Religions and their respective bubbles of delusion

Post Reply New Topic

One more point of contention: John Forbes Nash Jr.


Delusional by any measure. No idiot. The two terms aren't intertwined.


Why would you think the video says that theistic people are idiots?

Such as this?



I will await your "respected studies".

From the Cambridge Online

Definition
delusion noun

when someone believes something that is not true

The vid is attacking religious beliefs and makes no attack upon the person other than to say their beliefs are delusional, there was nothing in the vid accusing anyone of idiocy.



@ DW I notice in your reply as to why you censored the op you left out the rather important and relevant clause that I have put into bold.

So I would suggest that removal of the vid is not in accordance with the rules of the sites owner.

No, the video came across as a direct attack, not a discussion of opinions. I stand by that, but I will allow the video back if there is information preceeding it about what it is intended to convey and so that viewers don't take it personally (I've already pm'd the OP). It started right off telling me, the viewer, assuming I was a person of faith, that I was dillusional and this video was going to correct me of that. If someone had posted those exact words to me on this forum that would have been deleted and no one would have argued about it. What makes the fact that the words come from a video so different?

I think it can be difficult for people who are not members of a population to see how something will affect them. To me, viewing this video brought down a rush of attacks I've defended for most of my life, and provided an untrue and broad generalization of the basis of faith - or at, least, where my faith comes from and what I actually believe. Whether it was intended to send a different message or not, the only one I heard was that the faith I've held most of my life is a fairy tale, and that any rational person would know that. I WAS offended, and there is no bias in that, because it was real, whether intended or not. Be clear, I am NOT offended easily when it comes to faith, and I know there are many who use the cover of faith to advance a lot of things I do not support, but there are some things that can get to me.

I came to my faith through a very logical and thought out process. I did not just buy into it, and I claim no personal visions or anything else esoteric. I am not desperate to escape the concept of death; my faith has nothing at all to do with the things that get posted in this forum or this thread. Those who feel differently than I do, it has become clear, on BOTH sides (no faith as well as fundamentalist faith), however, have no interest at all in understanding where someone like me comes from, and I rarely engage here for that reason. But the title of this thread caught my eye, and I worried what it portrayed to those browsing these forums. I actually didn't trust myself to make the call on it, and pointed it out on the moderator board hoping someone else would, but I seemed to have been the only mod on yesterday and that was that.

If you all want random readers of this forum to believe that everyone who is AS is anti-faith, and to allow the population of AS as a whole to bear the weight of that, carry on. But if you want to have rational discussions between people of faith and people who are not of faith - of which I have had plenty of elsewhere - then everyone hear needs to think a bit harder about their negative assumptions towards people of faith and what terminology is and isn't "fact" v. "attack." I honestly believe that in this situation the bias of the membership here is showing a lot more than mine. HOWEVER, the OP explained himself well as to what he wanted to discuss and I will honor that for in his explanation the video is appropriate.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 23 Sep 2009, 12:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

When you say that something is clear to anyone of rational thought, isn't the opposite of that to say that the person to whom it is not clear must be foolish?

Compartmentalization. People can be very rational on some points and very irrational on others.

Intelligence isn't one lump sum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_intelligences


And the video states that people are mostly rational and make rational decisions except on the one point of theology/existence of a deity. They're pretty specific about it and all they do is challenge the view to think rationally about that one aspect of themselves as they do about every other aspect.

I would love to know the thought processes that led you to a "logical" belief in the supernatural.

It starts with realizing something or someone may caused the so-called big bang to happen. Where you have to answer "I don't know" or "it just happened" the better answer often is, "maybe there really is something out there." I see God more like the force in Star Wars than a man with a gray beard or anything like that. But, since I learned long ago that no one on this board really wants to know my why or how, I'll leave it at that. Logic isn't as black and white as many on this forum wish to believe, and just because something doesn't fit in with your logic doesn't mean it lacks it completely. And that, in a nutshell, may be the one of the most difficult leaps for some AS to take, and why debates on this board get so incredibly nasty. Everyone believes 100% in their own version of logic. Its interesting to watch, but I can't involve myself in it, its pointless.

If you assume a force that initiated the big bang I can accept that. But to go on and assume that force had intellectual characteristics is to go back to the ancient concept that lightning had a motivation for striking somebody or that a tornado is an intelligent response to some human sin. It is extremely animistic thinking and to feel this force, perhaps like gravity or electromagnetism should be worshiped or prayed to is, after all assuming an awful lot. Nobody prays to gravity.

The big question to me is anything that happens has to happen somewhere: so, where did the big bang happen?

The problem is that the universe is of such immensity that it is not possible to trace back to a centre point. By the time there were stars and galaxies, things were already heading away, but at various tangents, to each other.

Whatever became of the theory that there was never a big bang at all? Anyone know?

An alternate theory of continuous creation proposed by Fred Hoyle has been refuted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

The concept of "where" does not occur when there is no space and no time. Time and space are intimately entwined and they started, according to accepted theory when time began. There was no "where".

The universe is not expanding in tangential directions as far as I understand. The directions are radial.

If they were, their vector could be traced backwards to a point of intersection. I mean that they spin, roll, twirl, as well as fly away from all others. Or possibly circle slowly like bubbles going down the drain.

There is nothing inherently wrong with accepting a cosmological argument for the existence of God, but there are people around who would disagree, and of course, some who would agree.

It is, of course, a different paradigm to include a creator into the origin of the universe. God, of course, can be tailored in all sorts of ways to make it not possible to discount a creator but then the obvious question arises of the origin of God and that is a whole new set of problems which nobody has tried to solve in any sensible way except to claim He always existed and that more or less provides the concept that whatever forces created the universe also may have always existed. There are no handles to that problem. One could also assume, if God is put at the origin of everything that He is still as busy as the proverbial one handed paperhanger turning gravity on and off to make things orbit and fall and making my doorbell ring when someone pushes the button. With His infinite powers that should be a snap.

people who believe this version of god seem to do so because they cannot grasp that in the great scheme of things we have a very tiny understanding of physics beyond our planet. The cosmological argument annoys me because it basically says "the formation of the universe is so complex that it must have a supernatural creator". Yes the universe is incredibly complex and yes it is always possible (although IMO highly improbable) that the simple answer "god did it" may in fact be correct, I prefer not to make such massive assumptions and just live with the idea that we have the knowledge of a newborn when it comes to the cosmos.

Then of course there is the issue of where did god come from, the general answer seems to be that god has always been. As Sand rightly points out if that rule is allowed for god then why not for our universe or the universe that gave birth to this one. It is very convenient for god not to need a creator, but then just about all religious explanations seem to follow the same rules of conveniency

The cosmological argument is a supposition based upon ignorance.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 24 Sep 2009, 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.