whatever you want to call everything.

It seems to me that every anti-materialist on these forums is doing the same thing the materialist is doing: trying to claim that everything is composed of one substance and then going on to explain how those things behave according to some rule or law.

So what is it that you really have against "materialism"?

My life has always been guided by the fact that I take pride in living by way of induction. For example, if something has happened over and over in the past, I've felt it were perfectly rational to believe this thing has a high probability of happening again in the same way (say 98%), and if anyone believes contrary to that - say they believe something new will happen - I've looked down on them. I believe that the past definitely predicts the future.

But a few years ago, I came across the Wiki article on Hume's Problem of Induction, and it basically says Hume disbelieved in this probability idea. He believes that even if something happens literally over and over again, every day, it's not "more probable" that this thing will happen again tomorrow. My mind is absolutely and utterly blown. I can't comprehend it. It completely goes against everything I know and always took pride in. — Shane

Something happening over and over again isn't the cause of it happening again. There is another cause that leads us to experience some effect. If that cause is happening, then of course the same effect will happen over and over again.

When any prediction fails, we end up coming up with a new explanation that doesn't contradict or go against, rather it compliments, existing theories about other things.

To say that something might not happen the same way again is also derived from our experiences of making failed predictions. Again, we would be applying induction in order to make an argument against induction - that the effect might not occur based on past experiences of making failed predictions. We simply make predictions - some of which we expect to fail and some of which we don't.

Sure, it makes sense that it's not 100% probable (I think of Russell's chicken story), but to say it isn't any more probable at all... that seems wrong. How would any of us live if we believed that the past doesn't predict the future? We'd commit the same mistakes over and over. How would you learn anything? How would science progress? To me, if something happens over and over again, day by day, it's totally safe to assume that the probability is higher that it will happen the same way tomorrow than not. After all, the proof seems to be that if nothing has changed, why would something new happen? — Shane

Exactly. Failure, or making mistakes is how we learn. I would love to hear those arguing that induction isn't a good means of acquiring knowledge, especially new knowledge, explain how we can learn anything without induction. Do we not need to verify claims of knowledge by testing them?

Perfect. Then we agree that what makes us feel good and what is true can be two distinctly different things, and to try and contradict or question someone's truth claim based on the fact that it doesn't make you feel good, would be an error.