• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Evolution is something that you do."

Achán hiNidráne said:
But they are all delusional.
Click to expand...
This I agree with.

Piscivore said:
Yes, and they all want to throw you in a concentration camp and pull out your eyebrows until you praise their god, yadda yadda yadda.
Click to expand...
This I do not agree with.

Piscivore said:
Everybody is wrong about something.
Click to expand...
This I agree with.

But -apart from religion there are not too many things that large groups of people are wrong about that they also allow to govern their entire lives.
 
What is with the flood of """""""""funny"""""""" ( seeing as how they never are, i felt more than one set of quotations needed to be used.) signs in front of churches? My city has over a dozen churches, one started with the signs and now all of them have them. And just like the one in the op, i would say at least 6/10 times they don't really make sense, or if they do it seems more far side than Jesus Christ.

Is fear, guilt and shame no longer drawing in the crowds? From what i am seeing the next time jesus comes down he is going to be carrying a microphone and talking about airline peanuts.

But as for the question in the op, my 2 cents is it is either

A) a reference to the song do the evolution.

B) the emphasis is on YOU. Meaning that a person can evolve ( mentally or spiritually, but not in that evil way, lol.) not a species.
 
As an afterthought , a funny one that is currently up in my city is simply " god wants to talk to you." every time i see it i wait a moment for him to say his piece, but he never does.
 
dogguy said:
This I agree with.
Click to expand...
They can't just be incorrect? They have to be "delusional"?

This I do not agree with.
Click to expand...
I was being personally sarcastic to the poster I quoted, in reference to past statements he's made along those lines.

But -apart from religion there are not too many things that large groups of people are wrong about that they also allow to govern their entire lives.
Click to expand...

In my experience, the percentage of man-on-the-street believers that actually allow their religion to "govern their entire lives" is in reality very low. In my own church (that I interned at to become a minister) of at least several hundred, no more than half of that showed up to Sunday services, and out of them only a handful took it to that extreme.
 
Last edited:
Piscivore said:
They can't just be incorrect? They have to be "delusional"?


I was being personally sarcastic to the poster I quoted, in reference to past statements he's made along those lines.



In my experience, the percentage of man-on-the-street believers that actually allow their religion to "govern their entire lives" is in reality very low. In my own church (that I interned at to become a minister) of at least several hundred, no more than half of that showed up to Sunday services, and out of them only a handful took it to that extreme.
Click to expand...


Personally i would state the difference between delusion and incorrect as denying sufficient evidence to the contrary when displayed. Or for a more general explanation, ignoring established facts in favor of a theory that one is more inclined to listen to.

The problem is that christians in general appeal to the tradition and age of their religion when citing reasons they believe. Now if they start picking and choosing their morals and changing bits they don't like, then all they are doing is using the bible to justify their own personal morality. Which is no different than how atheists decide their morality, with the exception of we do not credit some divine deity.

Sure most christians don't follow many of the codes in the bible, how is that a plus though? It is called being a hypocrite, telling us we are somehow less because we don't follow said book, yet they only have to follow it when they feel like it.

Of course we do not want the crusades, or the inquisition , but at least the crusaders and the inquisitors were actually trying to follow the bible. Modern christians seem to want to be able to claim the tradition, but not really listen to any of the repugnant bits. And if your going to just ignore the stupid bits, then you could take any belief system from Nazi, to hippie and come out the same.

The repugnant bits are what tells you the truth about something, anything is nice and good and pure if one simply ignores all the parts that are not.
 
sadhatter said:
Personally i would state the difference between delusion and incorrect as denying sufficient evidence to the contrary when displayed. Or for a more general explanation, ignoring established facts in favor of a theory that one is more inclined to listen to.
Click to expand...
That's how I define it also. The error on our side is when we assume that the average believer has the same understanding we do about what constitutes good evidence, the rules of logic, and why the authorities that taught them these things can be wrong.

The problem is that christians in general appeal to the tradition and age of their religion when citing reasons they believe.
Click to expand...
Do they? Seems to me that satisfying an emotional need is the primary reason most people believe anything.

Can you find me even one source indicating it is the age and tradition of the religion is the reason they believe in Jesus?

Now if they start picking and choosing their morals and changing bits they don't like, then all they are doing is using the bible to justify their own personal morality. Which is no different than how atheists decide their morality, with the exception of we do not credit some divine deity.
Click to expand...
What difference does the it make to you what specific reasons someone else might have for behaving in a socially acceptable manner?

Wanting someone to behave in a socially acceptable manner, but only for the right reasons, is flirting with thought control.

Sure most christians don't follow many of the codes in the bible, how is that a plus though? It is called being a hypocrite, telling us we are somehow less because we don't follow said book, yet they only have to follow it when they feel like it.
Click to expand...
Whether or not they are a hypocrite is their problem, not mine- and not yours either. We have no authority to insist that they be fundamental literalist or they are not Christian. We don't get to dictate to them what their religion is, says, or does. We are not the "beliefs integrity" police. That's again edging into thought control.

Of course we do not want the crusades, or the inquisition , but at least the crusaders and the inquisitors were actually trying to follow the bible.
Click to expand...
Why does it matter to you if Christians strictly follow the bible or not?

Modern christians seem to want to be able to claim the tradition, but not really listen to any of the repugnant bits. And if your going to just ignore the stupid bits, then you could take any belief system from Nazi, to hippie and come out the same.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that's cultural evolution. It's been a good thing, on the whole.

The repugnant bits are what tells you the truth about something,
Click to expand...
It tells you the "truth" about what the religion was when the repugnant bits were written. To insist that the repugnant bits must apply to the religion as it is practiced today is disengenous.

Condemning a "beauty queen" because she says her religion requires homosexuals to be put to death is valid. She has chosen to accept and promote that belief.

Condemning each unknown random Christian because the bible says one should stone disobediant children is not.

anything is nice and good and pure if one simply ignores all the parts that are not.
Click to expand...
Should all Americans today be held accountable for the Jim Crow laws despite the fact they are not in force?
 
Piscivore said:
Can you find me even one source indicating it is the age and tradition of the religion is the reason they believe in Jesus?
Click to expand...

I find that you confuse my other points, but i would like to deal with this comment first.

http://www.equip.org/articles/catholic-tradition

Not nearly the only one, but i find your insinuation that i was so wrong that it would be impossible to find one a little over the top.

As for the other commentary, i find your taking what i said in several different directions and somewhat misunderstanding my statements.

Christians in general insinuate that atheists are missing something due to not having the bible to back their positions. That we are essentially picking and choosing our morals at random. And if they followed the bible to the letter, this would have weight. But they do not, so they are doing the same thing as we are, but then stating that they are doing something else. This is intellectually dishonest, plain and simple, and self delusion.

I care because this is a large point of argument against atheists, and it has no basis what so ever.

As far as your references to law, well that is why secular law is secular. It evolves with the times, and that is it's intent, and it does not attempt to get its clout from its age or the immutability of law.

The bottom line of my argument is that if one is going to claim that the advice in the bible is the word of god on one hand, and then disregard large chunks of it on the other, they are being hypocritical. And the problem is there was a time when they were not being hypocritical , and they were a rambling, evil force.

And when it all comes together what have we learned?

That the more parts of the bible christians ignore , and the more they get their morals from other places, the better they are.

Yet they claim that more people need to be christian ( giving them more power, "coincidentally") and the world will be a better place, again intellectual dishonesty and self delusion.
 
devnull said:
My favourite motto on a sign outside a whacky church I pass on my way to play Necromunda:

"If evolution were true mothers would have 3 arms"

There's been a few other classics. Perhaps Ill start writing them down.
Click to expand...

I think this would make more sense if you changed it to "If intelligent design were true mothers would have 3 arms."
 
sadhatter said:
I find that you confuse my other points, but i would like to deal with this comment first.

http://www.equip.org/articles/catholic-tradition

Not nearly the only one, but i find your insinuation that i was so wrong that it would be impossible to find one a little over the top.
Click to expand...
I didn't say you were wrong, I said that wasn't my understanding.

Christians in general insinuate that atheists are missing something due to not having the bible to back their positions.
Click to expand...
See, to me, that's an error right there. Christianity has hundreds of different flavours, sects, and denominations. And beyond that, even members of the same group can and do disagree with each other on different points. So statements like the one above are incorrect right off the bat.

It is hasty generalisation fallacy, and no valid conclusions can be drawn about any particular Christian based on this kind of "fact"- if it even is a fact.

That we are essentially picking and choosing our morals at random. And if they followed the bible to the letter, this would have weight.
Click to expand...
No, the assertion is completely wrong regardless of the nature of the Christian's beliefs.

But they do not, so they are doing the same thing as we are, but then stating that they are doing something else. This is intellectually dishonest, plain and simple, and self delusion.
Click to expand...
It is only self-delusion if they have reason to believe otherwise. As I said, many beleivers do not have any knowledge of what constitutes logic or proper evidence. they are not deluded, they are just incorrect.

I care because this is a large point of argument against atheists, and it has no basis what so ever.
Click to expand...
Well, it is not wrong (and make no mistake, it is incorrect) because of the reasons you are presenting. The argument you put forth is fallacious.

As far as your references to law, well that is why secular law is secular. It evolves with the times, and that is it's intent, and it does not attempt to get its clout from its age or the immutability of law.
Click to expand...
That our laws today are mutable is partly a cultural evolution from the immutable laws of the old religions. I fail to see why you have a problem with the religions evolving as well.

The bottom line of my argument is that if one is going to claim that the advice in the bible is the word of god on one hand, and then disregard large chunks of it on the other, they are being hypocritical.
Click to expand...
So? Why do you care if they are being hypocritical or not?

And the problem is there was a time when they were not being hypocritical , and they were a rambling, evil force.
Click to expand...
So them being hypocritical is a good thing, then.

YES, it would be nice if all the belivers ditched religion en masse and decided to think just like us. But we don't have the power to make it so, it would violate a lot of common priciples to do so, and given human nature and our propesity for getting things wrong (and that's what skepticism is all about, you know, correcting our frequent mistakes), the problem isn't going to just go away overnight, so why this "damned if they do, damned if they don't" attitude?

And when it all comes together what have we learned?

That the more parts of the bible christians ignore , and the more they get their morals from other places, the better they are.

Yet they claim that more people need to be christian ( giving them more power, "coincidentally") and the world will be a better place, again intellectual dishonesty and self delusion.
Click to expand...
No, they are by and large just incorrect. That's what they have been taught as fact by people who are also, by and large, just incorrect. They want people to think like them, just as we would like people to think like us.

It's like a kid who grows up being taught that his fellow Italians invented noodles. Not just that, but he is taught that Italians make the best noodles, Italians know all there is to know about noodle-making, and being the first noodle-makers are a source of personal, community, and even national pride. Ask anyone where he grows up, and no one will dispute these facts, not even anyone from the next town, or the next, all the way up to the capital. Spaghetti, Fettucini, Linguini- these are all Italian foods, the cookbooks all say so.

Then a couple of strangers come to town, and they say they have evidence that the Chinese invented noodles, all because of some goo they found in an old pot. The kid doesn't have this evidence, and couldn't really make heads or tails of it if he did. It's just hearsay. Not only that, but everyone he has learned to trust- his parents, the restaurant owner, the mayor, even the head noodle-maker to the prime minister says these two are crazy and their "evidence" is rubbish. Is he "delusional" for still thinking Italians invented noodles?

That's why we need to educate, not castigate.
 
Last edited:
Piscivore said:
It is only self-delusion if they have reason to believe otherwise. As I said, many beleivers do not have any knowledge of what constitutes logic or proper evidence. they are not deluded, they are just incorrect.
Click to expand...

This seems a little problematic.

How does this differ significantly from a guy who says that he has this invisible friend who follows him around and gives him advice?

He knows the guy is there, because every time he asks a question, he hears an answer. I demonstrate to him that the guy isn't really there by walking right through the spot where he says the guy is standing, but he says the guy moved out of the way just as I got there. I make an audio recording of one of his exchanges and demonstrate that all we hear on the play back are the questions; no answers from the invisible guy. But that's OK, because my friend points out that science hasn't yet designed appropriate recording equipment to capture the speech of invisible people.

Etc.

So is this guy deluded, or just incorrect, since he's ignorant of conventional rules of evidence and the workings of audio recording technology?

In effect, he's claiming that I don't believe in his invisible buddy because I'm the one ignorant of the special rules of evidence that prove Mr. Invisible's existence.

I have had many a discussion with many a religious believer on the existence of God which has followed essentially the same format. And indeed, the same sort of argument could be offered to justify pretty much any belief.

So is it your contention that there is essentially no such thing as delusion?
 
Dr H said:
This seems a little problematic.

How does this differ significantly from a guy who says that he has this invisible friend who follows him around and gives him advice?

He knows the guy is there, because every time he asks a question, he hears an answer. I demonstrate to him that the guy isn't really there by walking right through the spot where he says the guy is standing, but he says the guy moved out of the way just as I got there. I make an audio recording of one of his exchanges and demonstrate that all we hear on the play back are the questions; no answers from the invisible guy. But that's OK, because my friend points out that science hasn't yet designed appropriate recording equipment to capture the speech of invisible people.

Etc.

So is this guy deluded, or just incorrect, since he's ignorant of conventional rules of evidence and the workings of audio recording technology?

In effect, he's claiming that I don't believe in his invisible buddy because I'm the one ignorant of the special rules of evidence that prove Mr. Invisible's existence.

I have had many a discussion with many a religious believer on the existence of God which has followed essentially the same format. And indeed, the same sort of argument could be offered to justify pretty much any belief.

So is it your contention that there is essentially no such thing as delusion?
Click to expand...
No, the ones making up special rules and such to try and discount evidence once presented and shown why it works are choosing their beliefs over reason (or are incapable of choosing). That is delusion. However, the existence of some delusional believers does not validate such blanket statements as "Christians are delusional" or "an adult believing in magic has stepped a bit beyond merely "incorrect"". These are still fallacies of generalisation. One cannot meaningully say anything about "Christians in general" that is going to necessarily apply to any particular Christian- not even that Jesus is their personal lord and saviour. At best one could say that "Believer X" self identifies as a Christian, and that doesn't mean anything in itself.

My contention is many- if not most- believers have simply never been taught logic and reason, and that magical and wishful thinking are patterns our brains seem to naturally adopt. That's the whole reason skepticism was developed in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Piscivore said:
No, the ones making up special rules and such to try and discount evidence once presented and shown why it works are choosing their beliefs over reason (or are incapable of choosing). That is delusion.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying your position. So, if someone professes the inerrancy of the Bible, and is shown examples where the Bible is in conflict with factual knowledge, or in contradiction with itself, and they still maintain that the Bible is inerrant, you would consider that delusional?

However, the existence of some delusional believers does not validate such blanket statements as "Christians are delusional" or "an adult believing in magic has stepped a bit beyond merely "incorrect"". These are still fallacies of generalisation.
Click to expand...

I understand your point about generalization, but those two statements are qualitatively very different. "Christians are delusional" asserts a general claim which may or may not be defensible. My statement, however, was prefaced with the clause "to me", viz.: "To me, an adult believing in magic has stepped a bit beyond merely 'incorrect'." In full context, that is merely a statement of opinion. My opinion may possibly be demonstrated to be factually incorrect, but that doesn't necessarily make it a logical fallacy.


One cannot meaningully say anything about "Christians in general" that is going to necessarily apply to any particular Christian- not even that Jesus is their personal lord and saviour. At best one could say that "Believer X" self identifies as a Christian, and that doesn't mean anything in itself.
Click to expand...

Technically, that is true. However, you seem to be pushing that argument perilously close to a claim that all generalizations are meaningless. They are not. A careful speaker would, of course, carefully qualify any statement which might be questionable in that regard. If I've seen 500 cats in my life, and all of them have beem black, it would be a false generalization for me to state "All cats are black." But it would not be false for me to state, "to me, all cats are black," because to me, at that point in time, they are.

My contention is many- if not most- believers have simply never been taught logic and reason,
Click to expand...

You see? If my statement re "magic" were a generalization, than this statement of yours would be one as well. On what do you base the contention that "most" believers have never been taught logic and reason?

Fortunately, since you preface the statement with "my contention," I can assume that you are not trying to make a false generalization, but simply expressing an opinion based on whatever data you have personally encountered. Then we can move on to the question of whether your evidence for that contention is any better than my evidence for the contention that adults who believe in magic might be exhibiting something more than simple incorrectness.

And your contention may well be true -- I lean toward thinking that it is -- but that's neither here nor there as far as identifying whether it constitutes a logical fallacy.

My contention is that there is a sufficient quantity and variety of evidence showing that magic does not work, as to be available and accessible to the vast majority of people (in the culture I inhabit, at least), regardless of their level of formal training in logic and reason.

A generalization is not the same thing as an absolute claim. If most -- or even "many" -- Christians appear to manifest a particular quality, it is not strictly wrong to say that "Christians [manifest whatever]," so long as one hasn't said "all Christians [manifest whatever]." It would probably be more productive to quibble over "how many is 'many'", in that case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom