How Gravity Works - Delusion Derail

[jamest]

A bit fuckin childish, don't you think?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

A bit fuckin childish, don't you think?

What is? Believing in sky daddies with little pixies? Damn right it is! Right up there with believing in Santa and fair taxation.

[jamest]

This all makes for great psychological study. The deluded laughing at the deluded.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This all makes for great psychological study. The deluded laughing at the deluded.

Studied by the deluded.

You know, sometimes I think I am the only luded person left!

Keep your fucking hands off my ludes, you bastits!!1q1 :I-love-pork:

[jamest]

This all makes for great psychological study. The deluded laughing at the deluded.

Studied by the deluded.

You know, sometimes I think I am the only luded person left!

*Taking notes*. Please remain on the couch Mr XC.

Keep your fucking hands off my ludes, you bastits!!1q1 :I-love-pork:

You know, I've laughed at a few crazy fundies too. Not because of their beliefs, but because of the way they cheesily act in association with those beliefs. I certainly wouldn't take the piss out of people simply for harbouring a serious belief-system, per se, as you have.

The problem I have here, is that I see people using piss-take for nasty reasons AND as a means of discrediting particular belief systems (as opposed to particular belief reactions).
It's not right. It's certainly not justified.
You should have paid more heed to something I said in a previous post: "to label anyone as deluded implies that you know the truth... which sounds a little delusional, don't you think?"

Okay Mr XC... time's up. See you next week.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This all makes for great psychological study. The deluded laughing at the deluded.

Studied by the deluded.

You know, sometimes I think I am the only luded person left!

*Taking notes*. Please remain on the couch Mr XC.

Keep your fucking hands off my ludes, you bastits!!1q1 :I-love-pork:

You know, I've laughed at a few crazy fundies too. Not because of their beliefs, but because of the way they cheesily act in association with those beliefs. I certainly wouldn't take the piss out of people simply for harbouring a serious belief-system, per se, as you have.

The problem I have here, is that I see people using piss-take for nasty reasons AND as a means of discrediting particular belief systems (as opposed to particular belief reactions).
It's not right. It's certainly not justified.
You should have paid more heed to something I said in a previous post: "to label anyone as deluded implies that you know the truth... which sounds a little delusional, don't you think?"

Okay Mr XC... time's up. See you next week.

Actually, you should have read something that I said earlier...

What we can say though is that refusing to examine evidence to the contrary makes an idea delusional - even, paradoxically, if it turns out to be right!

Had Copernicus avowed that the Earth circled the sun because he had been presented with the knowledge by an invisible, flying, purple spider that only appeared to him in dreams and insisted that he had proof but was forbidden to tell, he would have been delusional - end of! It is the process of coming to a conclusion through non-rational, unexamined, unquestioned means that makes it a delusion, not the actual details, or their 'truth'. The fact that Copernicus was 'right' (or indeed the later assertion from relativity that, in a manner of speaking, geocentrism is equally as valid as heliocentrism) has no impact on whether his ideas were delusional. This has been my argument all along - and is my principal argument that religion is a delusion.

[jamest]

Had Copernicus avowed that the Earth circled the sun because he had been presented with the knowledge by an invisible, flying, purple spider that only appeared to him in dreams and insisted that he had proof but was forbidden to tell, he would have been delusional - end of! It is the process of coming to a conclusion through non-rational, unexamined, unquestioned means that makes it a delusion, not the actual details, or their 'truth'.

XC, what you are talking about is irrelevant. I mean, the fact that the earth is experienced to orbit the sun is hardly an ontological/metaphysical matter, is it?
One does not come to realise that the experienced earth orbits the experienced sun via pure logic. Such conclusions are constructed upon observations alone. Yet, ultimately, such observations/experiences tell us nothing about good ol' reality, do they?
Don't confuse science with logic/rationale, XC. It is impossible to discern of (nor confirm) natural law without observation. Neither confuse observation nor natural laws with reality.

You see, you really are delusional too. You seem to be under the impression that observation facilitates justified condemnation of the ontologically deluded. But it doesn't. Hence, it really is you that is deluded (and perhaps them too).

The fact that Copernicus was 'right' (or indeed the later assertion from relativity that, in a manner of speaking, geocentrism is equally as valid as heliocentrism) has no impact on whether his ideas were delusional. This has been my argument all along - and is my principal argument that religion is a delusion.

This is irrelevant. You're deluded because you don't know the difference between an ontological belief and a scientific claim about something that is experienced... and proceed to berate those with ontological beliefs, anyway, with your non-ontological knowledge. It's madness indeed. But, there's alot of you... so, rest easy. Groups are good at sustaining madness.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Had Copernicus avowed that the Earth circled the sun because he had been presented with the knowledge by an invisible, flying, purple spider that only appeared to him in dreams and insisted that he had proof but was forbidden to tell, he would have been delusional - end of! It is the process of coming to a conclusion through non-rational, unexamined, unquestioned means that makes it a delusion, not the actual details, or their 'truth'.

XC, what you are talking about is irrelevant. I mean, the fact that the earth is experienced to orbit the sun is hardly an ontological/metaphysical matter, is it?

But the Earth is not easily experienced to orbit the sun. Everyday experience shows us the absolute opposite. It is obvious that the sun orbits the Earth because we can see it happening every day, can't we? We don't move but the sun does - obvious! Copernicus' conclusions were drawn from meticulous measurements (by Tycho Brahe) and mathematical extrapolations based upon them. They flew in the face of everyday experience and, more importantly at the time, biblical assertions.

One does not come to realise that the experienced earth orbits the experienced sun via pure logic.

True.

Such conclusions are constructed upon observations alone.

False! They are drawn from a combination of observation and logic. Observation shows us a static, immobile Earth and a sun that turns around it. Only precise measurement of the motion of the planets and a logically applied interpretation of the meaning of those measurements demonstrates the Copernican nature of the relationship between the bodies in our solar system.

Yet, ultimately, such observations/experiences tell us nothing about good ol' reality, do they?

What's that? Ah, the unmistakeable odour of hobby horse! Forget metaphysics for a minute. Let's pretend that the world that we all observe (in remarkably similar ways) is actually real, for sake of argument. I refuse to allow solipsism into this thread!

Don't confuse science with logic/rationale, XC. It is impossible to discern of (nor confirm) natural law without observation. Neither confuse observation nor natural laws with reality.

Of course observation is required - where did I ever say it wasn't? Without Brahe's measurements and Copernicus' interpretations, geocentrism is perfectly reasonable. With them, and with the corroborating evidence growing exponentially as other scientists replicate their work, it becomes an increasingly dogmatic, and ultimately ridiculous, position. Logic progresses from observation - it has to if the world is real. I will politely ignore your last comment as I have already stated that I am assuming that the world IS real - take any arguments to the contrary to the metaphysics thread, please.

You see, you really are delusional too.

No I don't see that. I was momentarily distracted by that flying camel and probably missed it. (Which is another way of asking you to omit the argumenta ad homina from your posts.)

You seem to be under the impression that observation facilitates justified condemnation of the ontologically deluded. But it doesn't.

Err...

Would you prefer unjustified condemnation? Honestly, that sentence makes no sense from any angle. Can you rewrite it in English, please?

Hence, it really is you that is deluded (and perhaps them too).

Obviously - and probably you as well - let's go for the full set here!

The fact that Copernicus was 'right' (or indeed the later assertion from relativity that, in a manner of speaking, geocentrism is equally as valid as heliocentrism) has no impact on whether his ideas were delusional. This has been my argument all along - and is my principal argument that religion is a delusion.

This is irrelevant.

No it isn't. It is the core of my argument and as such it cannot be irrelevant to my argument. Whether a conviction is delusional has nothing to do with whether it is real and everything to do with why it is held.

You're deluded because you don't know the difference between an ontological belief and a scientific claim about something that is experienced...

An 'ontological belief' is a belief regarding the nature of reality. I understand what that means well enough.
A 'scientific claim about something that is experienced' is less well defined. Substitute 'theory based upon empirical evidence' for 'claim about something that is experienced' and I think I understand that one to.
I also understand that there is a difference between the two - the first is one of those opinions that we are all, supposedly, entitled to. The second is a rigorous extrapolation from measured data and well-defined axioms. I think that means that, in that particular case, I am not deluded. Therefore, I ask again that you kindly omit such ad hominum arguments from future discussion.

and proceed to berate those with ontological beliefs, anyway, with your non-ontological knowledge.

Ontological belief = a belief regarding the nature of reality.
so... non-ontological knowledge = knowing something that has nothing to do with the nature of reality. What? Is that even possible? Kindly explain what you are on about here?

It's madness indeed. But, there's alot of you... so, rest easy. Groups are good at sustaining madness.

So I am mad now? You have called me deluded 3 times and mad once. If you can't hold a serious discussion without resorting to personal insults, perhaps you shouldn't bother.

Or perhaps I am mad? I will go and chew a live weasel in the bath and ponder upon this.

[jamest]

One does not come to realise that the experienced earth orbits the experienced sun via pure logic... Such conclusions are constructed upon observations alone.

False! They are drawn from a combination of observation and logic.

Okay, but the logic pertains to what is observed. For example, if we see an object moving with a specific velocity, then logic can discern where it will be at some future moment. But the logic is experience-dependent: a posteriori.

Yet, ultimately, such observations/experiences tell us nothing about good ol' reality, do they?

What's that? Ah, the unmistakeable odour of hobby horse! Forget metaphysics for a minute. Let's pretend that the world that we all observe (in remarkably similar ways) is actually real, for sake of argument. I refuse to allow solipsism into this thread!

Whoa. You're here amusing yourself whilst feeding the Xians et al to the lions, yet want to do so "for the sake of argument". What fuggin argument?!

The Christians (et al) have beliefs pertaining to reality. Therefore, it requires the logic of metaphysics to counter those beliefs. You haven't provided any metaphysics, here. In fact, you're 'deluded' enough to think that a posteriori knowledge/logic suffices to blow the Xians etc. out of the water. Further, you've even got the nerve to defend your raucous cull upon the basis of a 'pretence' (that matter is real and self-causing). Even worse, there is an air of arrogance and authority here, whilst doing it, that is quite disturbing.

It's madness indeed. But, there's alot of you... so, rest easy. Groups are good at sustaining madness.

So I am mad now? You have called me deluded 3 times and mad once. If you can't hold a serious discussion without resorting to personal insults, perhaps you shouldn't bother.

What, are you fucking serious? Why is it okay for you to label 90% of the world's population as delusional, but not okay for me to label one person as so?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

What, are you fucking serious? Why is it okay for you to label 90% of the world's population as delusional, but not okay for me to label one person as so?

If that one person is a member here, then no, it is not. We don't have many rules but personal insults directed at another member is one thing we disallow. Plus, it's not pertinent to your arguments and by resorting to ad hominum arguments, you show the weakness of your points.

Besides, metaphysics isn't real - and you can't prove it is!

[jamest]

What, are you fucking serious? Why is it okay for you to label 90% of the world's population as delusional, but not okay for me to label one person as so?

If that one person is a member here, then no, it is not. We don't have many rules but personal insults directed at another member is one thing we disallow.

So, you don't think that there are any theists that frequent this forum, eh? Nor that there any members here, then, who are offended by your use of the term delusional - since it would obviously apply to them. One doesn't have to be named to be offended or angered by the kind of self-serving bigoted bullshit dished-up in this thread. I find the fact that you are now taking the moral high-ground by hiding behind forum rules, to be pathetic. You've offended people here - face upto your deeds.

Plus, it's not pertinent to your arguments

It's not pertinent (or relevant) to my argument that he who labels 90% of the world as delusional (which includes some members of this forum), is in fact deluded himself?!

Besides, metaphysics isn't real - and you can't prove it is!

Dude, without a countering metaphysic, you have nothing upon which to berate the theists. Nothing at all.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You really need to chill a little, James.

If theists wish to visit an openly atheistic website, they must be prepared to have their beliefs challenged. In fact, anybody with beliefs should be prepared to have them challenged. To hold beliefs that you refuse to examine in any way is delusional! That is my point. It is not the fact of believing, or what you believe, but the fact of refusing to consider that your beliefs may be wrong that is the essence of my argument. Those that are prepared to discuss, reevaluate and potentially change their beliefs in the light of evidence are not delusional in my view, they may well still be wrong in their beliefs however.

I am sorry that being reminded of the rules of this site offends you so much, but it is no excuse for continuing your line of abuse. I don't consider myself self-serving in this matter. I did not invoke the forum rules to further my position in this discussion, I invoked them simply because you broke them! I don't consider myself to be bigoted or pathetic either.

I will be reporting your last post and I will let the other staff decide if any action is necessary. Being personally involved, I will keep out of the discussions - to do otherwise would be self-serving.

[jamest]

You're reporting me for offending you by calling you delusional as a retort to YOU calling 90% of the world's population delusional - some of whom are members here and HAVE been offended by your general beratement and disrespect? That IS fuggin pathetic. But I know the score and shall expect the worse. Just wanted to express my exasperation.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Actually, I think that pretty much all of us are delusional about some things - however, pointing at an individual and saying, "You're delusional," is still fucking rude.

[hotshoe]