(Religion=Delusion) = Delusion

there are lots of different understandings on what the words "multiple universes" mean, but there are similar ideas that are explained along those lines in the vedas ... the universes are never explained to be so "multiple" as to evade the potency of vishnu (or his plenary expansions) however

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For the sake of trimming down text in the discussion I have been using the phrase 'adequate resources' to equate to 'adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity'... which have very different meanings. In the case of LA violence did both the US and LA have adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity?

There was a psychology study done in the 90's (sorry I don't remember the exact name of it) where various group of people were put through game simulations for acquiring money. Any player had the ability to donate their money towards hurting the cash flow of other players. Initially one of the players was artificially given far more money than the rest and the other players would then gang up on him and try to hurt him. They even had scenarious where the majority of the players were artifically given extra cash and the minority would try and gang up on them. In all cases, the folks who had the piles of cash didn't feel safe and would start hurting the other players cash flow really bad. In the case where there were multiple high-end cash owners, they would gang up on the low-end cash folks. While the simulation didn't cover the concept of fuel or opportunity, it did show what happens when people perceive inadequate resources and protection.

Did the rich people feel they had adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity? I am willing to bet something was missing.

Even if everyone had the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity? If the answer is 'yes', then what is the objective motivation?

I've seen the top of alit of Silicon Valley power structures and violence has never been the phrase I would use to describe those in power. Maybe your argument was aimed at resources only vs the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity?

I understand your observations and I would have to ask the question if all parties involved in the violent conflicts felt they had the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Crunchy cat

if you can explain the non-credible without touching on the credible, please be my guest

just to reiterate a challenge to your naive world view, do you see a connection between troops being deployed in iraq and resource demands of the silicon valley?

the things we have to do for a buck, eh?

easy
the personnel manager comes in and says words to the effect "if you want to continue working for us you will have to work an extra day per week and your holiday leave will be cut by 50%"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Invisible Pink Unicorns are not credible long before cultural credibility is even applied.

I see a connection between troops being deployed to Iraq and one or more parties perceiving some combination of inadequate fuel, resources, protection, or opportunity.

It beats hunting and farming.

To which I would respond, 'I quit'. I am not reliant on an employer for making a living. I can also do it myself.

 

Crunchy cat

if you don't believe absolute negatives get into extremely hot water the moment you mention them, just try and explain why without touching on the credible

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

well I guess we can take silicon valley off the list then

I guess it depends if one is willing to extend moral principles of equality to the people of iraq or not ....

“

you think most sole business owners have shorter hours and longer vacation periods?
/slaps crunchy cat several times again in the face

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... I guess those people you work with suddenly aren't so groovy after all, eh?

 

The credible vs. the culturally credible are not the same.

You are really enjoying the Iraq card aren't you?


“

All that slapping is making me wet and gooey. Wanna bang? When you work for yourself, you aren't restricted to just running a business. You can cherry pick projects, define your hours, define your cost, and make a great living while having alot more time and flexibility. The downside is you don't have work-buddies around... which can get a little lonely.

Just because I would quit doesn't mean I wouldn't continue to be their friend. I can separate objective and subjective value.

 

I dont find any gods delusional, they have to exist to be able, to be delusional.

Well what!

Thanks.
Yes it does have a similarity to god/gods doesn't it.

The exact same ones that are attributed to god/gods. Why! isn't it obvious.

All the navy's of the world.

Humans could not live without others, so it's a bit of a moot question, however if you mean what inate morals humans have, then the golden rule applies, "do to other, that which you would like done to you" after all social animals need to be accepted by the herd for survival sake.

More Red herring.
Thats not using your imagination that using you experiences and education to formulate a theory, they don't imagine if they mix red with blue it makes green, their experiences and education tell them that red and blue make purple.

Sensible people with intellect, sense and reason, that use their imagination as a tool, and not as a mind set to live by.

 

I don't.
I merely say that I have not come across any.
I am an agnostic atheist.

So you think we should all follow Pascal's Wager?
The reward of not investigating is life continuing as it has done.
The reward of investigating is life continuing as it has done... but in the knowledge that there is a "God".

Please highlight ANY quote that I have EVER said that theists are delusional.
You can't - because I don't.

No. Education is about applying the tools the person is willing to use, and educating him that way.

then the onus is on you to be able to explain, in terms they understand, why your methodology is superior in this regard, given that it is based primarily on fallacious logic (Appeal to Authority) and circular logic (Believe to Believe). If there is no evidence you can provide then there is little chance of you being taken seriously by people who require evidence for significant matters.

A physicist can provide rational evidence to support his facts... whether you understand that evidence or not is not an issue - the evidence exists (hence fact and not mere theory / hypothesis).

You, however, state that one must apply the right methodology even to see the evidence.

And your methodology is, from what I have garnered, little more than persuading yourself to believe.
Once you achieve this, lo and behold you believe.
And once believing, you see evidence of God.

Yes - much like telling a man with paralyzed legs that the right methodology is to run.

Be that as it may, the onus is on you if you want them to take you seriously.

 

Fahrenheit

so there's a hint how specific your argument is

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

“

why whine about specific gods?
“

“

er - no
“

are you serious?
“

if that was the case there would be no observations of conflict within the "herd"
“

well unlike colours, there was no experience of brown dwarfs
“

what's this crack pottery!
what sensible person would dare to invite delusion into their investigations?

 

quick men! to the bunkers of agnosticism once more!

its all clear men! out of the bunkers and charge with atheism

retreat!
back to the bunkers!

charge I say!

its all clear men!
charge!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your attempt at humour is sad. Why not quote a bit of nonsense from the Bhagavad Gita as you usually do. I can promise you it is more entertaining.

 

You haven't ever been aware in any way you could describe, of an external deity, like the sort of doctrinal theism that's in the Bible or the Torah describes, angels and their counterparts, or spirits say?
I bet you all up you have been aware of something that isn't an external kind of "spirit'.

 

Specific enough to keep you replying.

Well, I suppose it was a big ask, for you to see it. The invisible and the non existent are very much alike.

Yes, about as serious as you are that god actually exist.

When man first stood up, the herd was much smaller. Now we have to many herds, and they all want their own territory.

Hence why they used the evidence available, to find them. their imagination wasn't really need.

Who's inviting delusion, they are merely using there imagination as the tool it is. Do you understand what delusion is.

 

I have been aware of descriptions of such things (e.g. the Bible) but have never, in any way, come across or been aware of such a thing outside of those pages.

Are you sure your English is correct here?
Yes, I have been aware of something that is NOT an external kind of "spirit".
I am aware of my desk, for example. And of my computer. Do they count as something that "isn't an external kind of spirit"?

 

If this is your tactic to those arguments you have no answer for... :shrug:
Or do you only want discourse with those that agree with you?

Can I suggest that before you make claims of all atheists that you do so (a) with an understanding of what atheism is... and more importantly what it is not; and (b) that all atheists do in fact make those claims.

 

As much as I sympathize with the position of being the one without knowledge of God and therefore requesting others to provide the proofs,
really, there comes a time when one has to make an effort to give up the role of being a helpless I-don't-know-you-show-me-I-can't-do-it and start trying things out for oneself.
There comes a time when one has to take oneself seriously, if one wishes to make any progress. Which includes not waiting for others to seem good enough for one to take them seriously.

 

You mean, you can see, and presumably feel something you call a desk?
But how do you know it's "yours"? Or that it's the same desk (say I just ordered it to be a desk that looks just like the desk you think is "your desk", but it's really something else now)?

You also no doubt, believe that such a thing is completely impossible - given I have no real idea where you are, or who you are even.

 

I would say that what you suggest is rationally (far) less likely than the desk still being mine.
Hence I would not "believe" what you claim - unless you could provide evidence to rationally support your claim.

As for it being impossible... that is such an absolute term. I have a fair idea that it is extremely unlikely... but absolute zero probability?

 

And then it becomes a matter of risk / reward - as do most pursuits.

I'm guessing you consider it unlikely that a cure for all disease and illness exists in an as yet undiscovered plant in Peru. But it might.
The reward is very good indeed - so why don't you go and look for it?

So what is the risk, and what is the reward?
And what evidence do you provide to support these claims of risk / reward.
(And if one does not hold the Bible as evidence of God's existence, it will hardly be valid as evidence of the risks / rewards).

I take myself very seriously... most of the time.
But you say "if one wishes to make any progress"... progress to what, exactly?

 

At least, you thought about it, then?

The thing is, or the point if you will, is that you seeing a desk and recognising it means you aren't a desk, and the desk isn't you. Presumably it isn't anyone or anything else.
So where does that leave the idea of an external being, or anything like the sort of things the Bible describes?
You might be able to gain some kind of insight into your perceptive abilities and your awareness of things in general by looking carefully and in great detail at a desk, but you don't have to, do you?