. - Understanding religious delusion

[fullywired]

Here is an article to make you wonder if you right about your religion .it is a bit long so I will only post a link to it ,then you can decide whether to read it or not

.http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm

fullywired

[Guest]

Here is an article to make you wonder if you right about your religion .it is a bit long so I will only post a link to it ,then you can decide whether to read it or not

.http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm

fullywired

Fantastic argument.

Its about time man grew up and stopped believing in SantaJesus.

Br Cornelius

[Jor-el]

Here is an article to make you wonder if you right about your religion .it is a bit long so I will only post a link to it ,then you can decide whether to read it or not

.http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm

fullywired

You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers (see this proof). The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because Jesus and God are imaginary.

From your article...

Let us say you are a quantum Physicist trying to make sense of fermions and bosons and you have to make a theory based on what you know. You come up with a mathematical theory that involves the existence of 10-26 different dimensions. In other words those dimensions have to exist for your theory to be practical and real....

Guess what, they are, even when you can't prove it with any practical technology we have at hand... Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it aint there. Just like dark matter and many other subjects.

For all practicle purposes, reality itself is an illusion and you believe it to be quite real. And it isn't me that says so, it's the scientists themselves. For all intents and purposes we live in a digital universe.

Our Macro-Boundary

The startling discovery of 20th century science was that our universe is finite. Scientists now acknowledge that the universe had a beginning. They call the singularity from which it all began the "Big Bang." While the details among the many variants of these theories remain quite controversial, the fact that there was a definite beginning has gained widespread agreement. This is, of course, what the Bible has maintained throughout its 66 books.

From thermodynamic considerations, it also appears that all processes in the universe inevitably contribute their losses from their inefficiencies to the ambient temperature, and thus the universe ultimately will attain a uniform temperature in which no work - all of which derives from temperature differences - will occur. Scientists call this final ultimate physical destiny the "heat death."

Mankind, therefore, finds itself caught in a finite interval between the singularity that began it all and its inevitable termination. The mathematical concept of infinity - in any spatial direction or in terms of time - seems astonishingly absent in the macrocosm, the domain of the astronomers and cosmologists.

Our Micro-Boundary

In the microcosmic domain, there appears to be an even more astonishing boundary to smallness. If we take a segment of length, we can divide it in half. We can take one of the remaining halves, and we can divide it in half again. We naturally assume that this can go on forever. We assume that no matter how small a length we end up dealing with, we can always - at least conceptually - divide any remainder in half. It turns out that this is not true. There is a length, known as the Planck length, 10-33 centimeters, that is indivisible.

The same thing is true of mass, energy, and even time. There is a unit of time which cannot be further divided: 10-43 seconds. It is in this strange world of subatomic behavior that scientists have encountered the very boundaries of physical reality, as we experience it. The study of these subatomic components is called quantum mechanics, or quantum physics.

The startling discovery made by the quantum physicists is that if you break matter into smaller and smaller pieces, you eventually reach a point where those pieces - electrons, protons, etc. - no longer possess the traits of objects. Although they can sometimes behave as if they were a compact little particle, physicists have found that they literally possess no dimension. They call this non-locality.

The more we know about quantum physics, the less confidence we can have concerning the nature of our own physical reality. It seems that it is but a subset of a larger hyperspace we call the spiritual reality.

Yet at this most basic level of reality we have just one thing in common and that is an indivisible unit, just as the bit is the indivisible unit of IT.

See: The Physical World as a Virtual Reality

Edited August 22, 2010 by Jor-el

[Power Lust]

You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers (see this proof). The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because Jesus and God are imaginary.

From your article...

Let us say you are a quantum Physicist trying to make sense of fermions and bosons and you have to make a theory based on what you know. You come up with a mathematical theory that involves the existence of 10-26 different dimensions. In other words those dimensions have to exist for your theory to be practical and real....

Guess what, they are, even when you can't prove it with any practical technology we have at hand... Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it aint there. Just like dark matter and many other subjects.

For all practicle purposes, reality itself is an illusion and you believe it to be quite real. And it isn't me that says so, it's the scientists themselves. For all intents and purposes we live in a digital universe.

Our Macro-Boundary

The startling discovery of 20th century science was that our universe is finite. Scientists now acknowledge that the universe had a beginning. They call the singularity from which it all began the "Big Bang." While the details among the many variants of these theories remain quite controversial, the fact that there was a definite beginning has gained widespread agreement. This is, of course, what the Bible has maintained throughout its 66 books.

From thermodynamic considerations, it also appears that all processes in the universe inevitably contribute their losses from their inefficiencies to the ambient temperature, and thus the universe ultimately will attain a uniform temperature in which no work - all of which derives from temperature differences - will occur. Scientists call this final ultimate physical destiny the "heat death."

Mankind, therefore, finds itself caught in a finite interval between the singularity that began it all and its inevitable termination. The mathematical concept of infinity - in any spatial direction or in terms of time - seems astonishingly absent in the macrocosm, the domain of the astronomers and cosmologists.

Our Micro-Boundary

In the microcosmic domain, there appears to be an even more astonishing boundary to smallness. If we take a segment of length, we can divide it in half. We can take one of the remaining halves, and we can divide it in half again. We naturally assume that this can go on forever. We assume that no matter how small a length we end up dealing with, we can always - at least conceptually - divide any remainder in half. It turns out that this is not true. There is a length, known as the Planck length, 10-33 centimeters, that is indivisible.

The same thing is true of mass, energy, and even time. There is a unit of time which cannot be further divided: 10-43 seconds. It is in this strange world of subatomic behavior that scientists have encountered the very boundaries of physical reality, as we experience it. The study of these subatomic components is called quantum mechanics, or quantum physics.

The startling discovery made by the quantum physicists is that if you break matter into smaller and smaller pieces, you eventually reach a point where those pieces - electrons, protons, etc. - no longer possess the traits of objects. Although they can sometimes behave as if they were a compact little particle, physicists have found that they literally possess no dimension. They call this non-locality.

The more we know about quantum physics, the less confidence we can have concerning the nature of our own physical reality. It seems that it is but a subset of a larger hyperspace we call the spiritual reality.

Yet at this most basic level of reality we have just one thing in common and that is an indivisible unit, just as the bit is the indivisible unit of IT.

See: The Physical World as a Virtual Reality

Good post.

The Liberal Left dont like religion because the way they live their lives is in conflict with it. Thats why I think they try and ruin it for everyone else.

[Guest]

Good post.

The Liberal Left dont like religion because the way they live their lives is in conflict with it. Thats why I think they try and ruin it for everyone else.

You are wrong, those who understand the concept understand that all is illusion, and our ideas are simple guess-stimates to some underlying reality. Science is just a better approximation than religion and so more useful.

Br Cornelius

[Jor-el]

You are wrong, those who understand the concept understand that all is illusion, and our ideas are simple guess-stimates to some underlying reality. Science is just a better approximation than religion and so more useful.

Br Cornelius

Hmm, one can say the same about religion.

Science is not qualified to make determinations on the existence of God one way or the other and the OP is a simple demonstration of the delusion of some, that it in fact does have a say in the matter. When science finally admits that a spiritual world exists, then it can start making some of those assumptions they make on everything else.

[over9millionyearsold]

Hmm, one can say the same about religion.

Science is not qualified to make determinations on the existence of God one way or the other and the OP is a simple demonstration of the delusion of some, that it in fact does have a say in the matter. When science finally admits that a spiritual world exists, then it can start making some of those assumptions they make on everything else.

No, one cannot say the same about religion.

Science is objective. Believing in a result before bearing evidence destroys the entire purpose of the scientific theory. If science is about admitting before it has evidence then it is not science anymore. Anyone and anything can make conjecture on god or the supernatural, because it is just that - conjecture. A priest is no more qualified on supernatural powers or god than a comic book writer or a scientist.

[Dr. D]

No, one cannot say the same about religion.

Science is objective. Believing in a result before bearing evidence destroys the entire purpose of the scientific theory. If science is about admitting before it has evidence then it is not science anymore. Anyone and anything can make conjecture on god or the supernatural, because it is just that - conjecture. A priest is no more qualified on supernatural powers or god than a comic book writer or a scientist.

Agreed. But I would add that science does not include consequences for how it is seen. If two scientists disagree over a particular theory, one is not doomed to die over a bunsen burner. Science begins with curiosity, is nurtured by experimentation and is created with proof. Religion has no such process and most of its beginnings are lost, hidden, imagined or revealed in a long process of unreliable copies.

[Jor-el]

No, one cannot say the same about religion.

Science is objective. Believing in a result before bearing evidence destroys the entire purpose of the scientific theory. If science is about admitting before it has evidence then it is not science anymore. Anyone and anything can make conjecture on god or the supernatural, because it is just that - conjecture. A priest is no more qualified on supernatural powers or god than a comic book writer or a scientist.

And that is why science is not even qualified to consider these issues. That is the province of religious thought. What you cannot do is use scientific assumptions in regard to religious thought.

As I said, only if science admits the possibility of the existence of a spiritual world can it ever enter into this domain.

A scientist is no more qualified to write a comic book either...

Stop mudding the waters and let each discipline do what it does best. If I want spiritual counseling I could go to a priest, if I want a medical evaluation, I would go to a doctor, but it would not cross my mind to go ask my priest for a medical evaluation or go to my doctor for a spiritual one...

[Jor-el]

Agreed. But I would add that science does not include consequences for how it is seen. If two scientists disagree over a particular theory, one is not doomed to die over a bunsen burner. Science begins with curiosity, is nurtured by experimentation and is created with proof. Religion has no such process and most of its beginnings are lost, hidden, imagined or revealed in a long process of unreliable copies.

No but they could get laughed right out of academia, which is pretty much the same result as the bunsen burner...

Edited August 23, 2010 by Jor-el

[Guest]

There is nothing in the scientific method which precluded investigation into matters of the spirit. There are many scientists conducting research into religious experiences and coming up with interesting results.

There is a certain section of fundamentalist materalists which deny the existence of anything but the physical - but the scientific method doesn't dictate this position.

Br Cornelius

[Jor-el]

There is nothing in the scientific method which precluded investigation into matters of the spirit. There are many scientists conducting research into religious experiences and coming up with interesting results.

There is a certain section of fundamentalist materalists which deny the existence of anything but the physical - but the scientific method doesn't dictate this position.

Br Cornelius

You must know that those scientists are considered hacks by mainstream scientific fields, they are not taken seriously. They are part of that group of researchers that were or are laughed or ridiculed out of academia...

You should see how dificult it is to get grants or even do research on the matter. For all intents and purposes they are considered fringe researchers, not benefitting from the otherwise mainstream opportunities that exist, there is quite a bit of bias there, just as it exists everywhere else... they are not a group that has a good track record when it comes to fighting for grants.

You expound the ideal, but then again the ideal does not leave the drawing board in most cases.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Jor-el

[fullywired]

No one has addressed the point of the OP,which in my opinion was .Four wonderous stories ,which one do you believe and what's wrong with the other three

fullywired

Edited August 23, 2010 by fullywired

[Leonardo]

And it isn't me that says so, it's the scientists themselves.

And when new knowledge is available, those same scientists might admit they were wrong. Would you find that attitude among the religious authorities?

No, because religious 'knowledge' has to be absolute, as decreed by the fact that the God worshipped is also absolute.

Your analogy of the illusion of divinity to the illusion of reality is false, Jor-el.

[eight bits]

No one has addressed the point of the OP,which in my opinion was .Four wonderous stories ,which one do you believe and what's wrong with the other three

I don't believe any of them.

Santa Claus seems to be the favorite of those atheists who skipped epistemology class on the day when evidentiary reasoning was explained.

We have tons of evidence about Santa Claus, all of it pointing to a fictional character based loosely on a Third-to-Fourth Century Orthodox Bishop.

I am unreasonably fond of this beauty,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Demre_Noel_Baba_op_Plein.JPG

The picture shows a statue of Santa Claus in Demre, Turkey, the modern-day Myra, where Nicholas was once Bishop.

As to the other three, there is little evidence either way that bears on what they have in common, the claim that a human being, Jesus, had some distinguished relationship with the Creator, and came to Earth to work the Creator's will. There is also little evidence that bears on the many points the three differ among themselves about.

That lack of relevant evidence stands in sharp contrast with the Santa Claus question, where there is plenty of evidence and no dispute at all.

In closing, I object to attributing symptoms of mental illness to people who disagree with an author's personal opinion on any subject.

And I suspect that I'll believe in Santa Claus five minutes before I believe your author is medically qualified to diagnose delusional beliefs.

[danielost]

Here is an article to make you wonder if you right about your religion .it is a bit long so I will only post a link to it ,then you can decide whether to read it or not

.http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm

fullywired

ah you do know that Santa Claus is based on two real people right. 1 a catholic Bishop and 2 a real toy maker who really did do what the myth states he did except he was limited to one little town.

[questionmark]

And I suspect that I'll believe in Santa Claus five minutes before I believe your author is medically qualified to diagnose delusional beliefs.

So do I, but I want to interject that St. Nicholaos of Myra is the patron of sailors, fishermen, merchants, the falsely accused, prostitutes, repentant thieves, pharmacists, archers, pawnbrokers. Not the bloke that flies around on a sleigh coming from the North Pole.

Santa Claus is an artificial creation by traders to commercialize Christmas.

But feel free to believe whatever you want.

Edited August 23, 2010 by questionmark

[The Silver Thong]

Lets just substitute Santa with the Easter Bunny then, or maybe leprechauns or maybe...............

[eight bits]

?

So do I, but I want to interject that St. Nicholaos of Myra is the patron of sailors, fishermen, merchants, the falsely accused, prostitutes, repentant thieves, pharmacists, archers, pawnbrokers. Not the bloke that flies around on a sleigh coming from the North Pole.

Santa Claus is an artificial creation by traders to commercialize Christmas.

I believe that my post accurately distinguished between Saint Nicholas and Santa Claus.

ST

Lets just substitute Santa with the Easter Bunny then, or maybe leprechauns or maybe...............

If the case is clear, then it will be clear because there is voluminous lopsided evidence. If the case is unclear, then it doesn't help the OP-author's argument.

What the three non-Santa cases of the OP-article have in common is that they are "revealed religions." They go up or down on whether you believe the revealer.

The false revealer of Santa confesses. If somebody reveals the Easter Bunny (that didn't happen in my neighborhood), then they confess, too. Nobody reveals leprechauns, so far as I know.

Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and Paul said they met supernatural beings, and stuck to their stories. None of the pop culture cases parallels the revealed religion case.

Whether one person believes another person's testimony is a complicated business, and not very reliably related to the truth of the matter. But it is also something about which rational people differ.

It is not a symptom of mental illness to believe that another person is telling you the truth about a private experience that is said to have happened in space and time. It is not a symptom of mental illness to believe some such narratives and not others.

I think Joe made it up. I think Paul had sunstroke. I think Mo's situation was one or the other, or maybe a little bit of both, maybe different at different times.

Couple of billion people and change say I'm right about two out of three.

Woohoo.

But which two? Opinions differ. As they should. Because I have no more evidence to offer them than they have to offer each other. Zip. It's all personal opinion, all the way down.

[Jor-el]

And when new knowledge is available, those same scientists might admit they were wrong. Would you find that attitude among the religious authorities?

No, because religious 'knowledge' has to be absolute, as decreed by the fact that the God worshipped is also absolute.

Your analogy of the illusion of divinity to the illusion of reality is false, Jor-el.

Take that up with the scientists who expound it. As for religious knowledge, only some things are absolute, and even then we will find someone who doesn't agree with that interpretation and will give another one. It becomes our responsibility to find what speaks to us in our hearts.

That's one of the reasons I'm not religious, but have a faith I can relate to and accept in my heart.

[Jor-el]

No one has addressed the point of the OP,which in my opinion was .Four wonderous stories ,which one do you believe and what's wrong with the other three

fullywired

And in my opinion, Jesus Christ is based on fact and not myth... or old wives tales.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Jor-el

[Dr. D]

And in my opinion, Jesus Christ is based on fact and not myth... or old wives tales.

I don't think that it is myth or old wives tales, but I do think it is contrived and created.

[Guest]

And in my opinion, Jesus Christ is based on fact and not myth... or old wives tales.

Jesus may have been a real person (though there is little direct evidence for his existence), but that doesn't make the myths of Christianity any more true. A lot was said to support his prophetic nature, but that seems largely to be an explanation devoid of much underlying reality.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

I don't think that it is myth or old wives tales, but I do think it is contrived and created.

We cannot be sure of that, at least a dozen things attributed to JC were done/suffered/said by an actual historical person around the year 0 100 years + or 100 years -

[Llucid]

Here is an article to make you wonder if you right about your religion .it is a bit long so I will only post a link to it ,then you can decide whether to read it or not

.http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm

fullywired

Intriguing article (except for some parts about Christianity where he is outright wrong) but he should have included a fifth story about the materialistic atheist view of the world.

- In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded

- Despite all odds, the four forces that govern our universe happen to come together in just the right way at the exact right strengths to compliment one another

- Galaxies begin to form, matter assembles while following laws that just happened to come about

- Our solar system just happens to form in the right spot in our galaxy to support life

- Our planet just happens to form in the right spot in our solar system to form life

- Our planet just happens to develop the right chemicals in the right amounts to create a sustainable environment

- Coincidentally those conditions that support life happen to be the best conditions to observe life (i.e our delicately balanced atmosphere just happens to be clear enough that we can see through it into the stars. this spot in the solar system just happens to be the best spot to view the solar system from ect)

- Evolution takes place, the micro leading to massive macro, and all the diversity, intelligence, design-like symbiotic relationships, ect come about for no reason, just random mindless processes working for no reason, following laws that came about for no reason

You could sit down and quiz this person for hours and they will give you an answer to every question. For example you might say:

- "Why do you think that people and bananas come from the same thing?" And they would say it is because animals who live in cold climates grow thicker fur and more fat.

- "How did nothing explode into everything?" And they say that they don't know yet but we will someday.

- "Where did all the information that is at the core of life come from?" And they say that they don't know yet but we will someday.

- "Why does every culture have a concept of God? Why do some many people have religious experiences?" And they will respond that people can delude themselves, chemicals in the brain can be disturbed, causing sensory input you cannot trust and experiences that aren't real. "The same brain that you are using to come to all your conclusions?" And they will reply that their brain is fine.

To say that anyone has come up with an idea of our origins and purpose that is logical and objective is a complete joke. I have found no worldview that addresses and defines the human condition better than Christianity. Science is a wonderful tool that I have nothing against, but the way materialists have warped and twisted it into the "be all and end all" of everything is not just misleading, it is dangerous. To restrict all acceptable answers to only those that can be observed and measured by our methods is unacceptable. Here's an illustration of my point:

Two computer chips are talking to each other. One says to the other, "You know, I look around and see how everything works together. How all these different components fit together like a giant puzzle. There's all this power that we are running on coming from somewhere that we can't see. You know, I think we were built to work like this. I think there are thinks outside of this dark box." The other chip says, "I think that after a zillion billion decagagillion years thinks just happened to come together." The other chip says, "But where is all the power coming from? Where is all the information we are passing coming from? What formed that strange symbol over there in the form of 'Intel'?" The other chip says, "I don't know, but someday we will. One thing is for certain, though, you can't just say there's things outside this box because we can't see it and you can't prove it."