Define Crazy
next
>>
Superman 64 is not bad! You are right, Superman 64 is worse than shit. Superman 64 is shit taking a shit.
-AVGN-
-AVGN-
Its called faith, all abrahamic religions are based on faith...You know like blockbuster movie, featuring "The One", relgion in itself is based on a belief that the rules that exist in this world are temporal and therefore are not absolute. So I really don't understand your point.
that*, this word goes before blockbuster movie, lol.
Furthermore, if their was extraordinary evidence, then religion itself would cease to exist, because as I mentioned earlier all religions are faith based. And when it comes to proving whether or not their is a God, that is impossible in of itself, the idea in itself is so beyond the human realm of knowledge and awareness. Unless we are to depend on the rules that exist in this world, which would lead to wholly unsubstantial findings. The law of motion, which exists in our world, for example would lead us to believe that their is a God or at least an "Uncaused Cause" or an "Unmoved Mover"
Faith is exactly my point. Faith is belief without reason -- belief in things without reason, outside the realm of religion, is the basis for what we commonly refer to as "crazy."
If I believed unequivocably that someone was trying to kill me, that would cause concern for my mental capacity. Can this kind of "faith" be distinguished from religious faith. If so, how?
Also something that requires clarification is the distinction between a belief that there is likely a god or gods and a devotion to a religion, particularly from what I know, the Abrahamic religions. These include things that ARE falsifiable, an obvious one just for example being Noah's ark, which is demonstrably false.
Your last sentence is ambiguous. There are three laws of motion.
1. An object at rest stays at rest.
2. F = ma.
3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
You probably meant the conservation of energy for "uncaused cause". Both are arguments of infinite regress that needlessly pushes the seeming need for an eternal existence back one step (what caused the cause, what moved the mover).
You also wouldn't call gravity "God" but is the "cause" of objects falling toward Earth. If a naturalistic fluctuation hypothetically resulted in an alternate dimensional plane, that would be misleading and pointless to call it a god.
If I believed unequivocably that someone was trying to kill me, that would cause concern for my mental capacity. Can this kind of "faith" be distinguished from religious faith. If so, how?
Also something that requires clarification is the distinction between a belief that there is likely a god or gods and a devotion to a religion, particularly from what I know, the Abrahamic religions. These include things that ARE falsifiable, an obvious one just for example being Noah's ark, which is demonstrably false.
Your last sentence is ambiguous. There are three laws of motion.
1. An object at rest stays at rest.
2. F = ma.
3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
You probably meant the conservation of energy for "uncaused cause". Both are arguments of infinite regress that needlessly pushes the seeming need for an eternal existence back one step (what caused the cause, what moved the mover).
You also wouldn't call gravity "God" but is the "cause" of objects falling toward Earth. If a naturalistic fluctuation hypothetically resulted in an alternate dimensional plane, that would be misleading and pointless to call it a god.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileAn couple other notes, I'm not sure the laws of motion even apply to quantum mechanics, such as the uncertainty principle being at odds with the first law. I am no physicist, however.
The "unmoved mover" explanation for the first law of motion is pointless as that argument is at odds with the third law of motion.
"if their was extraordinary evidence, then religion itself would cease to exist"
And if someone doesn't believe they're multiple people, they aren't schizophrenic; that's not a justification. I also don't actually agree with the premise, as there is extraordinary evidence for biological evolution, for example, which many still manage to deny. Now that takes real faith
The "unmoved mover" explanation for the first law of motion is pointless as that argument is at odds with the third law of motion.
"if their was extraordinary evidence, then religion itself would cease to exist"
And if someone doesn't believe they're multiple people, they aren't schizophrenic; that's not a justification. I also don't actually agree with the premise, as there is extraordinary evidence for biological evolution, for example, which many still manage to deny. Now that takes real faith
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileOh yes I'm well aware that the Unmoved Mover theory isn't entirely plausible, but that was part of my point, in that it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist using our experience on earth as such would really be counter intuitive. Religious faith is different from the example you gave, in that its foundation can neither be proven nor disproved by evidence. I just don't understand your standpoint on faith, are you against faith in of itself?... Don't worry, I am not trying to take you in circles, and I really do have a point.
My main point is surrounding the basis on which faith is founded. I use the example of insanity and delusion because it's the only other instance where this occurs.
What it ultimately comes down to, if you have no reason to believe something is true, what is the basis for claiming something that is unfalsifiable is not true? You can make any number of currently or forever unfalsifiable claims, such as a riverdancing hominid at the core of Pluto. As for apparent delusion/insanity, you can't disprove that the person acting like there's a purple elephant in the room isn't in a shifted reality in which one exists only to him. It's a matter of burden of proof.
"I just don't understand your standpoint on faith, are you against faith in of itself?"
Yes, though my point is mainly that faith is a matter of compartmentalization that has no function and would be directly harmful in any practical application.
What it ultimately comes down to, if you have no reason to believe something is true, what is the basis for claiming something that is unfalsifiable is not true? You can make any number of currently or forever unfalsifiable claims, such as a riverdancing hominid at the core of Pluto. As for apparent delusion/insanity, you can't disprove that the person acting like there's a purple elephant in the room isn't in a shifted reality in which one exists only to him. It's a matter of burden of proof.
"I just don't understand your standpoint on faith, are you against faith in of itself?"
Yes, though my point is mainly that faith is a matter of compartmentalization that has no function and would be directly harmful in any practical application.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
You're making the types of blogs that I've been wanting to make, yoda! 
lol
We all need some measure of faith because we aren't omniscient when it comes to life, but faith is only really "ok" (knowledge is always preferable) when what you're having faith in is nothing significant and you couldn't get the facts easily enough. When it comes to one's own fate, however, I'd think people would be more careful about their reasoning. The more important something is, the more reasoning there should be in trying to ascertain the truth.
That's the paradox with religion, IMO. But the thing is, very few come to religion via carefully reasoned arguments, if any. It's really just a cultural phenomenon playing on people's psychology, ignorance, and/or lack of philosophical sophistication (not trying to offend anyone, BTW). If everyone started out as nonbelievers with a good grasp on reason, there would be no conversions to religion, since faith is only a "good reason" for belief for those who already have faith.
As for the Abrahamic religions relying on faith, that may be true now in general, but in the holy books' stories, we see plenty of convincing reasons for belief given. Many people in those stories didn't have to rely on faith, or at least not nearly as much. But let's not go assuming that the stories are true--I was just making a point.
"when it comes to proving whether or not their is a God, that is impossible in of itself, the idea in itself is so beyond the human realm of knowledge and awareness."
Not when people actually put forth descriptions, definitions, and attribute actions to said entity. As long as we have a description or know what the entity does, there is no problem.
I think that talk about "rules of this world" and such doesn't hold water. The fact is that things just behave in certain ways, and the "rules" are just the commonalities that we've been able to tease out from experience. If a god existed, it would behave in a certain way, too, having certain effects on things. It would also have a certain inherent nature. If we're not able to comprehend that, then it is automatically implied that there is actually no reason to believe in said god in the first place. Faith is just an excuse, though maybe the one who has faith doesn't recognize it as such.
You're right, yoda: In no other area of human thought and interaction is faith taken to be a good thing, and for good reason. Say, have you heard about the goings-on in Europe with Islam? It's like the countries over there are submitting slowly to Islamic rule just so they don't offend anyone. Recently a police card was sent out to the people of some neighborhood, and it had the cute police dog on the front. Muslims were offended because it is considered an unclean animal, so the police are taking measures to appease them, including putting little booties on the dogs' feet for when they enter Muslim households! Sheesh!
lolWe all need some measure of faith because we aren't omniscient when it comes to life, but faith is only really "ok" (knowledge is always preferable) when what you're having faith in is nothing significant and you couldn't get the facts easily enough. When it comes to one's own fate, however, I'd think people would be more careful about their reasoning. The more important something is, the more reasoning there should be in trying to ascertain the truth.
That's the paradox with religion, IMO. But the thing is, very few come to religion via carefully reasoned arguments, if any. It's really just a cultural phenomenon playing on people's psychology, ignorance, and/or lack of philosophical sophistication (not trying to offend anyone, BTW). If everyone started out as nonbelievers with a good grasp on reason, there would be no conversions to religion, since faith is only a "good reason" for belief for those who already have faith.
As for the Abrahamic religions relying on faith, that may be true now in general, but in the holy books' stories, we see plenty of convincing reasons for belief given. Many people in those stories didn't have to rely on faith, or at least not nearly as much. But let's not go assuming that the stories are true--I was just making a point.
"when it comes to proving whether or not their is a God, that is impossible in of itself, the idea in itself is so beyond the human realm of knowledge and awareness."
Not when people actually put forth descriptions, definitions, and attribute actions to said entity. As long as we have a description or know what the entity does, there is no problem.
I think that talk about "rules of this world" and such doesn't hold water. The fact is that things just behave in certain ways, and the "rules" are just the commonalities that we've been able to tease out from experience. If a god existed, it would behave in a certain way, too, having certain effects on things. It would also have a certain inherent nature. If we're not able to comprehend that, then it is automatically implied that there is actually no reason to believe in said god in the first place. Faith is just an excuse, though maybe the one who has faith doesn't recognize it as such.
You're right, yoda: In no other area of human thought and interaction is faith taken to be a good thing, and for good reason. Say, have you heard about the goings-on in Europe with Islam? It's like the countries over there are submitting slowly to Islamic rule just so they don't offend anyone. Recently a police card was sent out to the people of some neighborhood, and it had the cute police dog on the front. Muslims were offended because it is considered an unclean animal, so the police are taking measures to appease them, including putting little booties on the dogs' feet for when they enter Muslim households! Sheesh!
Very few people are rational. 
In fact it is natural to delude yourself into believing what you believe. It is natural to manipulate evidence, and even find evidence when there is none.
Here's an interesting thing that you may or may not have heard of, people who have temporal lobe epilepsy are often highly "spiritual" and religious.
There are many practical uses for faith. One being the status-quo using it for manipulation, secondly it can be used as quite an effective coping mechanism.
In fact it is natural to delude yourself into believing what you believe. It is natural to manipulate evidence, and even find evidence when there is none.Here's an interesting thing that you may or may not have heard of, people who have temporal lobe epilepsy are often highly "spiritual" and religious.
There are many practical uses for faith. One being the status-quo using it for manipulation, secondly it can be used as quite an effective coping mechanism.
"We all need some measure of faith because we aren't omniscient"
Here, angry_beaver, I think we're using different definitions for "faith." As I mentioned earlier, I take the word faith as meaning "belief without reason," which I think is the typical usage (though it certainly varies). There are levels of reason for belief, yes, but I don't agree we all have faith by my definition.
"in the holy books' stories, we see plenty of convincing reasons for belief given"
If I could see someone resurrect the dead repeatedly and testedly so, and see them rise up into heaven, I'd believe, definitely. If I had a book from an actual historian that actually accounts for those events I'd at least have some reason to consider it.
The Islamic progression in Europe is certainly a bothersome one, spurred, I think, by prior ethnic and gender based discrimination causing a guilt complex. We don't want to be considered "intolerant" because that's tantamount to being racist. Oh, and we can't forget about this incident. Ugh.
Foolz, faith for manipulation is a use of the implications of faith, but not the result of the manipulator's faith. Faith as a coping mechanism works in terms of it limits the fear or sadness, but I was trying to get across a desired result, in which faith that you'll for example, go to heaven, could in practical application get you killed. Outside of religion, faith in everyone's word as truth is going to be far less effective than scrutiny. Also, I don't think you can choose to have faith as a coping mechanism since it wouldn't be convincing. In a sense, though, you can have faith practically by accepting what you're told without question and acting in accordance, whether or not you fully believe it's true or not.
The coping mechanism concept, however, was a primary reason for my reservedness on discussing religiosity (and the lackthereof) for a long time--I've had an astounding fear of death since I was very young and didn't wish that on anybody.
Here, angry_beaver, I think we're using different definitions for "faith." As I mentioned earlier, I take the word faith as meaning "belief without reason," which I think is the typical usage (though it certainly varies). There are levels of reason for belief, yes, but I don't agree we all have faith by my definition.
"in the holy books' stories, we see plenty of convincing reasons for belief given"
If I could see someone resurrect the dead repeatedly and testedly so, and see them rise up into heaven, I'd believe, definitely. If I had a book from an actual historian that actually accounts for those events I'd at least have some reason to consider it.
The Islamic progression in Europe is certainly a bothersome one, spurred, I think, by prior ethnic and gender based discrimination causing a guilt complex. We don't want to be considered "intolerant" because that's tantamount to being racist. Oh, and we can't forget about this incident. Ugh.
Foolz, faith for manipulation is a use of the implications of faith, but not the result of the manipulator's faith. Faith as a coping mechanism works in terms of it limits the fear or sadness, but I was trying to get across a desired result, in which faith that you'll for example, go to heaven, could in practical application get you killed. Outside of religion, faith in everyone's word as truth is going to be far less effective than scrutiny. Also, I don't think you can choose to have faith as a coping mechanism since it wouldn't be convincing. In a sense, though, you can have faith practically by accepting what you're told without question and acting in accordance, whether or not you fully believe it's true or not.
The coping mechanism concept, however, was a primary reason for my reservedness on discussing religiosity (and the lackthereof) for a long time--I've had an astounding fear of death since I was very young and didn't wish that on anybody.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile"As I mentioned earlier, I take the word faith as meaning 'belief without reason,' which I think is the typical usage (though it certainly varies)."
I take it to indicate belief without sufficient reason for belief, not belief entirely without reason. By this interpretation, we have faith in many things--this most likely usually relies on some form of induction rather than logic. For instance, while at first it may sound like an unreasonable concession to say that I trust my closest friends not to betray me, that trust is based on induction on my past encounters with those friends and on my evaluations of the parts of their personalities that I know about. I can never have justifiable certainty that they won't betray me, but I still make the induction, the leap (or step, depending on how much evidence has been gathered).
Do you think I've drawn the line too far in one direction for the defining quality of faith? I'm open to changing my interpretation. The way I've explained it above certainly makes your explanation sound more reasonable, I must admit.
"If I could see someone resurrect the dead repeatedly and testedly so, and see them rise up into heaven, I'd believe, definitely. If I had a book from an actual historian that actually accounts for those events I'd at least have some reason to consider it."
I thought my statement might get me into trouble. What I meant is that there are occurrences in holy books' stories that, if witnessed, and if the supposed causal agent were present, might be grounds for belief (such as the dead rising and walking the streets during the crucifiction, e.g.). These days we get nothing. That's no mystery to me, but it's because I'm not a believer. Haven't been for 6-8 years now.
I take it to indicate belief without sufficient reason for belief, not belief entirely without reason. By this interpretation, we have faith in many things--this most likely usually relies on some form of induction rather than logic. For instance, while at first it may sound like an unreasonable concession to say that I trust my closest friends not to betray me, that trust is based on induction on my past encounters with those friends and on my evaluations of the parts of their personalities that I know about. I can never have justifiable certainty that they won't betray me, but I still make the induction, the leap (or step, depending on how much evidence has been gathered).
Do you think I've drawn the line too far in one direction for the defining quality of faith? I'm open to changing my interpretation. The way I've explained it above certainly makes your explanation sound more reasonable, I must admit.
"If I could see someone resurrect the dead repeatedly and testedly so, and see them rise up into heaven, I'd believe, definitely. If I had a book from an actual historian that actually accounts for those events I'd at least have some reason to consider it."
I thought my statement might get me into trouble. What I meant is that there are occurrences in holy books' stories that, if witnessed, and if the supposed causal agent were present, might be grounds for belief (such as the dead rising and walking the streets during the crucifiction, e.g.). These days we get nothing. That's no mystery to me, but it's because I'm not a believer. Haven't been for 6-8 years now.
You said it yourself, we all need some measure of faith...The laws of science itself, are neither absolute nor are they ends, and really they are not wholly truths but parts of truths or ideas that get us closer to the truth. Furthermore, God can really be thought of simply as the ultimate absolute truth. Why do you think Socrates said."all I know is that I know nothing?" Trying to take what we know from our experience on earth and apply that to a completely different realm is irrational, it would be like trying to fit a square in a circle. Getting back to faith, every action that we take requires a measure of faith, in a sense. Therefore, without faith human beings are rendered into rocks. And Yoda is wrong about faith in general, having faith in one's self is indeed a good thing, that is a good example.
BTW, I do not lack philosophical sophistication, and I am a Christian (though rather apathetic). I think you have the wrong idea about religion in general, you think Buddhists aren't philosophically sophisticated? How shortsighted of you. Not every religion is based on some rampid fanatisicm, we are not all Evangelicals nor are all Muslims are so "orthodox".
BTW, I do not lack philosophical sophistication, and I am a Christian (though rather apathetic). I think you have the wrong idea about religion in general, you think Buddhists aren't philosophically sophisticated? How shortsighted of you. Not every religion is based on some rampid fanatisicm, we are not all Evangelicals nor are all Muslims are so "orthodox".
Faith is never referred to as being a "belief without reason", but rather belief in an idea that is not proven. True faith in a religion requires a conscious decision, and human reasoning (whether wrong or right) always plays a part in every conscious decision we make. Who are you to say what is irrational or rational? Who are you to say what is good decision or a bad decision? Human reasoning lies in the hands of each individual, and because we are fallible may or not be correct. Therefore, in a way human reasoning also is based on faith. (see there was a point, you just had to wait a little bit).
Religion in of itself isn't bad, its corrupt churches, and crazed extremists and fundamentalist that try to use it in order to justify their own means. Religion has changed a lot of peoples lives for the better, churches that give people community, and give the hopeless hope. What I'm trying to say is that although religion may not have the physical evidence to back up its dogma, their are plenty of events that happen to individuals that strengthen their faith.
@Angry Beaver, don't take the bible so literally, most people that things in the bible are only meant to serve as a sort of symbolic tool to guide us along the right path morally...Only evangelists take much of what is in the bible literally, the most important parts of the bible are not the miracles which supposedly took place, but rather the parables that Jesus made and its theme of agape, or God's unconditional love for humankind. Sorry for making four posts, but I felt I need to add my full two cents, and was rather unsatisfied with each successive post.
You are such a thinker Yo. I think about food, games and sex. That's about it.
Hires, God had commanded you to read my blog and leave a comment.
Angry Beaver man, same thing applies to you.
Angry Beaver man, same thing applies to you.
"Faith is ... belief in an idea that is not proven"
No, there's no such thing as "proof" outside of mathematics. There are degrees of evidence -- religious claims such as a god have none.
You go on, HiRes, to essentially argue Solipsism, which brings us back to my original point -- if you are going to argue that something with no evidence is an equal idea to something with significant evidence, what then is the criterion for interpreting what is likely true?
"their are plenty of events that happen to individuals that strengthen their faith"
This happens to people of all faiths, contradictory as they may be. And again to the original point, how then do you separate this from the insane?
Here's a real-world application of that point, George W Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq. If that's your decision process, you are unfit to hold office.
"Who are you to say what is irrational or rational? Who are you to say what is good decision or a bad decision? Human reasoning lies in the hands of each individual, and because we are fallible may or not be correct."
Here's the difference between religion and science -- science is not one man. You observe, make a hypothesis, test it, then get it peer reviewed. Then it still has to be supported by every new piece of evidence that is found. Individual perception is shaped by confirming results of other people.
To get back to the point one more time, if your justification for religion is lack of absolute knowledge, then you are in no place to call any other entirely unsubstantiated idea, however absurd, wrong, unlikely, or crazy.
I want to know as many true things and as few false things as possible. - Matt Dillahunty
If you don't think there's a difference between true and false, I both have to question your judgment and show you the magic beans I have for sale.
No, there's no such thing as "proof" outside of mathematics. There are degrees of evidence -- religious claims such as a god have none.
You go on, HiRes, to essentially argue Solipsism, which brings us back to my original point -- if you are going to argue that something with no evidence is an equal idea to something with significant evidence, what then is the criterion for interpreting what is likely true?
"their are plenty of events that happen to individuals that strengthen their faith"
This happens to people of all faiths, contradictory as they may be. And again to the original point, how then do you separate this from the insane?
Here's a real-world application of that point, George W Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq. If that's your decision process, you are unfit to hold office.
"Who are you to say what is irrational or rational? Who are you to say what is good decision or a bad decision? Human reasoning lies in the hands of each individual, and because we are fallible may or not be correct."
Here's the difference between religion and science -- science is not one man. You observe, make a hypothesis, test it, then get it peer reviewed. Then it still has to be supported by every new piece of evidence that is found. Individual perception is shaped by confirming results of other people.
To get back to the point one more time, if your justification for religion is lack of absolute knowledge, then you are in no place to call any other entirely unsubstantiated idea, however absurd, wrong, unlikely, or crazy.
I want to know as many true things and as few false things as possible. - Matt Dillahunty
If you don't think there's a difference between true and false, I both have to question your judgment and show you the magic beans I have for sale.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
Making rules and definitions is hard. You have to make them broad enough to given them proper meaning, but narrow enough scope to have a use. For example, what is an airplane? Well, saying something that has two wings, a rudder a pilot and co-pilot and a rudder would be too inclusive and disqualify biplanes. If we say, a flying machine to carry humans, that would include blimps. You have to get it just right.
Words are also often shaped by our use of them, even if we don't mean to specifically redefine the word. For example, if we say that a movie is entertaining because it makes us cry, it blurs the line of what entertainment is to the point that it's hard to use it for anything. Another example would be if we were to say that Superman 64 is not a bad game. If that's not bad, well, what exactly is?
So, I now pose my question: If believing in a religion--at least the abrahamic religions--does not qualify as insane or at least ridiculous, what does? This is not a mockery, it's a serious question for evaluation. By all means, the claims made about miracles in any other scope other than religious would immediately be regarded as delusional behaviour.
There is a fair option, though. Extraordinary claims are not absolutely always false, but we most certainly cannot accept them on faith. What is required is justification -- evidence. All a religion need do is provide adaquate evidence of the claims made. By all means, that's not an unfair request.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.
If you are willing to accept that statement, most certainly you can accept mine.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile