Religions and their respective bubbles of delusion

Post Reply New Topic

You don't want to go down that road.

Your implied assumption that since I am not religious I must be immoral, uncivil, and perhaps brutal might be insulting if I felt you were well informed. I am somewhat taken aback that you seem unaware of the behavior of intensely religious people and it merely makes me sad.

I'd say more that it's a device of control that is used for both good and evil but due to the laziness and the kind of people that such power attracts, it normally ends up doing more harm than good. The other problem is that it also gives an excuse to ignore reality in favor of what a particular story may say. From evolution to global warming to equal rights: by and far the more religious the person, the less likely they are to believe in the scientific work done in such studies and will, instead, believe garbage that they're told by preachers or those who claim to be speaking from the religious end. It's a very convenient rock for the conservatives to hide under and conserve old, decaying ideas that have no place in modernity.




Of course. It also helps that there's more evidence on "our" side...or rather, less evidence on your side. I think a better question to ask is "Why should you not"?



People feel and don't feel a lot of things. It doesn't mean anything. I won't say one way or another about the life you live specifically because I have no idea. But just because you feel you aren't doing harm doesn't necessarily make it so.



It's always interesting how much people appeal to how much good religion makes people do in day-to-day lives and yet they will never once confront the evils with anywhere near the response in which they confront those who challenge their beliefs. Do you really believe you couldn't do the same without your religion? Why not? Do the cause and effects change? Most religions who have anywhere near reasonable beliefs favor charitable atheists over dishonest believers.

well the problem is that it seems to be very common to be under the illusion of applying the correct methodological approach to a defended perspective and claiming reason, empiricism or any methology to be on their side, while very much they could be misapplying it to favor their own bias. And, as there are people who won't admit that, some would, still justifying themselves.

When people start using pejorative terms towards an opposite view such as this case and using terms such as "delusional" and the like, their validity of their arguments becomes questionable, given that those arguments are not purely analytical but rather and very likely, emotional driven.

So yeah, ad hominems towards a different perspective is the case here, if you consider ad hominem attacks to be valid justification because you believe you are "right" then we have a problem.

The issue shown in here is about the prejudice some people have towards a perceived group who have an oppositive perspective, and also the problem of stereotyping, in the case of Christians, not all of them are the same.


AG has quite stated the issue of the psychology of being offended, and I don't see much of a counter-argument to it.


DW_a_mom had stated uncomfort for the comparision of few Christians with extremists.


Science recognizes that there are aspects of neurology and how the brain works which are yet unknown and probably to a considerable degree, in which case, it is impossible to rely on this 100% in our lives, and there is the issue of taking things in absolutes given the view that nothing is irrefutable, not even neurology, not even science, which science itself seems to recognize. But let's say I agree with you on there, shouldn't these mechanisms explain why few people believe in God and in religion? I mean, saying they are just "stupid" or "delusional" doesn't cut it, there should be any logical explanation on how that works and the why without resorting to degoratory explanations, given that I hardly consider any degoratory explanation as methodological or logical valid, much less rational.


well, if those are simple material basis, so it would be religious beliefs, as I stated above.

BTW, what is "fantasies" to you, is not "fantasies" to others, which you seem to miss DW_a_mom's point about the issue of people having different point of view and respecting those that differ from your own.


It doesn't make sense to you? so what? Just because some things don't make sense to you doesn't mean they don't make sense at all or that they don't make sense to others, it just means that they don't make sense to YOU.


Because you will cry about being ignored

In general a lack of knowledge is no proof that something exists. Investigation has always confirmed that there is a physical basis for any human response and never indicated anything supernatural in the human constitution. Supernatural suppositions have always indicated delusional sources. I merely confront, I do not cry nor proclaim insult at being criticized or ignored. AG's comments on insult are ill considered and flawed.

Its a can of worms, I know, but I don't see how one can avoid the concept. Although, you are right, I sooo don't have time to go down that road. For now, let us assume we all know both the positive, negatives, and million shades of gray involved.

I've reread everything I wrote and there is no implied assumption there at all. And no stated assumption, no indication what-so-ever. You have read into what I wrote based on past prejudices. I did not do you that disservice. I know how many intensely religious people can behave, but they are not me, and their actions are not the actions of those I am close to and respect. I would venture to say they are not the majority, albeit the most vocal. I entered this thread because it paints those with faith with far too broad a brush, a very negative one, and you are continuing to do that with your statements here. I am not uninformed on this; I would venture a guess that I know this group better than you, and I believe I understand why you assume what you assumed in your above statement, but it is incorrect.

Just to be very clear, there is no part of me that believes people who do not hold faith are going to be immoral or be negative forces in this world. I said that I have come to understand that people who do not hold faith may see those who DO as being, in fact, immoral and negative forces in this world, and that can drive the need to disprove faith. I know what I consider to be amazing people of all sorts of different beliefs - or non-belief. There is prejudice on both sides of these debates, and I am asking you to see yours.

I am not appealing to the good religion does, but asking you to recognize that people of faith are at least as capable of using it for good as they are for negative. For some individuals the structure aids in the goal of being a positive force, for some they would do the same without it, and for some it becomes a shrub to hide behind while doing evil. I recognize all of that, and to the extent I am able I will confront those who use their faith inappropriately - speaking their language, and appealing to the values they claim to believe in. And, overall, I prefer to associate with people trying to be forces for good, and I never ask them what they believe or do not believe, and among those I work with in the community its probably the whole rainbow, ie some have faith and some do not, but I honestly can't answer because we don't ask each other or assume, we just get down to work and try to make a difference.

It would be great fun to watch you debate someone exactly like you sometime. You are so positive in your superior information, and your only interest in everything else seems to be to discount it. You do not merely confront. If you really believe that - and I am not convinced you do - you should read your own postings as if you were the person of opposite belief and look hard at what you've written. A true empathy challenge for you (I'm not trying to be sarcastic or hurtful by suggesting that, I know the diagnostic criteria claims lack of empathy is part of AS, but in many discussions here we've agreed that really isn't true, but there certainly can be challenges for the sort of thing I've just asked).

I merely state what I believe in as neutral a way as possible. If I seem over positive about my declarations it is because I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Religious beliefs about the supernatural have authority only from what I consider unreliable sources. When I am confronted with sources that convince me otherwise I will only be too happy to reconsider.