Fanatical religious terrorist incident Colorado Springs.

[PaulF]

With all due respect, that is not what you said..

Right.

Apparently you are missing the first part of my statement, where I write that if Steve's god is real, he may not be delusional.

Only if his god isn't real (fantasy) would he be "delusional" in my scenario, and I am not using the "medical" definition. By the definitions I posted, choosing fantasy over reality is sufficient.

I am not equating religious belief to mental illness. I am saying that a mentally ill person's beliefs in fantasy are on the same spectrum as a totally sane person's beliefs in fantasy. They are both engaging in fantasy to some degree, unless I'm wrong and Steve's god is real...as I've stated over and over now.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[steveh_131]

One fantasy conclusion is reached by the evil justifications of a sick and deranged mind.

The other is reached by contemplation of the evidence at hand.

Surely we could agree that there is a difference. Surely.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You just expanded the definition, not narrowed.

I wasn't trying to narrow it, I posted the full definition rather than the "cliff notes" they put at the top. Which of those definitions do you believe applies and why?

 

[PaulF]

Which swings us back around to the original discussion.

I asked you if there was a distinction between me and him. You said no. This thread title also implies no. Which is it? Is my belief system equivalent to his?

Steve, that isn't what I got from your post.

Do I think your beliefs are just as absurd and unfounded as his? Yes, because you both claim to be Christian, and I find the basic tenets of Christianity to be absurd.

Do I think that you arrived at your conclusions in the same manner as him? No. He's insane. He killed people.

That doesn't change the fact that if your god doesn't exist your religious beliefs are based in fantasy...just like his.

If your god does exist then I'm wrong. Your beliefs are well-founded, and he is still an insane killer.

 

[steveh_131]

Then it follows that his "religious" claims are ultimately irrelevant, and are nothing more than his chosen justification for being the horrible human being that he is.

That's basically been what I'm trying to get at.

 

[PaulF]

One fantasy conclusion is reached by the evil justifications of a sick and deranged mind.

The other is reached by contemplation of the evidence at hand.

Surely we could agree that there is a difference. Surely.

Yes, I agree.

I misunderstood the point of your earlier post. To my mind the point was that you both reach conclusions in different places on the same spectrum.

Absolutely, I agree that there is a difference in the way the two of you got to your conclusions, and that your mental states do not have to be congruent to do so.

 

[PaulF]

Then it follows that his "religious" claims are ultimately irrelevant, and are nothing more than his chosen justification for being the horrible human being that he is.

That's basically been what I'm trying to get at.

You have touched also on what I am trying to get at: In the hands of the righteous religion can be a force for good, but in the wrong hands it can be a motivation for pure evil. Same words...same religion.

We cannot know what goes on inside this guy's head, or how sincerely he believes his god told him to do these things. Who knows, maybe if he latched onto something other than religion those people would not be dead.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You have touched also on what I am trying to get at: In the hands of the righteous religion can be a force for good, but in the wrong hands it can be a motivation for pure evil. Same words...same religion.

We cannot know what goes on inside this guy's head, or how sincerely he believes his god told him to do these things. Who knows, maybe if he latched onto something other than religion those people would not be dead.

I feel compelled to point out the critical distinction that in the hands of people WHO ACTUALLY DO WHAT THE BOOK SAYS, religion (Christianity, at least) can be and generally is a force for good where, conversely, in the hands of people who self-identify as Christian while failing to make any pretense of doing what the book says, religion as practiced is almost always a force for and justification of evil.

 

[Jludo]

Maybe god really did tell him to do those things. He does work in mysterious ways.

 

[cobber]

I feel compelled to point out the critical distinction that in the hands of people WHO ACTUALLY DO WHAT THE BOOK SAYS, religion (Christianity, at least) can be and generally is a force for good where, conversely, in the hands of people who self-identify as Christian while failing to make any pretense of doing what the book says, religion as practiced is almost always a force for and justification of evil.

This is INGO. Check your logic privilege!

 

[hoosierdoc]

Maybe god really did tell him to do those things. He does work in mysterious ways.

Do you just walk around this forum insulting people, mocking them, and attempting to inflame threads? Grow up or go elsewhere.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Actually, it does.

Belief in Jesus is all it takes to be Christian...it's called "Salvation through faith"...right?

This is one of my biggest problems with Islam and Christianity...it gives believers a GIANT loophole. No Christian or Muslim has to be responsible for for the evil they commit in this life...they are "forgiven", simply by believing in the tenets of their chosen faith.

Kill somebody? No problem...I'm "washed in the blood of the lamb"...I still get my eternal reward.

Blow up a 7-11? No Problem..."Allahu Ackbar"...72 virgins.

 

[Expat]

Do you just walk around this forum insulting people, mocking them, and attempting to inflame threads? Grow up or go elsewhere.

Not just him obviously. It seems any thread that can be bent in the direction of Christian bashing, is.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Not just him obviously. It seems any thread that can be bent in the direction of Christian bashing, is.

He also called my McCarty for saying we were at war and just didn't know it

 

[Birds Away]

Do you just walk around this forum insulting people, mocking them, and attempting to inflame threads? Grow up or go elsewhere.

I don't think we're allowed to be offended. We are not one of the protected groups.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

He also called my McCarty for saying we were at war and just didn't know it

Sorry Doc, I don't get this reference. Can you elaborate?

 

[cobber]

I don't think we're allowed to be offended. We are not one of the protected groups.

 

[jamil]

Steve, that isn't what I got from your post.

Do I think your beliefs are just as absurd and unfounded as his? Yes, because you both claim to be Christian, and I find the basic tenets of Christianity to be absurd.

Do I think that you arrived at your conclusions in the same manner as him? No. He's insane. He killed people.

That doesn't change the fact that if your god doesn't exist your religious beliefs are based in fantasy...just like his.

If your god does exist then I'm wrong. Your beliefs are well-founded, and he is still an insane killer.

No. By your definition, religious people are delusional if they're wrong. So why aren't you delusional if you're wrong?

Being delusional isn't simply believing in something is false. Was Einstein delusional with his theory of a static universe? No. He simply got it wrong. However he would have been delusional had he continued to believe in it after having been proven wrong. Delusion must contain some element of proof that makes the belief obviously wrong, yet the person still believes.

Some "believers", yes, I think you could say they're delusional. And Steve is indeed delusional, but just because he's Steve, not because he has faith in Jesus.

In my experience the most ardent atheists use terms like delusional, fantasy, fairy tales, unicorns, mythical, absurd, and the people willing to use that kind of language to describe people of faith are 100% sure of themselves. People who have that kind of contempt for other people are usually pretty sure of themselves, or they just like to insult people.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

Why would someone who believes they can't know for certain, but assumes there is no god, use rhetoric like delusional, fantasy, fairy tales, unicorns, mythical, absurd, to describe people who believe? To me, that kind displays contempt for other people's heartfelt faith.

I call myself an agnostic, but I don't quite agree with the definition on Dawkin's rubric. As an agnostic I am most confident that in the absence of direct physical proof, God's existence or non-existence is unprovable. But I believe non-existence is most probable because, logically, there's no reason to believe any particular story of faith over another to explain the world, when workable natural explanations exist. When people ask me how the universe came into being, I am very comfortable saying I don't know, science's SWAG is good as any.

However, I am not confident enough to believe someone else's faith is absurd, unless they truly are delusional, that is, believing that something provably false is true.

 

[Jludo]

I don't think we're allowed to be offended. We are not one of the protected groups.

Who says you can't be offended?