(Religion=Delusion) = Delusion

[lightgigantic]

LG, do you as a Hindu believe in the possibility of multiple universes?

there are lots of different understandings on what the words "multiple universes" mean, but there are similar ideas that are explained along those lines in the vedas ... the universes are never explained to be so "multiple" as to evade the potency of vishnu (or his plenary expansions) however

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Oh, gosh. I couldn't resist. I have to say it keeps seeming like I understand your position. OK. The people in the US who perpetrated the violence in Latin America did not lack for resources. They were violent.....anyway.

For the sake of trimming down text in the discussion I have been using the phrase 'adequate resources' to equate to 'adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity'... which have very different meanings. In the case of LA violence did both the US and LA have adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity?

There was a psychology study done in the 90's (sorry I don't remember the exact name of it) where various group of people were put through game simulations for acquiring money. Any player had the ability to donate their money towards hurting the cash flow of other players. Initially one of the players was artificially given far more money than the rest and the other players would then gang up on him and try to hurt him. They even had scenarious where the majority of the players were artifically given extra cash and the minority would try and gang up on them. In all cases, the folks who had the piles of cash didn't feel safe and would start hurting the other players cash flow really bad. In the case where there were multiple high-end cash owners, they would gang up on the low-end cash folks. While the simulation didn't cover the concept of fuel or opportunity, it did show what happens when people perceive inadequate resources and protection.

I think pointing out that very wealthy people often make war on the poor counters your argument. They have resources, they make war anyway. If you mean that the rich who often do this are not above some very high luxurious level of resources, ok, fine. But then my class based arguments apply.

Did the rich people feel they had adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity? I am willing to bet something was missing.

Absolutely. If the well off members of well off societies do this now and have done this in the past I see no reason why it would not continue. You could try to make the case that the well off have REALLY been doing, for example, what they have been doing in Latin America for the poor of their own country. But in that case I need to warn that I will also not buy the Brooklyn Bridge from you.

Even if everyone had the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity? If the answer is 'yes', then what is the objective motivation?

This was a poor argument. You said it 'can' have an effect on the propensity of an individual. That is hard to disagree with. I see that this does happen with some people. That violence will dissipate in general seems unlikely because I can see that some people continue to be violent or become violent when that have the basic resources. And these people tend to rise to the top of the power structure.

I've seen the top of alit of Silicon Valley power structures and violence has never been the phrase I would use to describe those in power. Maybe your argument was aimed at resources only vs the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity?

And I don't see this happening. Again I see these kinds of people only too happy to outsource violence. It is also the environment the whole New Age movement sprung up in, the neo-pagan revivals, the resurgance of potentially atheist Buddhism but also Hinduism in the West. But I am less concerned about this latter theory of yours which you can back up with some figures or not.

I still see those with all their basic needs being met approving directly and indirectly violence in their name or what is supposed to be their interests (as if, for example, American corporations interests are American citizens' interest, somehow, miraculously by definition)

If, for example, a large % of the middle and upper classes in the US were able to somehow face what happened just in Latin America due to interventions of various kinds by their gov and companies, then I might see a new trend. I do not see this. You'd be likely to be spat on by Dems and Repubs. alike for bringing it up. It is taboo.

I've also traveled widely in Latin America and I found the poor, often on the border or below the border of having enough resources not only less violent than say the average Ivy League College student, but also more willing to share.

I understand your observations and I would have to ask the question if all parties involved in the violent conflicts felt they had the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity?

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

what I hold as culturally credible would be
”
Obviously, but what about the non-credible?

if you can explain the non-credible without touching on the credible, please be my guest

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well where does the silicon valley get it "adequate" fuel supply from?
”
It's not necessarily relevant. What matters is that adequate resources are available.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and where the hell would it be without its cheap immigrant workers?
”
Don't know. I would speculate a reduced pace and higher quality.

just to reiterate a challenge to your naive world view, do you see a connection between troops being deployed in iraq and resource demands of the silicon valley?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so would you go to work if they stoppe dpaying you?
”
You bet, I would use their resources to work for myself.

the things we have to do for a buck, eh?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Would you complain if you weren't able to go on vacation
”
How could my vacation be stopped?

easy
the personnel manager comes in and says words to the effect "if you want to continue working for us you will have to work an extra day per week and your holiday leave will be cut by 50%"

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy cat
if you can explain the non-credible without touching on the credible, please be my guest

Invisible Pink Unicorns are not credible long before cultural credibility is even applied.

just to reiterate a challenge to your naive world view, do you see a connection between troops being deployed in iraq and resource demands of the silicon valley?

I see a connection between troops being deployed to Iraq and one or more parties perceiving some combination of inadequate fuel, resources, protection, or opportunity.

the things we have to do for a buck, eh?

It beats hunting and farming.

easy
the personnel manager comes in and says words to the effect "if you want to continue working for us you will have to work an extra day per week and your holiday leave will be cut by 50%"

To which I would respond, 'I quit'. I am not reliant on an employer for making a living. I can also do it myself.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

if you can explain the non-credible without touching on the credible, please be my guest
”
Invisible Pink Unicorns are not credible long before cultural credibility is even applied.

if you don't believe absolute negatives get into extremely hot water the moment you mention them, just try and explain why without touching on the credible

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
just to reiterate a challenge to your naive world view, do you see a connection between troops being deployed in iraq and resource demands of the silicon valley?
”
I see a connection between troops being deployed to Iraq and one or more parties perceiving some combination of inadequate fuel, resources, protection, or opportunity.

well I guess we can take silicon valley off the list then

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the things we have to do for a buck, eh?
”
It beats hunting and farming.

I guess it depends if one is willing to extend moral principles of equality to the people of iraq or not ....

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
easy
the personnel manager comes in and says words to the effect "if you want to continue working for us you will have to work an extra day per week and your holiday leave will be cut by 50%"
”
To which I would respond, 'I quit'. I am not reliant on an employer for making a living. I can also do it myself.

you think most sole business owners have shorter hours and longer vacation periods?
/slaps crunchy cat several times again in the face


... I guess those people you work with suddenly aren't so groovy after all, eh?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy cat

if you don't believe absolute negatives get into extremely hot water the moment you mention them, just try and explain why without touching on the credible

The credible vs. the culturally credible are not the same.

I guess it depends if one is willing to extend moral principles of equality to the people of iraq or not ....

You are really enjoying the Iraq card aren't you?


“

you think most sole business owners have shorter hours and longer vacation periods?
/slaps crunchy cat several times again in the face

All that slapping is making me wet and gooey. Wanna bang? When you work for yourself, you aren't restricted to just running a business. You can cherry pick projects, define your hours, define your cost, and make a great living while having alot more time and flexibility. The downside is you don't have work-buddies around... which can get a little lonely.

... I guess those people you work with suddenly aren't so groovy after all, eh?

Just because I would quit doesn't mean I wouldn't continue to be their friend. I can separate objective and subjective value.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

Fahrenheit
Is there some particular god you don’t find delusional?

I dont find any gods delusional, they have to exist to be able, to be delusional.

well?

Well what!

and that’s a great cultural contribution?

Thanks.
Yes it does have a similarity to god/gods doesn't it.

I mean, what sort of long standing social ideologies do you attribute to them?

The exact same ones that are attributed to god/gods. Why! isn't it obvious.

What prominent current apparatus of society/culture lies indebted to mermaids?

All the navy's of the world.

care to indicate any moral that developed in a social vacuum?

Humans could not live without others, so it's a bit of a moot question, however if you mean what inate morals humans have, then the golden rule applies, "do to other, that which you would like done to you" after all social animals need to be accepted by the herd for survival sake.

to say the least, just as well that the astronomer who discovered brown dwarfs thought differently (IOW many intelligent people don’t hesitate to imagine how they would set about to discover something before they actually do so)

More Red herring.
Thats not using your imagination that using you experiences and education to formulate a theory, they don't imagine if they mix red with blue it makes green, their experiences and education tell them that red and blue make purple.

sensible people with no imagination

Sensible people with intellect, sense and reason, that use their imagination as a tool, and not as a mind set to live by.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus

on what basis do you say there is no proof for god then?

I don't.
I merely say that I have not come across any.
I am an agnostic atheist.

whats the reward of not investigating?
and how does that compare to the reward of investigating?
... I mean we are talking about investigating the cause of something that has catalyzed practically anything we hold as culturally valuable in life

So you think we should all follow Pascal's Wager?
The reward of not investigating is life continuing as it has done.
The reward of investigating is life continuing as it has done... but in the knowledge that there is a "God".

and your argument is one of repeatedly rolling out bold claims of theists being delusional and then retreating behind agnosticism when the artillery comes out

Please highlight ANY quote that I have EVER said that theists are delusional.
You can't - because I don't.

well isn't that what the first part of education is all about?

No. Education is about applying the tools the person is willing to use, and educating him that way.

given the methodologies they apply, one would hardly expect a different result

then the onus is on you to be able to explain, in terms they understand, why your methodology is superior in this regard, given that it is based primarily on fallacious logic (Appeal to Authority) and circular logic (Believe to Believe). If there is no evidence you can provide then there is little chance of you being taken seriously by people who require evidence for significant matters.

A physicist can provide rational evidence to support his facts... whether you understand that evidence or not is not an issue - the evidence exists (hence fact and not mere theory / hypothesis).

You, however, state that one must apply the right methodology even to see the evidence.

And your methodology is, from what I have garnered, little more than persuading yourself to believe.
Once you achieve this, lo and behold you believe.
And once believing, you see evidence of God.

or alternatively, the right methodology

Yes - much like telling a man with paralyzed legs that the right methodology is to run.

its more like a man who refuses to open his eyes

Be that as it may, the onus is on you if you want them to take you seriously.

 

[lightgigantic]

Fahrenheit

Is there some particular god you don’t find delusional?
”
I dont find any gods delusional, they have to exist to be able, to be delusional.

so there's a hint how specific your argument is

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well?
”
Well what!

why whine about specific gods?
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and that’s a great cultural contribution?
”
Thanks.
Yes it does have a similarity to god/gods doesn't it.

“

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I mean, what sort of long standing social ideologies do you attribute to them?
”
The exact same ones that are attributed to god/gods. Why! isn't it obvious.

er - no
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
What prominent current apparatus of society/culture lies indebted to mermaids?
”
All the navy's of the world.

are you serious?
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
care to indicate any moral that developed in a social vacuum?
”
Humans could not live without others, so it's a bit of a moot question, however if you mean what inate morals humans have, then the golden rule applies, "do to other, that which you would like done to you" after all social animals need to be accepted by the herd for survival sake.

if that was the case there would be no observations of conflict within the "herd"
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
to say the least, just as well that the astronomer who discovered brown dwarfs thought differently (IOW many intelligent people don’t hesitate to imagine how they would set about to discover something before they actually do so)
”
More Red herring.
Thats not using your imagination that using you experiences and education to formulate a theory, they don't imagine if they mix red with blue it makes green, their experiences and education tell them that red and blue make purple.

well unlike colours, there was no experience of brown dwarfs
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sensible people with no imagination
”
Sensible people with intellect, sense and reason, that use their imagination as a tool, and not as a mind set to live by.

what's this crack pottery!
what sensible person would dare to invite delusion into their investigations?

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't.
I merely say that I have not come across any.
I am an agnostic atheist.

quick men! to the bunkers of agnosticism once more!

So you think we should all follow Pascal's Wager?
The reward of not investigating is life continuing as it has done.
The reward of investigating is life continuing as it has done... but in the knowledge that there is a "God".

its all clear men! out of the bunkers and charge with atheism

Please highlight ANY quote that I have EVER said that theists are delusional.
You can't - because I don't.

retreat!
back to the bunkers!

No. Education is about applying the tools the person is willing to use, and educating him that way.

charge I say!

then the onus is on you to be able to explain, in terms they understand, why your methodology is superior in this regard, given that it is based primarily on fallacious logic (Appeal to Authority) and circular logic (Believe to Believe). If there is no evidence you can provide then there is little chance of you being taken seriously by people who require evidence for significant matters.

its all clear men!
charge!

 

[Myles]

Your attempt at humour is sad. Why not quote a bit of nonsense from the Bhagavad Gita as you usually do. I can promise you it is more entertaining.

 

[Vkothii]

I merely say that I have not come across any.

You haven't ever been aware in any way you could describe, of an external deity, like the sort of doctrinal theism that's in the Bible or the Torah describes, angels and their counterparts, or spirits say?
I bet you all up you have been aware of something that isn't an external kind of "spirit'.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

Fahrenheit
so there's a hint how specific your argument is

Specific enough to keep you replying.

er - no

Well, I suppose it was a big ask, for you to see it. The invisible and the non existent are very much alike.

are you serious?

Yes, about as serious as you are that god actually exist.

if that was the case there would be no observations of conflict within the "herd"

When man first stood up, the herd was much smaller. Now we have to many herds, and they all want their own territory.

well unlike colours, there was no experience of brown dwarfs

Hence why they used the evidence available, to find them. their imagination wasn't really need.

what sensible person would dare to invite delusion into their investigations?

Who's inviting delusion, they are merely using there imagination as the tool it is. Do you understand what delusion is.

 

[Sarkus]

You haven't ever been aware in any way you could describe, of an external deity, like the sort of doctrinal theism that's in the Bible or the Torah describes, angels and their counterparts, or spirits say?

I have been aware of descriptions of such things (e.g. the Bible) but have never, in any way, come across or been aware of such a thing outside of those pages.

I bet you all up you have been aware of something that isn't an external kind of "spirit'.

Are you sure your English is correct here?
Yes, I have been aware of something that is NOT an external kind of "spirit".
I am aware of my desk, for example. And of my computer. Do they count as something that "isn't an external kind of spirit"?

 

[Sarkus]

quick men!
...
charge!

If this is your tactic to those arguments you have no answer for... :shrug:
Or do you only want discourse with those that agree with you?

Can I suggest that before you make claims of all atheists that you do so (a) with an understanding of what atheism is... and more importantly what it is not; and (b) that all atheists do in fact make those claims.

 

[greenberg]

Yes - much like telling a man with paralyzed legs that the right methodology is to run.

Be that as it may, the onus is on you if you want them to take you seriously.

As much as I sympathize with the position of being the one without knowledge of God and therefore requesting others to provide the proofs,
really, there comes a time when one has to make an effort to give up the role of being a helpless I-don't-know-you-show-me-I-can't-do-it and start trying things out for oneself.
There comes a time when one has to take oneself seriously, if one wishes to make any progress. Which includes not waiting for others to seem good enough for one to take them seriously.

 

[Vkothii]

I am aware of my desk, for example.

You mean, you can see, and presumably feel something you call a desk?
But how do you know it's "yours"? Or that it's the same desk (say I just ordered it to be a desk that looks just like the desk you think is "your desk", but it's really something else now)?

You also no doubt, believe that such a thing is completely impossible - given I have no real idea where you are, or who you are even.

 

[Sarkus]

You mean, you can see, and presumably feel something you call a desk?
But how do you know it's "yours"? Or that it's the same desk (say I just ordered it to be a desk that looks just like the desk you think is "your desk", but it's really something else now)?

You also no doubt, believe that such a thing is completely impossible - given I have no real idea where you are, or who you are even.

I would say that what you suggest is rationally (far) less likely than the desk still being mine.
Hence I would not "believe" what you claim - unless you could provide evidence to rationally support your claim.

As for it being impossible... that is such an absolute term. I have a fair idea that it is extremely unlikely... but absolute zero probability?

 

[Sarkus]

As much as I sympathize with the position of being the one without knowledge of God and therefore requesting others to provide the proofs, really, there comes a time when one has to make an effort to give up the role of being a helpless I-don't-know-you-show-me-I-can't-do-it and start trying things out for oneself.

And then it becomes a matter of risk / reward - as do most pursuits.

I'm guessing you consider it unlikely that a cure for all disease and illness exists in an as yet undiscovered plant in Peru. But it might.
The reward is very good indeed - so why don't you go and look for it?

So what is the risk, and what is the reward?
And what evidence do you provide to support these claims of risk / reward.
(And if one does not hold the Bible as evidence of God's existence, it will hardly be valid as evidence of the risks / rewards).

There comes a time when one has to take oneself seriously, if one wishes to make any progress. Which includes not waiting for others to seem good enough for one to take them seriously.

I take myself very seriously... most of the time.
But you say "if one wishes to make any progress"... progress to what, exactly?

 

[Vkothii]

As for it being impossible... that is such an absolute term. I have a fair idea that it is extremely unlikely... but absolute zero probability?

At least, you thought about it, then?

The thing is, or the point if you will, is that you seeing a desk and recognising it means you aren't a desk, and the desk isn't you. Presumably it isn't anyone or anything else.
So where does that leave the idea of an external being, or anything like the sort of things the Bible describes?
You might be able to gain some kind of insight into your perceptive abilities and your awareness of things in general by looking carefully and in great detail at a desk, but you don't have to, do you?