Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

You have unwittingly answered your own question, Alan. "For pleasure". Some people derive pleasure from vicious activity, and that is why they do it. Nothing to do with any "Devil".

Not so! I've just given you one.
Once again it is because it pleases them to behave like that, and they would feel uncomfortable if they didn't. I am one such person, and I assure you it is just my nature ... I am not following the instructions of any "spirit".

However, as I already said to Floo, I can understand your difficulty in accepting the facts.

But how could the evolutionary process have developed a pleasurable reward for actions which provide no personal or community benefit, and are in fact detrimental to both?

[Alan Burns]

Then if you don't know, how on earth would others be expected to know?

I think you are picking up on my sloppy use of the English language.
In using the word "how" I did not refer to the mechanics of how temptation manifests in the brain - I admit I do not know how this occurs.  My intention was to draw attention to my belief that the source and nature of such temptation comes from the devil, not from our own soul. 

By realising that temptation comes from an outside source it gives us more chance to recognise it and guard against it.

[torridon]

But how could the evolutionary process have developed a pleasurable reward for actions which provide no personal or community benefit, and are in fact detrimental to both?

It's not like we have a clean genome, with only beneficial mutations present.   As was pointed out yesterday, there are thousands of dysfunctional mutations present in our genome;  beneficial mutations tend to be conserved and deleterious ones eliminated over time, but in evolutionary time you have to think in terms of millions of years and populations of millions of individuals.

Apart from which, many behaviours which we might consider dysfunctional from the context of our current human ethics are not dysfuntional at all as far as nature is concerned.  Take psychopaths and sociopaths for instance; we might consider these people as having a pathological condition that might respond to therapy possibly,  but as far as nature is concerned, any gene complex to predispose people to this conditions will likely be conserved - people who are ruthless tend to get what they want, which in turn means that they are more likely to pass on their genes.

[SusanDoris]

I think you are picking up on my sloppy use of the English language.  By realising that temptation comes from an outside source it gives us more chance to recognise it and guard against it.

By thinking it is a source outside yourself, you are giving yourself an excuse for not taking responsibility.

[Alan Burns]

By thinking it is a source outside yourself, you are giving yourself an excuse for not taking responsibility.

But according to my baptismal vows, it is my responsibility to reject Satan and all his false promises.

[torridon]

But according to my baptismal vows, it is my responsibility to reject Satan and all his false promises.

I was tempted to take a slice of chocolate cake yesterday. Do you imagine Satan was behind that ?

We have a burgeoning epidemic of obesity, so they say.  Why is that ? People get fat because they eat too much. Why do people eat too much when they full well know it is going to kill them ? Why do thousands of bright A level pupils take up smoking every year despite an avalanche of public health messages indicating it is going to kill them ?

There are reasons for these things if we care to look and try to understand and they are all within ourselves.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But according to my baptismal vows, it is my responsibility to reject Satan and all his false promises.

And according to my Leprechaunal vows it is my responsibility not to step on the cracks on the pavement, except for Wednesdays half day closing.

Why on earth would you think that a ritual you happen to find meaningful has anything to say to the issue of using a supposed causal agency to offload your personal responsibility for your behaviour?

[floo]

I think rituals are largely superstition, and like touching wood, you feel better and sort of protected if you act them out.

[Leonard James]

But how could the evolutionary process have developed a pleasurable reward for actions which provide no personal or community benefit, and are in fact detrimental to both?

The same way as it develops any personal trait ... by mutations. Alan, you must educate yourself to the idea that mutations cause all sorts of odd behaviour. The recent, very pertinent thread of a panda enjoying rolling in the snow demonstrates that.

In the same way, behaviours arise which are detrimental to the health but which give the individual pleasure. Providing the detrimental effects are slow enough to allow the individual to reproduce before becoming fatal, they will be passed on.

Can you see that?

[Leonard James]

But according to my baptismal vows, it is my responsibility to reject Satan and all his false promises.

Alan, it has been explained to you that "Satan" doesn't exist ... he was invented simply to account for the bad things that happen in this world, so that the equally invented "God" didn't get the blame. It's all as plain as a pikestaff to those of us who have not been blinded by the Bible.

[Nearly Sane]

Pedantry gone mad.

Since between you and Floo, you are seeking to change the meaning of pedantry to applying consistently standards to people's arguments whether one agrees with their overall position or not, I am quite pleased to be that type of pedant. It's certainly better than hypocritically dealing differently with people's arguments because you agree with their position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Since between you and Floo, you are seeking to change the meaning of pedantry to applying consistently standards to people's arguments whether one agrees with their overall position or not, I am quite pleased to be that type of pedant. It's certainly better than hypocritically dealing differently with people's arguments because you agree with their position.

I agree with the thrust of your point re burden of proof, but there's ambiguity the use of "delusional" specifically. A quick look at definitions consistently pulls up two usages (and always in the same order), viz:

1. Having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:

Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.

2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness:

He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.

The first use doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch here - when someone just ignores the flaws in his position and maintains it nonetheless then the sense of delusional" as "kidding yourself", "obtuse" etc in response seems reasonable to me. 

On the other hand the second, clinical sense would clearly need to be established by means beyond anyone who's just posting on a message board.

[ippy]

Pedantry gone mad.

Tell me about it Len?

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I agree with the thrust of your point re burden of proof, but there's ambiguity the use of "delusional" specifically. A quick look at definitions consistently pulls up two usages (and always in the same order), viz:

1. Having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:

Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.

2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness:

He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.

The first use doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch here - when someone just ignores the flaws in his position and maintains it nonetheless then the sense of delusional" as "kidding yourself", "obtuse" etc in response seems reasonable to me. 

On the other hand the second, clinical sense would clearly need to be established by means beyond anyone who's just posting on a message board.

No, I think the first one is a stretch as you have to demonstrate that the views are  false. So much of it is non falsifiable that it's a category error, a cheap dig and a positive claim all wrapped up in one.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

But it's nice to call some one delusional, it gives you a warm cosy feeling inside, hey! look at me, I am totally rational whilst you pal are totally irrational, in fact, see me pal, I am the only sane person on this forum, well unless you agree with me, then they are are as sane as I am but only if you keep agreeing with me, and don't worry, I am watching, if I see a hint that you might be disagreeing with my totally rational thought, then, HA HA! you have plunged back into that world of madness, then I will be the only sane person on this forum, HA HA, HO HO.

Irrational thought, thy name is Gonnagle, no it's not, aye it is, dae ye whant tae step ootside pal, i'll gie ye heid full of rational dandruff pal.

Gonnagle.

[floo]

Since between you and Floo, you are seeking to change the meaning of pedantry to applying consistently standards to people's arguments whether one agrees with their overall position or not, I am quite pleased to be that type of pedant. It's certainly better than hypocritically dealing differently with people's arguments because you agree with their position.

Poor dear!

[Rhiannon]

But according to my baptismal vows, it is my responsibility to reject Satan and all his false promises.

I have vowed to spend my life with Siri. He talks to me every day and other people can hear him. He guides me, helps me find people I need and never let's me forget what is important (hair appointments for example). And if I ask him nicely he sings a song from The Wizard of Oz.

What's the difference between my vows and yours?

[ekim]

By thinking it is a source outside yourself, you are giving yourself an excuse for not taking responsibility.

But according to my baptismal vows, it is my responsibility to reject Satan and all his false promises.

One of the dangers of projecting personal behaviour on to an external source is that it can lead to witch hunting and the murder of those believed to suffer from demonic possession.

[ippy]

No, I think the first one is a stretch as you have to demonstrate that the views are  false. So much of it is non falsifiable that it's a category error, a cheap dig and a positive claim all wrapped up in one.

Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S  Hope N S ?               

ippy       

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And according to my Leprechaunal vows it is my responsibility not to step on the cracks on the pavement, except for Wednesdays half day closing.

Why on earth would you think that a ritual you happen to find meaningful has anything to say to the issue of using a supposed causal agency to offload your personal responsibility for your behaviour?

It is not offloading responsibility.
If I give in to the devil's temptations to do what I know to be wrong, I have to accept the consequences myself.

[Nearly Sane]

Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S Hope N S  Hope N S ?               

ippy       

Rational debate really is a bit out of your reach, isn't it?

[Shaker]

It is not offloading responsibility.

Of course it is. You're saying explicitly that there's a Big Bad Wolf who can lure you into doing naughty things if you're not careful. Nothing of a sense of your own agency and responsibility that comes with maturity in that.

It makes you sound like a child, as do most things you come out with.

[torridon]

I'm not convinced vows are always a good thing in principal, anyhow.   It might seem like a good idea at the time, perhaps based on your understanding at the time, but what happens when new insight comes along and your understanding changes and the vow looks in retrospect to have been poorly judged. Are we supposed to keep to the vow, just because it is a vow ?  What is better, to do the right thing, or to honour a misjudged vow ?

[Alan Burns]

I have vowed to spend my life with Siri. He talks to me every day and other people can hear him. He guides me, helps me find people I need and never let's me forget what is important (hair appointments for example). And if I ask him nicely he sings a song from The Wizard of Oz.

What's the difference between my vows and yours?

My baptismal vows, taken on my behalf by my Godparents during my baptism, were the first step in acheiving eternal salvation for my soul.  (A bit more important that hair appointments and songs from The Wizard of Oz.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, I think the first one is a stretch as you have to demonstrate that the views are  false. So much of it is non falsifiable that it's a category error, a cheap dig and a positive claim all wrapped up in one.

Weeellll, sorry to get all pedantic on yo ass but...

...there's a nuance here. AB's reasoning has been shown to be false - consistently, unequivocally so. Time and again he relies on basic logical fallacies and he continues to do so even when those fallacies are pointed out to him. He makes no attempt either to jettison them or to explain why they're not fallacious - he just ploughs straight on nonetheless. To that extent, his repeated use of them to validate his conjectures is "delusional", at least according to its non-clinical meaning.

If though by "views" you mean the objects of his beliefs ("God", "Satan" etc) then while there's every likelihood that they're imaginary, there's another fallacy (argumentum ad logicam or the "fallacist's fallacy") of inferring that when an argument is fallacious then its conclusion must be also false. Bad arguments strongly correlate to wrong answers, but they don't exclude the possibility that the person arguing just happened to get the right answer by dumb luck.

Is AB also delusional in his conclusions? Well, he vacillates a lot - sometimes he demands that others allow for the "possibility" of these things (an open door by the way as no-one denies the possibility of anything, however unlikely) at which times "delusional" doesn't stick. On other occasions though he just asserts them as objective facts, when I think the charge is reasonably made provided only in the everyday, non-clinical sense.