Good for you. What about the truth of the finitude of existence, suffering and death? I'm sure you hope that truths didn't exist? — TheMadFool

What I hope and what the truth is are two different things. It seems that many people on this forum can distinguish between the two. Which one were we talking about again?

Not always. Lies can be comforting too. Let's just say that the issue is quite complex. We need to be in touch with reality (know truths) to survive and evade pain but to be happy we sometimes need the odd lie, lies about our looks, our sexual prowess, our intelligence, our worth in society, etc. — TheMadFool

Not me. I want the truth - always. My feelings are secondary to the truth.

It's not prejudiced. New Atheism is actually recognised as entirely childish and not worthy of intellectual respect. It's so intellectually dishonest, I wouldn't even give it a second glance. They don't even understand what they're talking about. And that's a fact. Anyone who understands theism - even if they are an atheist and disagree with it - will actually agree. — Agustino

I don't know what New Atheism is and how it is different from just atheism. Is what I've been arguing "New" atheism, or just atheism? I don't know of any "new" way of rejecting claims that can't be falsified.

:s so you think a scientifically-minded atheist would not be afraid in that situation? Fear is a normal reaction when strange, out of order events happen. That event was out of order. If the elevator stops, electricity goes out, and then you find that another random person is inside the elevator who wasn't there before wouldn't you be scared? I'd be very scared, and I might even attack that person out of fear. Becuase I just wouldn't know what happened. Maybe someone hijacked the elevator, some psycho, and they're trying to kill me. How am I supposed to know in just a few seconds reaction time?

I wouldn't necessarily assume it was a ghost, but by all extents something abnormal is happening. I would definitely assume that.

Isn't it because they already accepted the premise of spirits, devils, angels, gods, etc. and THAT influences how they interpret their experiences, which is no different than your interpretation of your experiences? — Harry Hindu

No. It's because an event that they didn't expect - actually multiple events that they didn't expect - happened all at once. So they were confused and afraid because they couldn't understand what was happening. Anyone would be afraid, regardless of religious convictions. — Agustino

You're forgetting that the "other random person" was a little girl, not a big scary dude.

If it were me, I wouldn't react that way. I may be confused at first, but not fearful. I would then begin looking for an explanation as to how the child got into the elevator. Because I know that ghosts and zombies aren't real, I would probably start to think this was a prank.

Things happen all the time that I don't expect, but that doesn't make me fearful. It makes me inquisitive.

I cannot give you evidence, as I said evidence is found in your own experiences. — Agustino

Watch this video. This video was done in Brazil, which has the largest number of Catholics in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUD4cuTQn2E

The people in the elevator experienced something different than what a scientifically-minded atheist would experience. Why?

Isn't it because they already accepted the premise of spirits, devils, angels, gods, etc. and THAT influences how they interpret their experiences, which is no different than your interpretation of your experiences? You're simply misconstruing the meaning of your experience based on a faulty premise.

Depends what the terms are in question are

So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life? — Harry Hindu

That's not non-existent things. I imagine they must make predictions based on the planets and stars that the state of my life. Those predictions can be verified, once you understand what they are and what they mean.. — Agustino

Let's pick some astrological terms then:
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/astro_gloss.html
Take your pick.

Looking at those terms, is seems to me that astronomers, use many of those terms as well, and would know what they mean. It's only astrologers that add more "meaning", that can't be falsified, and therefore can't be predicted. Horoscopes are to general to mean anything. Reading horoscopes of other signs that I am not indicate that I share traits of all of them, not just one.

And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? — Harry Hindu

Depends on the particular person. Study time is necessary to know better, but not also sufficient.

And I doubt they'd disagree. As it has already been said by multiple people in this thread, there is a mystical core that all religions agree to in one way or another. They may disagree about the path to get there, but not about the destination. — Agustino

This is an appeal to popularity - a logical fallacy (tell me how you are using reason to get at your truths again). At one point in history, most people believed the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Did that make them right? This is just evidence of a mass delusion. Most humans fear death, including atheists. It's just atheists have rejected or haven't succumbed to the delusion the fear feeds. We accept our finite existence and get on with our lives as atheists understand better than any theist the value of life. An afterlife diminishes the value of this life, the only one we have. Imagine how much more precious this life is without an afterlife.

I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it. — Agustino

And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? Your argument suggests that they know better what the term, "God" refers to. You seem unwilling to admit that there are others that have studied "God" more than you and have come up with a different idea of God, or that it doesn't exist at all - a symptom of a grandiose delusion.

Know WHAT better than others? What the field-specific terms refer to? They know that better than others because they frequently use those terms and try to understand them. — Agustino

So, they know what the terms mean, which is to say that what they refer to, but the things that they refer to aren't real, wouldn't you agree? So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life?

Whether it's real knowledge or not doesn't change the fact that they do know better than those who don't study astrology what astrology-specific terms mean or refer to. — Agustino

A contradiction.
If it's not real knowledge, then how can you say that they know better than others?

Bodies age in this world, as things stand now. We don't know how it will be in the afterlife. — Agustino

That didn't answer my question about what age we will be when ressurrected. Why wouldn't it be different, if our bodies are still the same, just ressurrected - whatever that actually means?

What makes you think you or Hanover know better what "God" refers to? I cited reasons for making this claim, so that's by all means not a delusion. Do you disagree that the fact that I spend more time than both of you combined studying this topic likely means I know more about it than both of you combined? — Agustino

Citing reasons doesn't mean that it isn't a delusion. Delusional people cite reasons for the beliefs all the time in order to maintain the delusion.

Do people who study astrology really know more that those that don't? You might say that they know more about astrology, but is it real knowledge?

The problem is that you assume superiority in your position. — Hanover

A symptom of a grandiose delusion.

I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it. — Agustino

It looks like he still doesn't see his problem, Hanover. He knows better what the word "God" refers to, you ignorant dolt.

I devoted my entire first half of my life to God. I was saved, baptized, read the Bible, went to church, and I still ended up rejecting it when I opened my mind to other alternatives, which included other religions, philosophies and science, that didn't carry all this unnecessary and contradictory baggage. How do you, Agustino, explain how people who have studied it, come to different conclusions?

The only way to receive salvation is to experience what you experience, which means to see things the way I see them. — Harry Hindu

I don't see how the last part follows. — Agustino

Then you need to explain your distinction between seeing and experiencing.

I didn't say all atheists will receive salvation or can receive salvation. — Agustino

Exactly. My point is that in order to receive salvation, one must experience things the way you experience them. In other words, we must simply accept your own understanding of your own experiences and hope that ours is like yours without fully knowing what your experience is.

In order to know what "water" means, you must experience water no? That's no delusion, that's quite sensible. — Agustino

Sure, now try that with god. What kind of experience should I have to know that it is god?

Yes, until the bodily resurrection of the dead. — Agustino

What age will we be when ressurected? Bodies age, will we continue to age?

What about what happened before we were born? Were we non-existent? What is the point of being born and to die just to be ressurected? How did you come by this information? Have you asked any of these questions of yourself, or do you simply believe in this stuff unquestioningly?

Same thing. I made no reference to you when I said non-believers can receive salvation. — Agustino

You said atheists can even receive salvation. I consider myself an atheist. The only way to receive salvation is to experience what you experience, which means to see things the way I see them.

What you are saying is no different than fundamentalists Muslisms, who say that you have to experience things the way the do in order to receive salvation. What you are saying is that you have the truth in your experiences - and that in order to get at the truth, you have to experience what I experience - a symptom of a delusion.

So take the attitude that us Eastern Orthodox have with regards to conversion. We say come and see for yourself - try it out. "Taste and see that the Lord is good". Without that experience, you cannot know. — Agustino

What does it mean to "come and see for yourself"? Try what out?

Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by seeing things the way I see them. — Harry Hindu

I didn't make the underlined comment. — Agustino

You did say to "come and see for yourself". I don't understand the distinction you are making between seeing and experiencing.

I'll re-prhase, but that doesn't take away from my point:

Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by experiencing things the way I experience them. If that's not a symptom of a grandiose delusion, I don't know what is.

So what about the Christian God is inconsistent with our knowledge? — Agustino

Let's start with our moral codes. People call the Christian God loving, yet the Bible shows otherwise. If hell exists, that also shows that it isn't loving.

Keep in mind that religion is also a communal activity - that's one of the reasons for being a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist and not an independent seeker. I think it's best for people to delve deeper in the religion of their country, wherever they happened to be born. It is their tradition, and they are most equipped to understand it and progress most fully in it, rather than switch. — Agustino

In other words, Christianity is a mass delusion perpetuated by the culture. By surrounding yourself with people with like-minds reinforces those beliefs, but it doesn't prove them.

God is a referent to something or someone that can be experienced. So I know that my God is the right God because I experienced Him. This isn't to say that the Christian God is the real God, and the Muslim God is the false God, etc. No. The word "God" in all religions refers to the same underlying reality, approached through different manners and understood to different extents. Catholicism for example freely admits that salvation is possible for Muslims, for Buddhists, and even for atheists. I had a post about it in this thread earlier. And Eastern Orthodoxy admits the same.

So take the attitude that us Eastern Orthodox have with regards to conversion. We say come and see for yourself - try it out. "Taste and see that the Lord is good". Without that experience, you cannot know. — Agustino

LOL. Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by seeing things the way I see them. You've just proved my point.

My claims are with regards to the cumulation of my experiences, which includes time spent studying Christianity, the Bible, Buddhism, mysticism, philosophy, and other such subjects. So I am trying to convey you my experiences through words. I cannot make you, through those words, to have the same experiences. You have to do the work yourself, as it were. — Agustino

Exactly, you have already accepted the premise unquestioningly and made it your life's work to study this particular god.

If all you have to go on is other people's words, then how is it that you don't believe in other gods, or everything anyone says, for that matter? What of their experiences of different things than what you experience? How do you explain why we experience things differently?

I cannot give you evidence, as I said evidence is found in your own experiences. God isn't something or someone that can be shown in a photograph, the way I'd show you a gazelle, or a black swan. And even then, you could say that the photograph doesn't correspond to something that exists in reality, but was altered with Photoshop, etc. So some faith is inescapable to live in the world. Whatsoever knowledge is transmitted to you requires some faith to be accepted. — Agustino

No, it requires logic and reason - by integrating all knowledge into a consistent whole. God doesn't use faith and neither do we when determining someone's guilt or innocence. Faith is accepting a premise unquestioningly - a symptom of a delusion.

I have not found evidence that unicorns exist, but there might be horses with horns somewhere in the Universe, how am I supposed to know there aren't? :s However, whether there are or not, isn't very relevant to my life. Whether there is a God, on the other hand, is a lot more relevant. — Agustino

Fair enough. I admit that that was a bad example. I can admit that I'm wrong. You have yet to do that - a symptom of being delusional.

Let's use another example. How do you know that your god is the right god? There have been so many devised by human beings. There may be evidence that a god other than any devised by humans exists, so why don't you change your behavior based on that? Isn't it because you were raised in a family that believes in that particular kind of god?

A true falsehood is if you believe that your brother had sex with your wife (for example) and you rush and kill him, even though he hasn't actually done it.

A regular falsehood is when you're delusional because of high fever and want to commit suicide, and I tell you that this pill is a euthanasia pill, while in truth it's just an anti-anxiety medication. I have told you a lie, and you will act according to the lie, but it is not a true falsehood because you don't misinterpret the correct nature of reality - which you would do if you were to commit suicide. — Agustino

I wouldn't believe the my brother had sex with my wife without evidence. Your words are evidence, but not proof. When someone claims something, I need more evidence.

If God uses the clear-cut evidence of my thoughts and actions to judge me, then where is the clear-cut evidence of God's existence? To design me with ignorance and then show no evidence of God's existence and then judge me based on that when God doesn't need to rely on faith that I'm a believer, is hypocritical.

Yes, until the bodily resurrection of the dead. — Agustino

In other words, you made up a story, for which the only evidence is an ancient book written by people with no access to the knowledge we have today, and is filled with slavery and murdering people who's only "crime" was believing in a different God. Is The Lord of the Rings evidence that elves exist?

Are people who never heard of God and hell delusional? Once they hear of God and hell, but see no evidence for it and reject it makes them delusional?

Did you read, for example, Genesis? Before they sinned, Adam and Eve did have bodies. So the body in its natural state is holy, it is meant to be a temple for the spirit, and together the two form the person. — Agustino

So then death is really the end then?

Because, how do you know there isn't any evidence? — Agustino

?
How do you know there isn't any evidence that unicorns exist? Do you live your life based on all the claims that have no evidence? Why do you change your behavior based on just one claim that has no evidence, and not all the others, which have the same amount of evidence - none?

You change your behavior based on the IF of God's existence, but not the IF that unicorns exist?

You're missing a very important point. There is no evidence of God's existence. Delusions are covering up things for which there is evidence, with things for which there is no evidence.

Are people who never heard of God and hell delusional? Once they hear of God and hell, but see no evidence for it and reject it make them delusional?

You paint a dismal picture. If I may say so I think you're being too scientific. Science is great but it's not the only stuff we have to play with. What about religion? Of course we need to delete some of the icky stuff like slavery, human sacrifice, etc. but the possibility of a creator, all good and loving, can and does uplift some souls. — TheMadFool

So, truth is what makes us feel good?

grandiose (I am a eternal spirit and the body is just a faulty copy of myself (imposter)) — Harry Hindu

So you don't believe that you are an eternal spirit and that the body is just a faulty (sinful) copy of yourself? If eternal spirits don't need bodies to exist, then what it the point of a body? What is the point of a soul when all that does is make me a faulty copy of myself?

Grandiose type: delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator. — Harry Hindu


This type seems to sum you up quite well, but I'm sure you won't see that irony. — Buxtebuddha

No. Questioning someone's premise for which there is no evidence is not indicative of having a grandiose delusion. It IS indicative of having delusions if you go about believing in things, unquestioningly, for which there is no evidence in order to make you feel better in the face of things for which there is evidence.

I see you're not very cultured. It's a conditional statement. If X is true, then Y. Do you know the truth conditions of a conditional statement? Obviously not, because if you did, you would know that if X is false, then the conditional X -> Y is still true. — Agustino

It's not a matter of being cultured. I was a believer the first half of my life. It's a matter of being logical and reasonable.

IF hell exists, would I be afraid of it? Sure, I'd be afraid of hell, the God that wants to put me there for the simple infraction of not believing in it's existence, and of people like you who agree that I should be put there for not believing in their stories for which there is no evidence.

Isn't the existence of hell a big IF? You say that you don't accept it's existence unquestioningly, but if you are changing your behavior as a result of you believing it does exist, then that is a true symptom of a delusion. You are changing your behavior based on an IF, for which there is no evidence of it's existence.

If eternal hell exists and if you are someone who is likely to be in hell in the afterlife, would hell be something to be afraid of? Yes or no? — Agustino

You're asking me if I'm afraid of an "if"?

OK, so let's examine two claims, which are actually competing theories, which utilise identical equations:

1. Underlying reality does not exist. The equations are purely epistemic.

2. Underlying reality does exist. The equations correspond to elements of reality.

Here we have a genuine situation where your criterion of accuracy is both philosophically and scientifically useless.

And of course we have the age-old ideas:

1. Only my mind exists.

2. There exists a Reality independent of my mind.

Science can't help you with that one. — tom

Actually, infants have already solved this problem when they acquire Object Permanence.

If 1. is true, then you are saying that you only exist as words on a screen, as that is how you appear to me. Is that what you are saying? If 1. is true, I assure you that your mind doesn't exist and only mine does as I never experience another mind, only words on a screen. You, however would argue the opposite, so it seems that 1. defeats itself. Realism doesn't seem to have that problem.

So it seems to me that you want to say that I hold beliefs solely for the purpose of alleviating the fear of death. Correct? — Agustino

Not solely. You hold your beliefs for the purpose of alleviating the stress of knowing the world is a certain way that you don't like or agree with. Also, to make yourself feel more meaningful, more special, than your really are.

There are several types of delusions, which religion seems to overlap:

Again from Wikipedia:

Erotomanic type (erotomania): delusion that another person, often a prominent figure, is in love with the individual. The individual may breach the law as he/she tries to obsessively make contact with the desired person.
Grandiose type: delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator.
Jealous type: delusion that the individual's sexual partner is unfaithful when it is untrue. The patient may follow the partner, check text messages, emails, phone calls etc. in an attempt to find "evidence" of the infidelity.
Persecutory type: This delusion is a common subtype. It includes the belief that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way. The patient may believe that he/she has been drugged, spied upon, harassed and so on and may seek "justice" by making police reports, taking court action or even acting violently.
Somatic type: delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition
Mixed type: delusions with characteristics of more than one of the above types but with no one theme predominating.
Unspecified type: delusions that cannot be clearly determined or characterized in any of the categories in the specific types.

So religious beliefs would be a mixed type encompassing a degree of erotomanic (God loves me and is interested in my life), grandiose (I am a eternal spirit and the body is just a faulty copy of myself (imposter)), and maybe a bit of persecutory (War on Christmas when there is no war on Christmas).

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. — Harry Hindu

Let's start with this one: Do you not accept your premise unquestioningly (that God, the afterlife, the supernatural, spirits, etc., exist) which then has an influence on how you interpret your experiences - that these experiences are "spiritual"?

- yes, quoting the dictionary certainly does make my point very well. You don't understand what ANY of those synonyms mean in the context of diagnosing a psychiatric condition. — Agustino

It seems that you don't know what any of those words mean in the context of THIS conversation.

No you haven't. You said I suffer of delusions. What does that mean? Do you mean the medical condition known as delusions? Yes or no? — Agustino

I mean that you hold beliefs that alleviate the stress of knowing you will die and cease to exist. In other words, you cover up reality with your nice beliefs in order to feel better about your finite existence.