. - Understanding religious delusion

[cluey]

I'd post this Copa wins the internet with this post ! And, if I may be so bold to speak on your behalf, our money rides on gravity too

Copasetic quotes:

Edit:" By the way these kind of "wishy-washy", "You can't prove objective reality exists arguments" are silly. They are childish. And are non-productive. I can claim to you right now, there is purple unicorns living on pluto--Obviously, since you can't disprove this statement it must be true?

No, while the statement doesn't lend itself to disproof it is meaningless statement about our world. It tells us nothing by way of our reality, no different than "you can't prove objective reality exists independent of my mind". Which is true, you could be living in the matrix and all this reality is really part of your subjective experience--Now disproove or prove some part of that.....

You can't, its a unfalsifiable concept and as such may make for great bar-talk, but in practical terms is worthless. Now, You can turn around and argue with me to provide evidence for this "so-called" objective reality and I'll kindly ask you hop out a second story window and see how arguments with gravity go. Of course that hasn't disproved your matrix, but a collective of people loosing their arguments with gravity sure as hell provide a lot more meaningful evidence of this "objective-reality" than it does to own personal reality.

So I suppose from a "theoretical" standpoint you are free to exist in your own private universe, however I wouldn't test the boundary rules of what the rest of us experience as "objective reality" (My money is on gravity, sorry its nothing personal. "

.

unfalsifiable......does not mean it's false.....it means .....if a statement where false....then it's falsehood could be demonstrated...................so yeah.....great bar/talk as you put it

all i ask if you want to constantly tell people they are wrong............then cough up the goods and prove your right

[Mr Walker]

Not so sure that you will.

From the Wikipedia article on Music:

To many people in many cultures music is an important part of their way of life. Greek philosophers and ancient Indian philosophers defined music as tones ordered horizontally as melodies and vertically as harmonies. Common sayings such as "the harmony of the spheres" and "it is music to my ears" point to the notion that music is often ordered and pleasant to listen to. However, 20th-century composer John Cage thought that any sound can be music, saying, for example, "There is no noise, only sound."[2] Musicologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez summarizes the relativist, post-modern viewpoint: "The border between music and noise is always culturally defined—which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus ... By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be."

Almost all of this defines music, as a form which would have to integrate objective and subjective realities. Cage is perhaps the exception, but even there he is saying that it takes human subjectivity to separate noise from music, and thus to define music. But i accept there is at least a peripheral definition of music which might make it entirely objective (or subjective) eg the music o fthe wind in the willows While it requires human subjectivity to identify and define it as music it does not require human subjectivity to create it. I would, personally, exclude such sounds form the core definition of music, because they are not composed/created. We use many humanocentric/ allegorical descriptions like the "sybillant sussuration of the sonorous surf" or the music of the spheres, in which, as humans, we find music in nature. But that does not make it actually music.

[Mr Walker]

Yet madrigal was polyphonic, or how about chants, both considered music.

You miss my point. These were created with intent /purpose. They are indeed music and have both objective and subjective qualities. All sound created with the intent/purpose to be musical, is music. Even sound created for another purpose may become music by definition; but music requires human creation and/or appellation, and thus it requires an element of human subjectivity, either in its creation, or in its labelling.

Ps something about the style or tone/nature of your posts has been bugging me with its familiarity, for a while. Suddenly a certain suspicion grew in my considerable belly, and lodged itself, resolutely, in my equally considerable mind.

So i went and checked, and lo and behold, yes you are the one and only sheri, et al. I had been concerned by your "äbsence." With so many old posters disappearing, its nice to know you're still around '.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Mr Walker

[Guest]

LOL, here's a little science experiment of my own to debunk all this "create your own reality" nonsense, no QM expertise required. Have you ever came to some steps or a curb and weren't really paying attention and you step up too early? Now you believed that step was there, but then when you put your foot down, klunk, surprise, not there! Collapsing wave lengths, perception, whatever, you're still gonna bust your **** no matter what you believe. Objective reality exists!

People have repeatedly stated that there is an objective reality, and most of our subjective impressions of it are accurate approximation to the nature of that reality. It is when we encounter abstract concepts such as God and Love that the subjective takes over and we cannot say that we are mapping our concepts onto externalities.

Ultimately we may live in an artificial matrix, but we probably don't, and even if we did that matrix would have a consistent enough quality to function as if it was the objective reality.

The point of this discussion is that religion is a set of abstract concepts, and there is no evidence that it maps to a consistent set of external properties. The delusion is that it does.

Br Cornelius

[SlimJim22]

Very interesting topic that appears very en vogue at the moment. Here is my contribution to the discussion.

Rand's philosophy begins with three axioms: existence, identity, and consciousness.[5] Rand defined an axiom as "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."[6] As Leonard Peikoff noted, Rand's argument "is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they are axioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable."[7]

Objectivism states that "Existence exists" and "Existence is Identity." To be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." That which has no attributes does not and cannot exist. Hence, the axiom of identity: a thing is what it is. Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not), the law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects. As Rand wrote, "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A."[8]

Rand held that since one is able to perceive something that exists, one's consciousness must exist, "consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."[9] Objectivism maintains that what exists simply exists, regardless of anyone's awareness, knowledge or opinion. This idea is derived from Rand's theory which she called "the primacy of existence"[10], in opposition to the theory of "the primacy of consciousness."[11]

Objectivism

For Rand, consciousness is an inherently relational phenomenon. As she puts it, "to be conscious is to be conscious of something," so that an objective reality independent of consciousness must exist for consciousness to be possible, and that there is no possibility of a consciousness conscious only of itself. Thus consciousness cannot be the only thing that exists. "It cannot be aware only of itself — there is no 'itself' until it is aware of something."[12] Objectivism holds that the mind cannot create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality.[13]

Objectivist philosophy derives its explanations of action and causation from the axiom of identity, calling causation "the law of identity applied to action."[14] According to Rand, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different they would act differently.[15]

Objectivism rejects belief in "every 'spiritual' dimension, force, Form, Idea, entity, power, or whatnot alleged to transcend existence."[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Existentialism

As early as 1835 in a letter to his friend Peter Wilhelm Lund, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote one of his first existentially sensitive passages. In it, he describes a truth that is applicable for him:

What I really lack is to be clear in my mind what I am to do, not what I am to know, except in so far as a certain knowledge must precede every action. The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die. ... I certainly do not deny that I still recognize an imperative of knowledge and that through it one can work upon men, but it must be taken up into my life, and that is what I now recognize as the most important thing.

—Søren Kierkegaard, Letter to Peter Wilhelm Lund dated August 31, 1835, emphasis added[30]

The early thoughts of Kierkegaard would be formalized in his prolific philosophical and theological writings, many of which would later form the modern foundation of 20th century existentialism.[25][31]

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

The way I see it is rather uncomplicated compared to these two philosophies. Physical reality is defined by dualism but absolute reality by monism. Our mind interprets reality in a way it best understands depending on cultural conditioning. Believing in any one perspective exclusively will ultimately prove erroneous but the truth is that no matter what religion or philosophical persuasion we are all 'being' in a similar manner we just categorize it differently.

Tiggs' example of music is an excellent one because it all depends upon what the ear and mind together judge to be a harmonious manifestation of notes and tones.

http://www.ifs.csic.es/sorites/Issue_20/colbourn.htm

http://www.jaygaskill.com/Critique.htm

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

This looks interesting too but somewhat over my head. Maybe someone here can make something intelligible of it.

http://totalassaultonculture.wordpress.com/category/deleuze/

[SlimJim22]

Really nice link on Freud and the osychology of religiosity.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Neurosis.htm

[Jor-el]

unfalsifiable......does not mean it's false.....it means .....if a statement where false....then it's falsehood could be demonstrated...................so yeah.....great bar/talk as you put it

all i ask if you want to constantly tell people they are wrong............then cough up the goods and prove your right

Too hard and too much trouble...

Well I give up, after 40 + pages of this thread I think I've said all i have to say on the subject...

Br. Cornelius,

The point of this discussion is that religion is a set of abstract concepts, and there is no evidence that it maps to a consistent set of external properties. The delusion is that it does.

The point is also that whatever evidence there is, is also never acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever, except your own. This is something for all of you to consider.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Jor-el

[+Sherapy]

Too hard and too much trouble...

Well I give up, after 40 + pages of this thread I think I've said all i have to say on the subject...

The point is also that whatever evidence there is, is also never acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever, except your own. This is something for all of you to consider.

Actually Jo rel there is no evidence to support that the beliefs contained in Christianity are factual.

Christianity attests to the fact that it believes certain ideas and stories are a fact on faith, which is fine. This is a very important point one I can't stress enough . Not that the beliefs are indeed fact, but that they are believed to be fact on faith and excepted in that context. .. So you would be correct in saying that at best it can act as support for personal testimony that indeed as a Christian you believe certain ideas and stories are true based purely in faith.

Now g-d is a whole other can of worms, you are offering subjective perspective as your evidence and in order for it to be verifiable it has to be objective.

Do you have a video of your experience, or maybe you can summon up g-d again and tape record him this time and upload him on you tube.

[Guest]

The point is also that whatever evidence there is, is also never acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever, except your own. This is something for all of you to consider.

Jor-el,

Produce that evidence and we can talk

Br Cornelius

[cluey]

Jor-el,

Produce that evidence and we can talk

Br Cornelius

oh!!!....so we can only talk now if we can produce evidence of our own personal perceptions??????

[cluey]

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

what is it you want to know.........religious mistake,blunder,apparition,.............are you trying to say to people *here is your mistake in believing in god?*.......if not......what is the point of your thread???????

[Guest]

oh!!!....so we can only talk now if we can produce evidence of our own personal perceptions??????

If you had any desire to convert me or convince me then yes, thats what it would take.

Only a fool takes anything on faith.

Br Cornelius

[Dr. D]

If you had any desire to convert me or convince me then yes, thats what it would take.

Only a fool takes anything on faith.

Br Cornelius

Do you use dollars? Do you accept them as payment? Don't you accept them with the faith that the promise of the government to honor them is true? Do you have extensive knowledge of pharmaceuticals? But you take medicines prescribed for you with the faith that the doctor knew what he was doing. Have you had a serious relationship? Wasn't it based on the faith that what you felt was returned? Our llves are filled with acts of faith. I do not, however, personally agree with the application of faith as it is offered in religions.

[fullywired]

what is it you want to know.........religious mistake,blunder,apparition,.............are you trying to say to people *here is your mistake in believing in god?*.......if not......what is the point of your thread???????

No .I want to know ,Why people can see the flaws in other religions but not in their own ,

That is the point of the thread

fullywired

[cluey]

No .I want to know ,Why people can see the flaws in other religions but not in their own ,

That is the point of the thread

fullywired

and there we have it!!!!....you want to to know why people see flaws in others perception of god................and god forbid.....not the perception they have of their own god and beliefs.................... ......well...we have the Koran and the bible and many religions......it comes down to their perception and the way they want history to be......difference of opinion goes back thousands of years...........that is not a question that has an answer.......it's human nature to be arrogant and pig headed.........so all and religions will claim they are right and the others are wrong..........*in other words......yeah!!!...i believe in god!!!....just not yours....*

Edited September 24, 2010 by cluey

[Dr. D]

and there we have it!!!!....you want to to know why people see flaws in others perception of god................and god forbid.....not the perception they have of their own god and beliefs.................... ......well...we have the Koran and the bible and many religions......it comes down to their perception and the way they want history to be......difference of opinion goes back thousands of years...........that is not a question that has an answer.......it's human nature to be arrogant and pig headed.........so all and religions will claim they are right and the others are wrong..........*in other words......yeah!!!...i believe in god!!!....just not yours....*

I disagree. I don't think the answer can be reduced to an individual level where people make decisions based on "their perception and the way they want history to be." Religion is usually an inheritence gained from prior generations and taught without consideration of alternatives. Many times relgiions are also cultural and represent a nation or even a continent (Latin America as an example). The belief that their religion represents truth is not created by arrogance or being pig headed, rather from a lack of exposure to other forms of worship or religious thought. Forms of religious expression are taught by parents and attendance in church is part of familial routine from infancy. How could they doubt that their own mother would have taught them what was not true? Beyond that, Christianty teaches the horror of consequences for not accepting doctrine and dogma as absolute fact. The ways by which people address their god are formed as cultural legacies, and rately from the basis of personal opinion or choice.

[cluey]

I disagree. I don't think the answer can be reduced to an individual level where people make decisions based on "their perception and the way they want history to be." Religion is usually an inheritence gained from prior generations and taught without consideration of alternatives. Many times relgiions are also cultural and represent a nation or even a continent (Latin America as an example). The belief that their religion represents truth is not created by arrogance or being pig headed, rather from a lack of exposure to other forms of worship or religious thought. Forms of religious expression are taught by parents and attendance in church is part of familial routine from infancy. How could they doubt that their own mother would have taught them what was not true? Beyond that, Christianty teaches the horror of consequences for not accepting doctrine and dogma as absolute fact. The ways by which people address their god are formed as cultural legacies, and rately from the basis of personal opinion or choice.

ok.....i get ya!!!!......you want people(religious or not).....to basically learn about and respect other religions????....unfortunately......there is still this on going argument just to have christ taught in schools as it is......as wonderful as learning other religions in my eyes would be.........it will probably never happen...........not in schools anyway........i guess....like everything else.......it's up to parents to do it!!!

Edited September 25, 2010 by cluey

[Dr. D]

ok.....i get ya!!!!......you want peopl(religious or not).....to basically learn about and respect other religions????....unfortunately......there is still this on going argument just to have christ taught in schools as it is......as wonderful as learning other religions in my eyes would be.........it will probably never happen...........not in schools anyway........i guess....like everything else.......it's up to parents to do it!!!

Your answer doesn't even resemble what I said. Nowhere did I say that I wanted people to do anything. I simply stated that the process by which form religious beliefs is given to them like spiritual vaccines by parents and cultures. My posture was that religion is rarely an individual process wherein a selection is made, rather it is included in the growth process until it is instilled into the adult as part of his very nature.

[cluey]

WOW!!!........maybe you should explain yourself a little better then ................oh....and you didn't have to be so rude

[Dr. D]

WOW!!!........maybe you should explain yourself a little better then ................oh....and you didn't have to be so rude

It is not rude to say that you did not address my post, it is stating a fact. I assure you that my position was adequately explained for anyone to understand.

[Sissy Dog]

It is not rude to say that you did not address my post, it is stating a fact. I assure you that my position was adequately explained for anyone to understand.

I understood it completely, and it was rather concise and thorough at the same time!

[mklsgl]

It is not rude to say that you did not address my post, it is stating a fact. I assure you that my position was adequately explained for anyone to understand.

WOW!!!! ....Evidently not!!!!! Sorry, Dr. D..... I couldn't resist....

[Answer42]

So where did the first glimmer of religion come from if there had to be a kernel (or from an existing religion as stated above) to form from? And if the answer is, it happened out of superstition or fear then it is possible for religion that anyone forms now to come from within ones self since religion obviously had to arise somehow. Unless of course it was given to them and to people now.

[Guest]

So where did the first glimmer of religion come from if there had to be a kernel (or from an existing religion as stated above) to form from? And if the answer is, it happened out of superstition or fear then it is possible for religion that anyone forms now to come from within ones self since religion obviously had to arise somehow. Unless of course it was given to them and to people now.

Shamanism - now that's the most likely candidate, and also the most likely to actually map onto some aspect of objective reality.

All the rest are just elaborations and corruptions of the basic Shamanistic forms.

Br Cornelius

[Belial]

Any religion in any form is simply brainwashing, every level of this type of 'belief' is just an history lesson in control.