The difference between religion and mental illness.

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Do you agree with me or disagree?

Agree
29
35%
Disagree
55
65%
 
Total votes: 84

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:51 am UTC

That is to say, assuming your parents had been telling you this all your life.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
aldimond
Otter-duck
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: Uptown, Chicago
Contact:

Postby aldimond » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:13 am UTC

Well, either that or you'd realize that what's on your forehead isn't literally a blue dot, it's a dot that you can't see with your eyes because its power would instantly blind anyone that saw it.
One of these days my desk is going to collapse in the middle and all its weight will come down on my knee and tear my new fake ACL. It could be tomorrow. This is my concern.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:15 am UTC

I... Don't follow.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
aldimond
Otter-duck
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: Uptown, Chicago
Contact:

Postby aldimond » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:19 am UTC

I'm saying that most religions tend to adapt over time to scientific evidence about the world, rather than just tell scientists their observations are wrong.

Even the Intelligent Design folk (the serious ones, at least) don't tell scientists their observations are wrong. They just tell them their interpretations of the observations are wrong.
One of these days my desk is going to collapse in the middle and all its weight will come down on my knee and tear my new fake ACL. It could be tomorrow. This is my concern.

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:59 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Postby Andrew » Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:37 pm UTC

Peshmerga wrote:Yet Jesus Christ did exist in recorded Roman history. He was crucified for blasphemy. His miracles are more likely made up by people who wrote his history (otherwise he was a magician of some sorts!) than an alien coming down specifically to "put a bunch of convicts in a volcano". There's no historical proof of this happening, and as far as we know, aliens haven't visited Earth.

Well no, but the existence of some bloke called Jesus isn't really the point. Jesus was a fairly common name then -- there were loads of them about. My point was that Christianity says that his father was an all-powerful being who can create and destroy universes but can't forgive sins unless he goes through the motions of killing someone (albeit temporarily) to satisfy some weird ineffable beaurocracy first. Are you really telling me that's any less a leap of faith than if you're dropped into a volcano your soul can escape and attach itself to another being?

I'm not debating Jesus existing. I'm sure he existed. I'm saying that to go from there to he was the son of God and rose from the dead is not, in and of itself, less ludicrous than Scientology's claims.

I can prove I exist. If I claim to be the son of God is that dafter than if I say my brother is the son of God? I can't prove to you I have a brother.

Actually, say cousin. Obviously if my brohter is the son of God then by definition, so am I.

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:28 pm UTC

Andrew wrote:
Peshmerga wrote:Yet Jesus Christ did exist in recorded Roman history. He was crucified for blasphemy. His miracles are more likely made up by people who wrote his history (otherwise he was a magician of some sorts!) than an alien coming down specifically to "put a bunch of convicts in a volcano". There's no historical proof of this happening, and as far as we know, aliens haven't visited Earth.

Well no, but the existence of some bloke called Jesus isn't really the point. Jesus was a fairly common name then -- there were loads of them about. My point was that Christianity says that his father was an all-powerful being who can create and destroy universes but can't forgive sins unless he goes through the motions of killing someone (albeit temporarily) to satisfy some weird ineffable beaurocracy first. Are you really telling me that's any less a leap of faith than if you're dropped into a volcano your soul can escape and attach itself to another being?


I see your point, and you're right they are equally irrational. But perhaps it is easier for people to trust the insane idea of God and the things you described because there was an actual, recorded event that precedes these things. Jesus Christ was crucified by the Roman Empire for blasphemy, it would follow that if a book that said "B happens, here look, A proves it" was written, people would start to believe it. It's clearly a logical fallacy, but people aren't always the most logical people.

If there were a bunch of recorded convicts that did indeed fly over and drop into a volcano, Scientology would be more believable.

I just generally disagree with the prediction that a mid-aged, strong minded, clean slate person (introduced to Western culture instantly without any previous cultural or social interference), would develop the idea of God, and especially that of Christian/Islam/Jewish faith, because that's what everyone else was doing.

He'd take a look at the atheists, agnostics, and third party faiths and come to conclude that there was some disagreement among the populace. Not to mention his own personal experience would probably tell him that it was just him against the world, that there was no voice of God booming over the intercom telling him right from wrong. I doubt very much that he would take and follow a majority vote on the issue.

I'll concede that if EVERYONE on Earth staunchly believed in God and his workings, the man might shift his position to match those around him.
i hurd u liek mudkips???

Teaspoon
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:37 pm UTC
Location: Where you least expect me

Postby Teaspoon » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:53 am UTC

LilyoftheShadow wrote:Personally, I do not think that there is any other explanation for existance being as it is: there had to be someone there to formulate the intracacies of things such as DNA and so on. I believe that person to be God.


I've never made this argument before, but I feel like I need to now. Who made God? If you can't believe that something as complicated as DNA came about without outside intervention, how can you believe that an entity complex enough that it could formulate the intricacies of DNA came about without outside intervention?

What I'm saying is that if an intelligent designer is necessary for a complicated system, don't you need a more intelligent designer for the complicated system that is the intelligent designer? And don't you need an even more intelligent designer to bring about that one? It's infinitely recursive unless you admit that a spontaneous creation is possible, and then I have to ask why you believe the spontaneous creation of our Universe is so much less likely than the spontaneous creation of a significantly more complex designer?

Stucky101 wrote:But we do have proof that gravity exist. When you drop matter it falls towards the ground. When you go to the moon the same thing will occur only less powerful. This is proof of gravity.


No, it's not. It's an observation that is part of the basis of a theory about the existence of gravity, but if you're limiting the test of a hypothesis to the data you based it on then you're creating a tautology. You've just proven that "in conditions where massive bodies are known to exert attracting force on each other, massive bodies exert attracting force on each other." Our failure to find conditions where they don't do it doesn't actually prove that they always do.

Now, to the main meat of the topic: why is it considered saner to believe in one of the traditional religions than in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Because we know that the FSM was recently invented by other humans. We don't know exactly how the traditional religions came about - we have no records from that time. Any of them may have been invented by humans or may have been taught to humans by God or a group of gods or whatever.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:55 am UTC

I think the real question is, is "fadskjh asdjhas ahsdhjk sadhjk" any less sane then "Hello, nice to meet you"? Especially when they're just a sequence of letters denoting a series of sounds.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

Macho Nachos
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:08 am UTC
Location: Australia

Postby Macho Nachos » Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:40 am UTC

yellomellojello wrote:Well, either that or you'd realize that what's on your forehead isn't literally a blue dot, it's a dot that you can't see with your eyes because its power would instantly blind anyone that saw it.
...
I'm saying that most religions tend to adapt over time to scientific evidence about the world, rather than just tell scientists their observations are wrong.


Loved the first post. I'm not sure about the second though; the religions DO tend to tell the scientists that their observations are wrong until well after it becomes blatantly obvious that they are, in fact, correct observations, then they redefine whatever is in conflict so that it isn't in conflict anymore. Finally, they say that it was never meant to be taken in the original way. I think it's the last step you were referring to in your second post.

Teaspoon wrote:Now, to the main meat of the topic: why is it considered saner to believe in one of the traditional religions than in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Because we know that the FSM was recently invented by other humans. We don't know exactly how the traditional religions came about - we have no records from that time. Any of them may have been invented by humans or may have been taught to humans by God or a group of gods or whatever.


Again, I agree at the start. However, saying that "any of them may have been taught to humans by God or a group of gods" plays down the fact that the probability of that having happened is infintesimally small. They may have also been taught to humans by a race of superintelligent salamanders who subsequently discovered interstellar travel and buggered off. Just because we don't know the exact origins of something doesn't mean it's believable. The fact that many parts of the Bible directly contradict empirical observations (eg Chapter 1) lends an extremely heavy weight to the argument against the Bible being the word of an omniscient God.

Peshmerga wrote:It's more likely people will believe in Christianity or the other majors religions because they are popular for a reason - they're not completely insane.


I'd suggest that in lots of cases it's because they haven't read the Bible.

The Omniscient Creator's Good Book wrote: * Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."


Ugh?

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:59 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Postby Andrew » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:01 am UTC

Yeah, the Bible is messed up. Anyone who's read it and believes in all of it is mentally ill. There's can be very little debate about that. Heck, some parts of it contradict other parts.

Dave
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:26 pm UTC
Location: London. Londinium.

Postby Dave » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:22 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:extreme fundamentalists are more or less screwed in the head, yes


So...

Someone beleives in a monster of some form, so they are crazy.

Someone beleives in a deity, a higher power or being, or whatever, and thats not considered odd

Someone beleives in that deity, higher power or being enough to sacrifice their life or the lives of people around them in that gods name, and they go back to being crazy.

Not saying I condone any of these beliefs or agree with what I've typed above. All of these are points of view from a particular stance. To those extremists, they dont see themselves as crazy, but would probably agree that the monster-beleiving chap is a bit nuts. The monster beleiving guy probably doesnt think anything is odd about the other two (religious, and extremists) but is this because its not weird, or simply that religion has been around for so long, and people have grown up around religious people, societys and cultures, so its no longer odd because its common?

Back at the birth of these religions, surely the followers of them would have been looked at as crazy and weird, in the same way this hypothetical spaghetti monster beleiving guy would be. Its only that religion is so widespread and common, if you like, that its considered fairly normal (extremists aside).

I think starting this topic with the 'difference between the religious and the mentally ill' got it off to a bad start though :D

Macho Nachos
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:08 am UTC
Location: Australia

Postby Macho Nachos » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:29 am UTC

Personally, I think that those three statements could be refined a little, but in a nutshell, you've got it pretty well down.

A person who believes in a flying spaghetti monster, with no objective proof or credible historic evidence of its existence, is deluded (crazy?).

A person who believes in a God or other higher being, but doesn't stringently live their life by a creed or dogma associated with that God (religious liberals and moderates), is very good at compartmentalising their rational faculties. By that, I mean that they don't apply the same logic and skepticism to their religion or deity-belief that they do to most of their everyday life. They're partly deluded, but it's a widely accepted delusion, so they're not considered crazy.

A person who believes in God or a higher being and follows a strict dogma or religion in a fundamentalist way, and believes it is justified to break what are apparently simple moral concepts (not killing people) in the name of that religion, are completely deluded, like the monster guy.

The problem is, there is a continuum of belief, and you can't just drop people into one of the last 2 categories. The variety of levels of belief provide protection to the extreme fundamentalists, who are dangerously deluded, because it's impossible to define an 'acceptable' level of delusion. While an atheist or liberal might look at an evangelical fundie and say "That guy is a nutball", a moderate might look at them and say "that is an impressive example of faith". And therein lies the problem with liberal and moderate expressions of religious faith being widely accepted and magically shielded from rational criticism ("Don't attack my faith! You're intolerant!").

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:59 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Postby Andrew » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:00 am UTC

Macho Nachos wrote:And therein lies the problem with liberal and moderate expressions of religious faith being widely accepted and magically shielded from rational criticism ("Don't attack my faith! You're intolerant!").


My preferred solution to this is pretty simple and hasn't got me into any trouble yet: I'll attack anybody's faith if it seems relevant to the situation at hand, I think it deserves attacking and I think I have time to have the full conversation -- I think people should be able to defend their beliefs, and most people can. But I won't attack the faithful unless they do something to upset me.

I've yet to encounter anyone who has a problem with this approach, and if I did then I wouldn't want to talk to those people anyway.

User avatar
German Sausage
3 of 5
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Postby German Sausage » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 am UTC

OmenPigeon wrote:
fjafjan wrote:I think fish requires alot more change to our current perception of our world than some form of god does.


Why?

The world is being controlled by the fish, so if His Scaliness didn't want us to detect him, He could do that. If He wanted us puny humans to think that all fish were stupid and only interested in swimming the wrong way around rivers to lay their eggs, He could do that.

Once you allow for the existence of a being who can control the world with its thoughts you can reason our entire existence to fit.

*misses point*
what fjaf was trying (as i understand it) to point out was this
- why is the idea of something that can survive underwater - breathe the stuff, in fact - while it kills us quite efficiently, any more strange than the idea of a god who can create things like the universe?
can you breathe water? odds are no, but apparently fish can.
can you create worlds? odds are no, but apparently god can.

i'm ignoring the unmoved mover aspect for reasons of convenience - im an agnostic.


Gelsamel wrote:I think the real question is, is "fadskjh asdjhas ahsdhjk sadhjk" any less sane then "Hello, nice to meet you"? Especially when they're just a sequence of letters denoting a series of sounds.

well played. yes, its irrational, but if we start thinking about everything in our society critically, then we will be to busy to actually do anything and society will fall apart.
________
as well as this... a lot of people who believe in religion do so because it suits the moral framework they have arrived at independently. i greatly admire the semi-socialism that jesus advocates (selling all your possessions to aid those more needy) within limits, as well as sections like 'Love thy Neighbor." best idea ever! other religions have good ideas too - the islamic ideal of charity removes the need for a welfare state. (ideally, of course) the idea of karma encourages us to be good to one another, even if it is only out of enlightened self-interest.
<bakemaster> Only German Sausage can prevent forest fires
<felstaff> Hype is like a giant disappointment ray aimed squarely at the finished article.
<watson> Treat me like a criminal, Holmes!
TMT4L

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:39 pm UTC

I think the real question is, is "fadskjh asdjhas ahsdhjk sadhjk" any less sane then "Hello, nice to meet you"? Especially when they're just a sequence of letters denoting a series of sounds.


How can a sound be "sane?"

Is walking up to someone and purposely SAYING "fadskjh asdjhas ahsdhjk sadhjk" expecting to be understood less sane? Of course it is. There's ample evidence and expectation that you will get a response to "Hello, nice to meet you" and not to an arbitrary string of sounds. Doing it anyway is less sane, yes.

It's a false analogy.

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:59 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Postby Andrew » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:14 pm UTC

German Sausage wrote:*misses point*
what fjaf was trying (as i understand it) to point out was this
- why is the idea of something that can survive underwater - breathe the stuff, in fact - while it kills us quite efficiently, any more strange than the idea of a god who can create things like the universe?
can you breathe water? odds are no, but apparently fish can.
can you create worlds? odds are no, but apparently god can.


...because we know of a scientific mechanism that would allow a creature to breathe underwater?
...because we know fish exist?
...because we have hard evidence that fish breathe underwater?

Breathing water is impossible for humans because of the way our bodies are built. Creating the universe, being omnipotent, being omniscient, being omnipresent and being morally infallible are all impossible because of the fundamental laws of reality (at least as far as we understand them).

There's a very clear distinction there.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:53 pm UTC

I just read through some of this and here is what I think:

I am the most fanatic athiest out there, see my thread on why believing is not only stupid but also evil.

So here is the problem with your argument though.

See people, are kinda stupid, and they kinda don't think alot. The go alot by what other people say and what they think people want them to think etc, point being they are stupid. If you call that mentally ill, then it should also be considered to be mentally ill if someone wore fashionable clothes. There is NO good reason to do it, other than, everyone does it, and people like me better if I do it. I think thats why people follow religions too.

They aren't mentally ill, just REALLY REALLY (I can't emphasize this enough) REALLY REALLY REALLY stupid.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:59 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Postby Andrew » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:42 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:There is NO good reason to do it, other than, ... people like me better if I do it.

Sounds like a good reason to me.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:07 pm UTC

Rorgg wrote:
I think the real question is, is "fadskjh asdjhas ahsdhjk sadhjk" any less sane then "Hello, nice to meet you"? Especially when they're just a sequence of letters denoting a series of sounds.


How can a sound be "sane?"

Is walking up to someone and purposely SAYING "fadskjh asdjhas ahsdhjk sadhjk" expecting to be understood less sane? Of course it is. There's ample evidence and expectation that you will get a response to "Hello, nice to meet you" and not to an arbitrary string of sounds. Doing it anyway is less sane, yes.

It's a false analogy.


You really don't seem to understand his point, because you just argued for it, and closed your post with "And that's why you're wrong."

I'm gonna replace some words from the text I just quoted. Specifically, I will replace:

Gibberish = Belief in the FSM
Hello, etc.= Belief in God
Sound = Faith

Rorgg wrote:
I think the real question is, is "I believe in the FSM" any less sane then "I Believe in God?


How can a Faith be "sane?"

Is walking up to someone and purposely SAYING "I believe in the FSM" expecting to be understood less sane? Of course it is. There's ample evidence and expectation that you will get a response to "I believe in God" and not to an expression of faith in the FSM. Doing it anyway is less sane, yes.

It's a false analogy.


Wait a minute, you two agree!
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:13 pm UTC

The difference is some of those are actions by people and others are objects.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:16 pm UTC

Speaking gibberish is an action, as is expressing belief in FSM. Speaking sense is an action, as is expressing belief in God.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

Macho Nachos
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:08 am UTC
Location: Australia

Postby Macho Nachos » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:43 pm UTC

But expressing a belief in god is not speaking sense :p

Pi guy, you hit the nail on the head. There's billions of people out there who have been brought up believing in a God, and they don't have the education, inquiring mind, or other such catalyst (perhaps simply exposure to the idea that God doesn't exist) to consider that it might not be correct.

Thus, they go through their lives believing in God, and teach it to their children when they have them. Though I don't think it's necessarily that they're all really really really stupid, it's just that they're really really really stupid ABOUT THAT.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:14 am UTC

Macho Nachos wrote:But expressing a belief in god is not speaking sense :p


Whether that's true or not, it's irrelevant to the analogy.


But regarding the stupidity of belief, it goes back to the kid with the blue dot on his forehead. Or, if that's too taxing on your imaginations, the little boy who is told that there are bears in the forest. He's never seen them. Three or four people have even told him they don't exist. Does that make it a good idea for him to wander into the forest?
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:27 am UTC

But regarding the stupidity of belief, it goes back to the kid with the blue dot on his forehead. Or, if that's too taxing on your imaginations, the little boy who is told that there are bears in the forest. He's never seen them. Three or four people have even told him they don't exist. Does that make it a good idea for him to wander into the forest?


Replace "bear" with "dragon" and does it change anything?

And, should he then devote a substantial portion of his life devising bear-repellent techniques and trapping his house for bear defense?

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:07 am UTC

Haha, Rorrg can be funny, and not the guy that attacks me or (confession: I attack) on the Israel thread.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:23 am UTC

Rorgg wrote:
I think the real question is, is "fadskjh asdjhas ahsdhjk sadhjk" any less sane then "Hello, nice to meet you"? Especially when they're just a sequence of letters denoting a series of sounds.


How can a sound be "sane?"

Is walking up to someone and purposely SAYING "fadskjh asdjhas ahsdhjk sadhjk" expecting to be understood less sane? Of course it is. There's ample evidence and expectation that you will get a response to "Hello, nice to meet you" and not to an arbitrary string of sounds. Doing it anyway is less sane, yes.

It's a false analogy.


It isn't a false analogy. The expectations and reactions of others has no baring on whether something actually is 'sane' or not.

The OP wanted to know how "I believe in a flying spaghetti monster god" is any less sane then "I believe in a christian god". The answer is that while the former will get those expected reactions the public concensus on what is sane or not has no bearing on sanity itself.

The answer to mine, and the OP's question is your first like.

"How can sound be sane?"

To extend it.

"How can actions be sane?"
"How can thoughts be sane?"
"How can beliefs be sane?"
"How can anything be sane?"

The answer is, it isn't. Sane, just like 'sin' is just another word and concept used to retrict what is not wanted by society. There is no absolute sane/insane. And hence all judgements of absolute sanity/insanity are incorrect.

Sanity and Insanity are subjective judgements with reference to your knowledge and majority as a whole.

A pastafarian would not find a person who said they believe in that type of god to be insane.

Remember though, that;

Majority describes X as Y doesn't mean X is Y. Esp. with dealing with 'absolutes'.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

Macho Nachos
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:08 am UTC
Location: Australia

Postby Macho Nachos » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:21 am UTC

Owijad wrote:Whether that's true or not, it's irrelevant to the analogy.

But regarding the stupidity of belief, it goes back to the kid with the blue dot on his forehead. Or, if that's too taxing on your imaginations, the little boy who is told that there are bears in the forest. He's never seen them. Three or four people have even told him they don't exist. Does that make it a good idea for him to wander into the forest?


Yeah, I was poking fun.

The second part; I like the blue dot analogy, but are you implying Pascals Wager in the next part? I think that's what Rorgg was saying.

"The little boy who is told that if he doesn't believe in God, he will go to hell. He's never seen God. Three or four people have even told him that God doesn't exist. Does that make it a good idea for him to not believe in God? (or, as Rorgg said, devote lots of time to actively being religious)"

Pascal's Wager breaks down on selfish grounds (would God really want you to believe in him purely as a safeguard against going to Hell?) and also on truth grounds (whether or not you're scared of going to Hell doesn't mean Hell exists).

Also, your analogy is flawed, because the real threat of being attacked by an angry bear is something that we have observed happen, and Hell is something that no-one alive has ever experienced. Also, not going into the forest is passive, and following a religion is active.

Passively not doing something that puts you at plausible risk is fine. Actively doing something based on Pascal's Wager is stupid.

It's like the difference between not going bungee jumping, or buying a lottery ticket every week where, rather than 45 numbers, there were 5000, and you had to pick the exact 1000 numbers which were chosen from the barrel.

Heck, I'm not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me, I just wanted to pick apart your post :p

User avatar
German Sausage
3 of 5
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Postby German Sausage » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:54 am UTC

Rorgg wrote:
But regarding the stupidity of belief, it goes back to the kid with the blue dot on his forehead. Or, if that's too taxing on your imaginations, the little boy who is told that there are bears in the forest. He's never seen them. Three or four people have even told him they don't exist. Does that make it a good idea for him to wander into the forest?


Replace "bear" with "dragon" and does it change anything?

And, should he then devote a substantial portion of his life devising bear-repellent techniques and trapping his house for bear defense?

replace 'dragon' or 'bear' with 'raptor' and you might just get banned for making fun of randy. [/joke]
no, it changes nothing.
if almost everyone told you that x was true, you would probably believe it. (i presume)
- example - if you fire an photon beam at a crystal lattice, the photons scatter in unpredictable (essentially) directions.
suppose i were to say 'no, that doesn't happen at all'...
unless you are a physicist/physics student, you are unlikely to have performed this experiment yourself, yet you believe the results, (again, i presume) and the electron shell theory.
some science is faith too.
<bakemaster> Only German Sausage can prevent forest fires
<felstaff> Hype is like a giant disappointment ray aimed squarely at the finished article.
<watson> Treat me like a criminal, Holmes!
TMT4L

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:14 pm UTC

It isn't a false analogy. The expectations and reactions of others has no baring on whether something actually is 'sane' or not.

I disagree. When we're talking about "Hello, how are you" versus random gurgling sounds, there's a reason you're saying "Hello" and not "Give me all your money or I'll shoot you" or "There's a train coming down that track you're standing on." What you say is a reflection of your intent to convey information, and if you do it by an unknown arbitrary collection of sounds, there is no reason to believe you will achieve that goal.

This is where I talked about action versus thing. The random gurgling sounds aren't insane, nor are making random gurgling sounds. But uttering them with the expectation of being understood is. And that's the unstated assumption in your analogy.

If your motivation is simply to go up and make sounds at people, then any combination works.

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:15 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:Haha, Rorrg can be funny, and not the guy that attacks me or (confession: I attack) on the Israel thread.


Yeah, oddly, I don't react well to spurious charges of racism.

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby hermaj » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:30 pm UTC

Okay, mod warning time; we're not bringing in stuff from different threads. Keep what happens in other threads separate to the discussion in this one, please.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:47 pm UTC

German Sausage wrote:- example - if you fire an photon beam at a crystal lattice, the photons scatter in unpredictable (essentially) directions.
suppose i were to say 'no, that doesn't happen at all'...
unless you are a physicist/physics student, you are unlikely to have performed this experiment yourself, yet you believe the results, (again, i presume) and the electron shell theory.
some science is faith too.


This is exactly my point. It's as reasonable to believe in God as it is to trust scientific theory that you can't prove, as long as there's a general consensus that He exists/it's an accurate theory.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:49 pm UTC

This is exactly my point. It's as reasonable to believe in God as it is to trust scientific theory that you can't prove, as long as there's a general consensus that He exists/it's an accurate theory.


Somebody, somewhere, proved it. It's documented. And if you wanted to, and gathered the resources, there is, assumedly, a clear documentation of how to prove it again.

Can the same be said for god?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:58 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Somebody, somewhere, proved it. It's documented. And if you wanted to, and gathered the resources, there is, assumedly, a clear documentation of how to prove it again.

Can the same be said for god?


Yes.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:03 pm UTC

Cool. Find me that documentation, and we're good.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:20 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Somebody, somewhere, proved it. It's documented. And if you wanted to, and gathered the resources, there is, assumedly, a clear documentation of how to prove it again.

Can the same be said for god?


Assumedly was the key word there. Yes, assumedly, someone could prove the existence of God again.


Take, say, a highly respected peer reviewed scientific journal. If you read it, you will almost certainly trust that what you read in it is accurate. Why? You don't know that they're actually scientists. They could all be fakes. But when was the last time you read about a scientific finding and went on to repeat all of their experiments, or investigate the credentials of all of the scientists who worked on it? You, personally, have not proven that they are right- all you know is that you've been TOLD that they're right.

The Bible is the same way. These people have been TOLD that the Bible is true.

Up to this point, they are equally valid things to believe.

Where it falls down is when you have three or four scientific journals with drastically differing opinions. Then, if it matters to you, you should investigate for yourself.

Again, same for the Bible.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:27 pm UTC

The scientific journal, however, offers the methodology by which the results could be replicated.

The bible does not. Unless I missed the "how to find irrefutable evidence of god in 10 easy steps" section.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:28 pm UTC

Belial wrote:The scientific journal, however, offers the methodology by which the results could be replicated.


Oh, neat. Have you?
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:34 pm UTC

Some. Enough to have a basis to trust the scientific community to check itself out.

So, any luck on those 10 easy steps?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:50 pm UTC

Yep. Jesus seems to have been a real person, and they've found a number of places referenced in the Bible.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests