I'll pray for you...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2012, 07:47 PM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(08-08-2012 05:25 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You are picking and choosing in the dictionary.

Quote:ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Quote:a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Quote:be·lief
[bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.


Quote: [feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Nice job in getting a degree in semantic fallacy.

Quote:Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]

Then use something else other than a dictionary.

In that I pick the defintion, that suits my arguement is the point, in that youve cited another defition for the same word is also the point. These defintions are not mutually exclusive, the word means each of the defintions simultatiously. Where the words mean one or the the other is through elaboration and context. I cited not through bias or a desire to "win" tor spite the clauses I did, because it is those exact meanings of the word that fit the idea I am attempting to convey. This as you point out is a somantic arguement. And now we've established the perfectly obvious, all communication in language is somantic in nature, we can focus on the intend behind the blunt instrument that word really are. Thats where you move past the statement of a premis and get down to a debate.

As to use the wiki, I set as stated in that post to look at the definition of the individual words, the philosphical framework that is agnostic atheism, goes beyond that. As there seems to be some confusion as to what words are jumping into phrases was a step further than I wanted to go.

Also, as what I'd say would be that this philosphical construct is a belief system, being made up of a set of beliefs. That would just derail things again, and it would be another 15 post if ever that we got even remotley close to point we could debate.

Just to reiterate, by belief system I expressly do mean a religion, or a thing taken on faith or any of these other things, I mean expressly that a group of beliefs are collected under one heading.

So, to get the ball rolling I'll put forward that the idea of agnostic atheism is something that does not paticularly sit well with me, if you (not you personally, the collective you) state your an agnostic atheist your saying you have and can have no knowlege of the subject, but assert is a the belief that the divine/God/what have you does not exist. But then, that is why I self identify as an agnostic because I have no knowledge of, or have any mechanism to gather such knowledge of the the divine. Not knowing, I dont feel confindent, or believe assert a posative claim about the nature of which I hae no knowledge. The very crux of "arguement" is that in not knowing, you can make no valid factual claim. You can certainly, believe theres no God, I myself think its highly probable there isnt, as Ive said before no amount of not knowing can justify a posative claim here. You (again the collective you) can certain belief, there isnt or believe there is for that matter and thats all fine, but no amount of faith on your part, will sway me. Although, it is not beyond the bounds of reason that there isnt a definition or arguement you could present that would change my mind, but it would need to an expansion on what has thus far been presented.

If you (again, collective, this being a public forum an all) disagree fundamentally with what Ive said, to the point that you cant or wont dicuss it further, then thats fair enough we can agree to differ. If you feel however that there is the basis for a discussion we can discuss, we may find some form of consensus if so geat, we may not in which case we can still agree to differ.If however, you see the debate as some kind of competive endevour with a winner and a loser I prefer shooting Nazis in the face as a sport, and I'll agree to differ and find a thread that isnt about epeen sizes.

Anywhoo, make of that what you will.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 08:31 PM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 05:25 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You are picking and choosing in the dictionary.






Nice job in getting a degree in semantic fallacy.


Then use something else other than a dictionary.

In that I pick the defintion, that suits my arguement is the point, in that youve cited another defition for the same word is also the point. These defintions are not mutually exclusive, the word means each of the defintions simultatiously. Where the words mean one or the the other is through elaboration and context. I cited not through bias or a desire to "win" tor spite the clauses I did, because it is those exact meanings of the word that fit the idea I am attempting to convey. This as you point out is a somantic arguement. And now we've established the perfectly obvious, all communication in language is somantic in nature, we can focus on the intend behind the blunt instrument that word really are. Thats where you move past the statement of a premis and get down to a debate.

As to use the wiki, I set as stated in that post to look at the definition of the individual words, the philosphical framework that is agnostic atheism, goes beyond that. As there seems to be some confusion as to what words are jumping into phrases was a step further than I wanted to go.

Also, as what I'd say would be that this philosphical construct is a belief system, being made up of a set of beliefs. That would just derail things again, and it would be another 15 post if ever that we got even remotley close to point we could debate.

Just to reiterate, by belief system I expressly do mean a religion, or a thing taken on faith or any of these other things, I mean expressly that a group of beliefs are collected under one heading.

So, to get the ball rolling I'll put forward that the idea of agnostic atheism is something that does not paticularly sit well with me, if you (not you personally, the collective you) state your an agnostic atheist your saying you have and can have no knowlege of the subject, but assert is a the belief that the divine/God/what have you does not exist. But then, that is why I self identify as an agnostic because I have no knowledge of, or have any mechanism to gather such knowledge of the the divine. Not knowing, I dont feel confindent, or believe assert a posative claim about the nature of which I hae no knowledge. The very crux of "arguement" is that in not knowing, you can make no valid factual claim. You can certainly, believe theres no God, I myself think its highly probable there isnt, as Ive said before no amount of not knowing can justify a posative claim here. You (again the collective you) can certain belief, there isnt or believe there is for that matter and thats all fine, but no amount of faith on your part, will sway me. Although, it is not beyond the bounds of reason that there isnt a definition or arguement you could present that would change my mind, but it would need to an expansion on what has thus far been presented.

If you (again, collective, this being a public forum an all) disagree fundamentally with what Ive said, to the point that you cant or wont dicuss it further, then thats fair enough we can agree to differ. If you feel however that there is the basis for a discussion we can discuss, we may find some form of consensus if so geat, we may not in which case we can still agree to differ.If however, you see the debate as some kind of competive endevour with a winner and a loser I prefer shooting Nazis in the face as a sport, and I'll agree to differ and find a thread that isnt about epeen sizes.

Anywhoo, make of that what you will.

The consensus is that agnostic atheism is not a belief system to the rest of the world, except you. Tongue

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 08:57 PM
RE: I'll pray for you...
Humakt - if you would take a look at these and tell me if you think they are delusions according to the definition that you ascribe to.

1. Aliens have taken my brain and replaced it with another brain that was programmed with all my own memories
2. Everyday I wake up and I spend hours searching for the listening devices that the FBI planted in my house. They are constantly recording everything I say or do.
3. I am Thor, the God of Thunder. Odin has banished me to earth to live as a mortal in order to humble me. The life and memories I have are all fake.
4. I can sometimes feel small creatures moving under my skin. When I go to sleep, they leave my body, but also deposit microscopic eggs behind that hatch the next day.
5. I committed suicide several years ago. I don't think I'm alive. I'm certain that I'm dead and this life is merely my brain in a slow state of shutdown.
6. Nearly everywhere I go, I see the number 127. I was born on Jan 27th. All of these signs mean something is coming and I'm the only one who can stop it.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
08-08-2012, 10:12 PM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(08-08-2012 08:31 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  In that I pick the defintion, that suits my arguement is the point, in that youve cited another defition for the same word is also the point. These defintions are not mutually exclusive, the word means each of the defintions simultatiously. Where the words mean one or the the other is through elaboration and context. I cited not through bias or a desire to "win" tor spite the clauses I did, because it is those exact meanings of the word that fit the idea I am attempting to convey. This as you point out is a somantic arguement. And now we've established the perfectly obvious, all communication in language is somantic in nature, we can focus on the intend behind the blunt instrument that word really are. Thats where you move past the statement of a premis and get down to a debate.

As to use the wiki, I set as stated in that post to look at the definition of the individual words, the philosphical framework that is agnostic atheism, goes beyond that. As there seems to be some confusion as to what words are jumping into phrases was a step further than I wanted to go.

Also, as what I'd say would be that this philosphical construct is a belief system, being made up of a set of beliefs. That would just derail things again, and it would be another 15 post if ever that we got even remotley close to point we could debate.

Just to reiterate, by belief system I expressly do mean a religion, or a thing taken on faith or any of these other things, I mean expressly that a group of beliefs are collected under one heading.

So, to get the ball rolling I'll put forward that the idea of agnostic atheism is something that does not paticularly sit well with me, if you (not you personally, the collective you) state your an agnostic atheist your saying you have and can have no knowlege of the subject, but assert is a the belief that the divine/God/what have you does not exist. But then, that is why I self identify as an agnostic because I have no knowledge of, or have any mechanism to gather such knowledge of the the divine. Not knowing, I dont feel confindent, or believe assert a posative claim about the nature of which I hae no knowledge. The very crux of "arguement" is that in not knowing, you can make no valid factual claim. You can certainly, believe theres no God, I myself think its highly probable there isnt, as Ive said before no amount of not knowing can justify a posative claim here. You (again the collective you) can certain belief, there isnt or believe there is for that matter and thats all fine, but no amount of faith on your part, will sway me. Although, it is not beyond the bounds of reason that there isnt a definition or arguement you could present that would change my mind, but it would need to an expansion on what has thus far been presented.

If you (again, collective, this being a public forum an all) disagree fundamentally with what Ive said, to the point that you cant or wont dicuss it further, then thats fair enough we can agree to differ. If you feel however that there is the basis for a discussion we can discuss, we may find some form of consensus if so geat, we may not in which case we can still agree to differ.If however, you see the debate as some kind of competive endevour with a winner and a loser I prefer shooting Nazis in the face as a sport, and I'll agree to differ and find a thread that isnt about epeen sizes.

Anywhoo, make of that what you will.

The consensus is that agnostic atheism is not a belief system to the rest of the world, except you. Tongue

Id rather be right than popular, as Ive said my understanding of what it actually is doest go any further than the two words than comprise its label. If there a strict defintion that transcends it fair enough, so far I scimmed the intro of the wiki, not I source I overly trust so I'll reserve judgement on it til I can or if I research it further.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 10:44 PM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(08-08-2012 08:57 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Humakt - if you would take a look at these and tell me if you think they are delusions according to the definition that you ascribe to.

1. Aliens have taken my brain and replaced it with another brain that was programmed with all my own memories
2. Everyday I wake up and I spend hours searching for the listening devices that the FBI planted in my house. They are constantly recording everything I say or do.
3. I am Thor, the God of Thunder. Odin has banished me to earth to live as a mortal in order to humble me. The life and memories I have are all fake.
4. I can sometimes feel small creatures moving under my skin. When I go to sleep, they leave my body, but also deposit microscopic eggs behind that hatch the next day.
5. I committed suicide several years ago. I don't think I'm alive. I'm certain that I'm dead and this life is merely my brain in a slow state of shutdown.
6. Nearly everywhere I go, I see the number 127. I was born on Jan 27th. All of these signs mean something is coming and I'm the only one who can stop it.

On the whole Id need to answer that on serveral different levels.

If your asserting you actually believe those things, Id say you where on the balance of probabilities lying for sport.

If your possiting hypotheticals, then they all hypothetically sound like delusions, and if we're dealing with hyptheticals Im not bound by the nessecity for evidence, so hypthetically in most cases yes, however 2 and 4 are more credible than the others and possably less likly to be delusions, as both 2 and 4 do nessicarily need supernatural or as yet unverified phenomona to be true.

If you assure me that you claim you truely believe these thing and are not lying, then I say that Im not qualified to judge your mental health, but would suggest you seek advice from a mental health proffesional. Having been a combat medic, I would find it unethical to give what would be medical advice in an area I am unqualified in.

If pressed to to confide in another as to my opinions, Id decline to discuss the matter again on ethical grounds, even though I recognise you would not be my patient and strictly speaking those ethics would not apply nonetheless I would consider discussing your medical issues without your express conscent wrong.

As to what I would believe privately, I would consider you delusional on balance. But would not rule out that your assertions where true, in an purist sence, in much the same way as I dont believe in god/faries and what have you, but would not state as a fact they dont exist. However, with out evidence I would not put much weight in either conclusion. As to me you are something of an abstract, weather your Thor or nuts has little consequences for me. If however, we were to meet and you were to state these beliefs, Id think much as above, but would not enter a vechile you where driving, let you look after a loved one and woud keep my distance if you were near anything sharp, plus I would suggest you seek the advice of a medical health proffesional and look for the earliest opportunity to distance myself from your company until such time as I thought the likelyhood of you thinking Im a FBI goon, or loki and endanger either me or you, mainly me was on balance not probable.

In the cases, where I would suggest yu seek the advice of a medical health proffesional, I would suggest a regular helth proffessional for case 4, if said proffesion found nothing then a mental health proffesional.

Take your pick.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2012, 12:49 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2012 12:55 AM by Rahn127.)
RE: I'll pray for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Each example I gave is listed on the same page you derive your definition from as types of delusions. All of the ones I listed are made up, but do qualify as delusions.

1. Aliens have taken my brain and replaced it with another brain that was programmed with all my own memories
Bizarre delusion: A delusion that is very strange and completely implausible; an example of a bizarre delusion would be that aliens have removed the affected person's brain.

2. Everyday I wake up and I spend hours searching for the listening devices that the FBI planted in my house. They are constantly recording everything I say or do.
Non-bizarre delusion: A delusion that, though false, is at least possible, e.g., the affected person mistakenly believes that he is under constant police surveillance.

3. I am Thor, the God of Thunder. Odin has banished me to earth to live as a mortal in order to humble me. The life and memories I have are all fake.
Mood-congruent delusion: Any delusion with content consistent with either a depressive or manic state, e.g., a depressed person believes that news anchors on television highly disapprove of him, or
a person in a manic state might believe she is a powerful deity.

4. I can sometimes feel small creatures moving under my skin. When I go to sleep, they leave my body, but also deposit microscopic eggs behind that hatch the next day.
Mood-neutral delusion: A delusion that does not relate to the sufferer's emotional state; for example, a belief that an extra limb is growing out of the back of one's head is neutral to either depression or mania
Somatic delusion: A delusion whose content pertains to bodily functioning, bodily sensations, or physical appearance. Usually the false belief is that the body is somehow diseased, abnormal, or changed—for example, infested with parasites.

5. I committed suicide several years ago. I don't think I'm alive. I'm certain that I'm dead and this life is merely my brain in a slow state of shutdown.
Cotard delusion: This is a false belief that one does not exist or has become deceased.

6. Nearly everywhere I go, I see the number 127. I was born on Jan 27th. All of these signs mean something is coming and I'm the only one who can stop it.
Delusion of reference: The person falsely believes that insignificant remarks, events, or objects in one's environment have personal meaning or significance.

"if we're dealing with hyptheticals Im not bound by the nessecity for evidence"
But didn't you say contrary evidence would be needed for it to be a delusion ?
Can you provide contrary evidence in each case ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
09-08-2012, 04:56 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2012 07:01 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: I'll pray for you...
(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  In that I pick the defintion, that suits my arguement is the point, in that youve cited another defition for the same word is also the point. These defintions are not mutually exclusive, the word means each of the defintions simultatiously. Where the words mean one or the the other is through elaboration and context. I cited not through bias or a desire to "win" tor spite the clauses I did, because it is those exact meanings of the word that fit the idea I am attempting to convey. This as you point out is a somantic arguement. And now we've established the perfectly obvious, all communication in language is somantic in nature, we can focus on the intend behind the blunt instrument that word really are. Thats where you move past the statement of a premis and get down to a debate.

Not at all. The context in which the words are used in this debate pertain to the definitions I have highlighted. For example:

Quote:plane/plān/
Noun:
1. A flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points on it would wholly lie.
2. An airplane.

If I were to say, "I piloted a plane yesterday," you would not assume that I piloted a straight line, joined by two points. Oh, and speaking of word play, it is semantics.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  As to use the wiki, I set as stated in that post to look at the definition of the individual words, the philosphical framework that is agnostic atheism, goes beyond that. As there seems to be some confusion as to what words are jumping into phrases was a step further than I wanted to go.

You are arguing that the philosophical conviction is confused? I showed you what agnostic atheism is, and that the second definition of "agnosticism" falls under the definition of said philosophical conviction.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Also, as what I'd say would be that this philosphical construct is a belief system, being made up of a set of beliefs. That would just derail things again, and it would be another 15 post if ever that we got even remotley close to point we could debate.

Negative. Claim.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Just to reiterate, by belief system I expressly do mean a religion, or a thing taken on faith or any of these other things, I mean expressly that a group of beliefs are collected under one heading.

Agnostic atheism makes a negative claim, it is not based on faith. It is the innate position that a person will take for anything:

"I was abducted by a UFO last night."

"Where's your proof?"

"I don't have any."

"Well, until you provide evidence, I will assume that the UFO didn't exist and that you are crazy."

Quote:Bertrand Russell uses the example of the celestial teapot. He argues that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it. Therefore, one's view with respect to the teapot would be an agnostic "ateapotist", because while they don't believe in the existence of the teapot, they don't claim to know for certain.[4]

Now listen.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  So, to get the ball rolling I'll put forward that the idea of agnostic atheism is something that does not paticularly sit well with me, if you (not you personally, the collective you) state your an agnostic atheist your saying you have and can have no knowlege of the subject, but assert is a the belief that the divine/God/what have you does not exist. But then, that is why I self identify as an agnostic because I have no knowledge of, or have any mechanism to gather such knowledge of the the divine. Not knowing, I dont feel confindent, or believe assert a posative claim about the nature of which I hae no knowledge. The very crux of "arguement" is that in not knowing, you can make no valid factual claim. You can certainly, believe theres no God, I myself think its highly probable there isnt, as Ive said before no amount of not knowing can justify a posative claim here. You (again the collective you) can certain belief, there isnt or believe there is for that matter and thats all fine, but no amount of faith on your part, will sway me. Although, it is not beyond the bounds of reason that there isnt a definition or arguement you could present that would change my mind, but it would need to an expansion on what has thus far been presented.

Did you not read the philosophical definition of the belief, or are you still on the semantics thing? One can be both a gnostic and an agnostic atheist. I am gnostic atheist about the Christian deity, I am, however, agnostic about deistic deities. One would have to make a negative claim about a deistic deity to remain logical.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  If you (again, collective, this being a public forum an all) disagree fundamentally with what Ive said, to the point that you cant or wont dicuss it further, then thats fair enough we can agree to differ. If you feel however that there is the basis for a discussion we can discuss, we may find some form of consensus if so geat, we may not in which case we can still agree to differ.If however, you see the debate as some kind of competive endevour with a winner and a loser I prefer shooting Nazis in the face as a sport, and I'll agree to differ and find a thread that isnt about epeen sizes.

The only reason I wouldn't want to debate with you further is that you are ignoring aspects of an argument that you don't want to engage in, and continue to say the same things over again.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Anywhoo, make of that what you will.

Oh, I did.

(08-08-2012 10:12 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Id rather be right than popular,

You are neither.

I suggest you learn to multiquote, instead of posting several times in a row.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
10-08-2012, 11:15 AM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(09-08-2012 12:49 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Each example I gave is listed on the same page you derive your definition from as types of delusions. All of the ones I listed are made up, but do qualify as delusions.

1. Aliens have taken my brain and replaced it with another brain that was programmed with all my own memories
Bizarre delusion: A delusion that is very strange and completely implausible; an example of a bizarre delusion would be that aliens have removed the affected person's brain.

2. Everyday I wake up and I spend hours searching for the listening devices that the FBI planted in my house. They are constantly recording everything I say or do.
Non-bizarre delusion: A delusion that, though false, is at least possible, e.g., the affected person mistakenly believes that he is under constant police surveillance.

3. I am Thor, the God of Thunder. Odin has banished me to earth to live as a mortal in order to humble me. The life and memories I have are all fake.
Mood-congruent delusion: Any delusion with content consistent with either a depressive or manic state, e.g., a depressed person believes that news anchors on television highly disapprove of him, or
a person in a manic state might believe she is a powerful deity.

4. I can sometimes feel small creatures moving under my skin. When I go to sleep, they leave my body, but also deposit microscopic eggs behind that hatch the next day.
Mood-neutral delusion: A delusion that does not relate to the sufferer's emotional state; for example, a belief that an extra limb is growing out of the back of one's head is neutral to either depression or mania
Somatic delusion: A delusion whose content pertains to bodily functioning, bodily sensations, or physical appearance. Usually the false belief is that the body is somehow diseased, abnormal, or changed—for example, infested with parasites.

5. I committed suicide several years ago. I don't think I'm alive. I'm certain that I'm dead and this life is merely my brain in a slow state of shutdown.
Cotard delusion: This is a false belief that one does not exist or has become deceased.

6. Nearly everywhere I go, I see the number 127. I was born on Jan 27th. All of these signs mean something is coming and I'm the only one who can stop it.
Delusion of reference: The person falsely believes that insignificant remarks, events, or objects in one's environment have personal meaning or significance.

"if we're dealing with hyptheticals Im not bound by the nessecity for evidence"
But didn't you say contrary evidence would be needed for it to be a delusion ?
Can you provide contrary evidence in each case ?

As you say these are all made up, what method would you suggest I follow to find this evidence. Never mind, you assert theyre made up, but as youve clearly stated theyre made up, I'll take your word for it that these then are examples of, and not actual delusions, admittedly this false somewhat short of proper evidence, you could be lying, but for the sake of arguement I'll believe you.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2012, 11:52 AM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(09-08-2012 04:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  In that I pick the defintion, that suits my arguement is the point, in that youve cited another defition for the same word is also the point. These defintions are not mutually exclusive, the word means each of the defintions simultatiously. Where the words mean one or the the other is through elaboration and context. I cited not through bias or a desire to "win" tor spite the clauses I did, because it is those exact meanings of the word that fit the idea I am attempting to convey. This as you point out is a somantic arguement. And now we've established the perfectly obvious, all communication in language is somantic in nature, we can focus on the intend behind the blunt instrument that word really are. Thats where you move past the statement of a premis and get down to a debate.

Not at all. The context in which the words are used in this debate pertain to the definitions I have highlighted. For example:

Quote:plane/plān/
Noun:
1. A flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points on it would wholly lie.
2. An airplane.

If I were to say, "I piloted a plane yesterday," you would not assume that I piloted a straight line, joined by two points. Oh, and speaking of word play, it is semantics.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  As to use the wiki, I set as stated in that post to look at the definition of the individual words, the philosphical framework that is agnostic atheism, goes beyond that. As there seems to be some confusion as to what words are jumping into phrases was a step further than I wanted to go.

You are arguing that the philosophical conviction is confused? I showed you what agnostic atheism is, and that the second definition of "agnosticism" falls under the definition of said philosophical conviction.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Also, as what I'd say would be that this philosphical construct is a belief system, being made up of a set of beliefs. That would just derail things again, and it would be another 15 post if ever that we got even remotley close to point we could debate.

Negative. Claim.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Just to reiterate, by belief system I expressly do mean a religion, or a thing taken on faith or any of these other things, I mean expressly that a group of beliefs are collected under one heading.

Agnostic atheism makes a negative claim, it is not based on faith. It is the innate position that a person will take for anything:

"I was abducted by a UFO last night."

"Where's your proof?"

"I don't have any."

"Well, until you provide evidence, I will assume that the UFO didn't exist and that you are crazy."

Quote:Bertrand Russell uses the example of the celestial teapot. He argues that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it. Therefore, one's view with respect to the teapot would be an agnostic "ateapotist", because while they don't believe in the existence of the teapot, they don't claim to know for certain.[4]

Now listen.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  So, to get the ball rolling I'll put forward that the idea of agnostic atheism is something that does not paticularly sit well with me, if you (not you personally, the collective you) state your an agnostic atheist your saying you have and can have no knowlege of the subject, but assert is a the belief that the divine/God/what have you does not exist. But then, that is why I self identify as an agnostic because I have no knowledge of, or have any mechanism to gather such knowledge of the the divine. Not knowing, I dont feel confindent, or believe assert a posative claim about the nature of which I hae no knowledge. The very crux of "arguement" is that in not knowing, you can make no valid factual claim. You can certainly, believe theres no God, I myself think its highly probable there isnt, as Ive said before no amount of not knowing can justify a posative claim here. You (again the collective you) can certain belief, there isnt or believe there is for that matter and thats all fine, but no amount of faith on your part, will sway me. Although, it is not beyond the bounds of reason that there isnt a definition or arguement you could present that would change my mind, but it would need to an expansion on what has thus far been presented.

Did you not read the philosophical definition of the belief, or are you still on the semantics thing? One can be both a gnostic and an agnostic atheist. I am gnostic atheist about the Christian deity, I am, however, agnostic about deistic deities. One would have to make a negative claim about a deistic deity to remain logical.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  If you (again, collective, this being a public forum an all) disagree fundamentally with what Ive said, to the point that you cant or wont dicuss it further, then thats fair enough we can agree to differ. If you feel however that there is the basis for a discussion we can discuss, we may find some form of consensus if so geat, we may not in which case we can still agree to differ.If however, you see the debate as some kind of competive endevour with a winner and a loser I prefer shooting Nazis in the face as a sport, and I'll agree to differ and find a thread that isnt about epeen sizes.

The only reason I wouldn't want to debate with you further is that you are ignoring aspects of an argument that you don't want to engage in, and continue to say the same things over again.

(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Anywhoo, make of that what you will.

Oh I did.


(08-08-2012 10:12 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Id rather be right than popular,

You are niether.

I suggest you learn to multiquote, instead of posting several times in a row.

"Not at all. The context in which the words are used in this debate pertain to the definitions I have highlighted. For example:"

Maybe in the debate youve just joined, you can talk about you want, but its somewhat presumptious to tell me what Im talking about, espescially as I specifally say somthing completely different. And technically this debate is I'll pray for you...... the fact its been thourghly derailed into an arguement on what a delusion is, by someones assertion that the religious are delusional and me pointing out that the defiinition of delusional exclude religious belief is neither here nor there. So unless your saying Im lying about my assertion that I as a part of the discussion meant what I said you meant, then your assertion that the debate pertains to the defintion you put forward is false.

"If I were to say, "I piloted a plane yesterday," you would not assume that I piloted a straight line, joined by two points. Oh, and speaking of word play, it is semantics."

Yes, the meaning its contexrtually driven, I said that.

"You are arguing that the philosophical conviction is confused? I showed you what agnostic atheism is, and that the second definition of "agnosticism" falls under the definition of said philosophical conviction."

You stated that its should be taken in most cases, either way if you wanna say that lack of knowledge is justification enough for you to make a definitive statement as the existence of something, feel free. I'll hang off making such claims till I have evidence to back em up.


(08-08-2012 07:47 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Also, as what I'd say would be that this philosphical construct is a belief system, being made up of a set of beliefs. That would just derail things again, and it would be another 15 post if ever that we got even remotley close to point we could debate.

"Negative. Claim."

No posative claim, Im claiming that as a construct of of beliefs its a belief a system. Maybe you mean false claim.

"I was abducted by a UFO last night."

"Where's your proof?"

"I don't have any."

"Well, until you provide evidence, I will assume that the UFO didn't exist and that you are crazy."

Your assumptions, are yours to make, but dont constitute proof. I'll not bother assuming anything, I'll stick with Meh, until theres evidence to refute.

"Now listen."

Now listen lisiten, you have something to bring, well then bring it. If not bluster at someone else.

"Did you not read the philosophical definition of the belief, or are you still on the semantics thing? One can be both a gnostic and an agnostic atheist. I am gnostic atheist about the Christian deity, I am, however, agnostic about deistic deities. One would have to make a negative claim about a deistic deity to remain logical."

Really your a gnostic atheist, you have knowledge pertaining to the existence of God, ok to parrot your point on alien abduction point. Wheres your evidence? Meh.

"The only reason I wouldn't want to debate with you further is that you are ignoring aspects of an argument that you don't want to engage in, and continue to say the same things over again."

Then stop talking at me you wont be missed.

"Oh I did."

Good for you, cookie.

"You are niether."

Boo Hoo, as Im an eight year old girl I'll let me self esteem plummit and cry into my vagina until I fall asleep.

"I suggest you learn to multiquote, instead of posting several times in a row."

No thanks.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2012, 12:28 PM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(10-08-2012 11:15 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(09-08-2012 12:49 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Each example I gave is listed on the same page you derive your definition from as types of delusions. All of the ones I listed are made up, but do qualify as delusions.

1. Aliens have taken my brain and replaced it with another brain that was programmed with all my own memories
Bizarre delusion: A delusion that is very strange and completely implausible; an example of a bizarre delusion would be that aliens have removed the affected person's brain.

2. Everyday I wake up and I spend hours searching for the listening devices that the FBI planted in my house. They are constantly recording everything I say or do.
Non-bizarre delusion: A delusion that, though false, is at least possible, e.g., the affected person mistakenly believes that he is under constant police surveillance.

3. I am Thor, the God of Thunder. Odin has banished me to earth to live as a mortal in order to humble me. The life and memories I have are all fake.
Mood-congruent delusion: Any delusion with content consistent with either a depressive or manic state, e.g., a depressed person believes that news anchors on television highly disapprove of him, or
a person in a manic state might believe she is a powerful deity.

4. I can sometimes feel small creatures moving under my skin. When I go to sleep, they leave my body, but also deposit microscopic eggs behind that hatch the next day.
Mood-neutral delusion: A delusion that does not relate to the sufferer's emotional state; for example, a belief that an extra limb is growing out of the back of one's head is neutral to either depression or mania
Somatic delusion: A delusion whose content pertains to bodily functioning, bodily sensations, or physical appearance. Usually the false belief is that the body is somehow diseased, abnormal, or changed—for example, infested with parasites.

5. I committed suicide several years ago. I don't think I'm alive. I'm certain that I'm dead and this life is merely my brain in a slow state of shutdown.
Cotard delusion: This is a false belief that one does not exist or has become deceased.

6. Nearly everywhere I go, I see the number 127. I was born on Jan 27th. All of these signs mean something is coming and I'm the only one who can stop it.
Delusion of reference: The person falsely believes that insignificant remarks, events, or objects in one's environment have personal meaning or significance.

"if we're dealing with hyptheticals Im not bound by the nessecity for evidence"
But didn't you say contrary evidence would be needed for it to be a delusion ?
Can you provide contrary evidence in each case ?

As you say these are all made up, what method would you suggest I follow to find this evidence. Never mind, you assert theyre made up, but as youve clearly stated theyre made up, I'll take your word for it that these then are examples of, and not actual delusions, admittedly this false somewhat short of proper evidence, you could be lying, but for the sake of arguement I'll believe you.

Ahhh What ??

I provided you with examples of delusions and according to you in order for them to be delusions, contrary evidence must be able to be provided. I'm asking you again to provide contrary evidence to prove by your own standards that these are delusions.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: