[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2014, 09:33 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm sure you don't care for that word, or that definition for that word.

However, belief in those religions fit the definition "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." Use whatever word you like, but the definition fits.

Wikipedia's not a lexical authority I acknowledge, and I've already explained the problems with dictionary semantics and Aristotelian methods of categorization. On top of that, this little rhetorical hobby horse is juvenile. Delusional disorder is a legitimate and testable psychosis that you obviously don't care to actually research. Psychiatrists unilaterally exclude culturally embedded religious beliefs from the pathology of delusion. The Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders, the authoritative publication on psychiatric disorders, defines delusions as "false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture."

(06-01-2014 07:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  I suppose the word you would choose is 'faith'.

I told you that we would save a lot of wasted time if you all would actually research these topics.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 09:34 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:55 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  I'm quite impressed with maklelan.

He must have constructed one hell of a wall in his head to protect his faith from all his knowledge.

Well, my dad was a general contractor.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
06-01-2014, 10:07 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 09:33 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 07:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm sure you don't care for that word, or that definition for that word.

However, belief in those religions fit the definition "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." Use whatever word you like, but the definition fits.

Wikipedia's not a lexical authority I acknowledge, and I've already explained the problems with dictionary semantics and Aristotelian methods of categorization. On top of that, this little rhetorical hobby horse is juvenile. Delusional disorder is a legitimate and testable psychosis that you obviously don't care to actually research. Psychiatrists unilaterally exclude culturally embedded religious beliefs from the pathology of delusion. The Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders, the authoritative publication on psychiatric disorders, defines delusions as "false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture."

(06-01-2014 07:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  I suppose the word you would choose is 'faith'.

I told you that we would save a lot of wasted time if you all would actually research these topics.

I know what the DSM says. They made a social/political decision to exempt religion.
You are wasting my time with your prevarications and deflections.

Your religious mindset doesn't allow you to read a scientific article that unequivocally proves that the 'history' of the native Americans in the BoM is false. Even though you claim to not care of about the historical accuracy of the BoM, you cling to a false interpretation of the genetic evidence to try to leave wiggle room for it.

If that isn't delusion, what is it?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
06-01-2014, 10:20 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 10:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  I know what the DSM says. They made a social/political decision to exempt religion.

Can you support this, or is this just one of those secret motivations atheists magically know that just happen to support their dogmatism? You bitched at me about providing sources when I first got here, so I've started providing sources. Ever since, you've just retreated to barking assertions at me and then refusing to provide anything related to sources. How quickly you forget your ostensible methodological integrity the instant it requires anything of you.

(06-01-2014 10:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are wasting my time with your prevarications and deflections.

You're the one hurling juvenile insults.

(06-01-2014 10:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your religious mindset doesn't allow you to read a scientific article that unequivocally proves that the 'history' of the native Americans in the BoM is false. Even though you claim to not care of about the historical accuracy of the BoM, you cling to a false interpretation of the genetic evidence to try to leave wiggle room for it.

No, I cling to no such false interpretation. I accept the science for what it is, I just don't attempt to extend the science beyond what it actually says in order to serve my rhetorical needs. You're provided no scholarship whatsoever on the genetics that I've not accepted, you've only told me my refusal to make inferences about the implication isn't legitimate.

(06-01-2014 10:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  If that isn't delusion, what is it?

That's a silly misrepresentation.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 10:32 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 10:20 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 10:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  I know what the DSM says. They made a social/political decision to exempt religion.

Can you support this, or is this just one of those secret motivations atheists magically know that just happen to support their dogmatism? You bitched at me about providing sources when I first got here, so I've started providing sources. Ever since, you've just retreated to barking assertions at me and then refusing to provide anything related to sources. How quickly you forget your ostensible methodological integrity the instant it requires anything of you.

(06-01-2014 10:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are wasting my time with your prevarications and deflections.

You're the one hurling juvenile insults.

(06-01-2014 10:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your religious mindset doesn't allow you to read a scientific article that unequivocally proves that the 'history' of the native Americans in the BoM is false. Even though you claim to not care of about the historical accuracy of the BoM, you cling to a false interpretation of the genetic evidence to try to leave wiggle room for it.

No, I cling to no such false interpretation. I accept the science for what it is, I just don't attempt to extend the science beyond what it actually says in order to serve my rhetorical needs. You're provided no scholarship whatsoever on the genetics that I've not accepted, you've only told me my refusal to make inferences about the implication isn't legitimate.

(06-01-2014 10:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  If that isn't delusion, what is it?

That's a silly misrepresentation.

It would be socially and politically unacceptable for the American Psychiatric Association to classify religious belief as a mental disorder.

I quoted the article you referenced showing that the genetic contribution from the Middle East was in no way from the Ancient Middle East, but from the prehistoric Middle East. You misread or misunderstood the article.

You claimed that the genetic data did not disprove the BoM historicity, but that article clearly does.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 10:44 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 10:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  It would be socially and politically unacceptable for the American Psychiatric Association to classify religious belief as a mental disorder.

So it really is just an assumption on your part.

(06-01-2014 10:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  I quoted the article you referenced showing that the genetic contribution from the Middle East was in no way from the Ancient Middle East, but from the prehistoric Middle East. You misread or misunderstood the article.

Completely false. Here I quite explicitly pointed out that the genetic contribution from the "Near East populations" dated to "many thousands of years ago." In this post I linked to the article and pointed out that "the X2a clade found in North American DNA came from the Near East roughly 18-20,000 years BP." In this post I explicitly pointed out that "there's currently no positive evidence linking Native Americans to Near Eastern populations from relevant time lines."

Now, I'd like you to either show me where I claimed that there was a DNA contribution from the "Ancient Middle East" (which is incorrect terminology, it's "ancient Near East") as opposed to the "prehistoric Middle East," or to apologize to me for so flagrantly lying about what I said. I'm not interested in putting up with any more of your juvenile posturing, so I'll be putting you on ignore if you don't sack up and take responsibility for your dishonesty.

(06-01-2014 10:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  You claimed that the genetic data did not disprove the BoM historicity, but that article clearly does.

It does absolutely no such thing. As I explained, the Book of Mormon does not necessarily demand the presence of Near Eastern DNA in Native Americans. You just kept ejaculating "Nu-uh" without ever actually addressing my concern.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 10:45 PM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 10:53 PM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:56 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Good old Wikipedia. In reality, delusion is a pathology
Dude you can play word games all you want.. in the end you believe that there is a planet called kolob and that Red Indians were actually from middle eastern Jewish tribeConfused
Quote:before presuming to diagnose entire faith communities you've never met from behind your keyboard just because you find it has some rhetorically zing
dude if you don't want your beliefs to be mocked then simply don't have ridiculous beliefs like that.

Don't go on expecting people to take your religion(Mormonism)seriously it makes just as much as logical&rational sense as Scientology or young earth creationism.
(06-01-2014 06:17 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Tell that to, among millions of others, a man in my neighborhood who lost his wife, daughter, and unborn child to a drunk driver despite never having touched alcohol once in their lives.
I don't want sound cold,but that's clearly a case of "Drunk driving" the alcohol only affects the body of the person who takes it.

you're making it sound like alcohol consumption by default is bad thing which is pretty much subjective and i still don't see how that has anything to do with personal beliefs in the supernatural.

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes IndianAtheist's post
06-01-2014, 10:46 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
First let me admit that my knowledge of Mormonism is somewhat hobbyist, though I did read Under the Banner of Heaven (atheists will enjoy that one)! However I believe you said earlier in this thread that Mormons aren't required to hold to the BOM, D&C, PGP. Can you explain that? In Christianity it amounts to cherry picking and hermeneutical gymnastics. What is the basis for theist beliefs if the holy books aren't trustworthy or intelligible? Is it personal experience, meaning there are millions of versions?

I ask because an orthodox Mormon, as I understand it, is expected to believe in things like Kolob, your eventually becoming a god with your own universe, Jesus and satan as rival spirit brothers, Native Americans descend from ancient Israelites, Smith using a stone to translate Reformed Egyptian, Jesus will one day rule the earth from Jackson Co MO, etc. These are claims that would make a mainstream Christian blush. You havent addressed your stance on Mormon doctrine. Let's have it, you believe these things or don't you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like freetoreason's post
06-01-2014, 10:51 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 10:44 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 10:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  It would be socially and politically unacceptable for the American Psychiatric Association to classify religious belief as a mental disorder.

So it really is just an assumption on your part.

Do you believe it would be socially and politically acceptable for the DSM to make religious belief a mental disorder?

Quote:
(06-01-2014 10:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  I quoted the article you referenced showing that the genetic contribution from the Middle East was in no way from the Ancient Middle East, but from the prehistoric Middle East. You misread or misunderstood the article.

Completely false. Here I quite explicitly pointed out that the genetic contribution from the "Near East populations" dated to "many thousands of years ago." In this post I linked to the article and pointed out that "the X2a clade found in North American DNA came from the Near East roughly 18-20,000 years BP." In this post I explicitly pointed out that "there's currently no positive evidence linking Native Americans to Near Eastern populations from relevant time lines."

Now, I'd like you to either show me where I claimed that there was a DNA contribution from the "Ancient Middle East" (which is incorrect terminology, it's "ancient Near East") as opposed to the "prehistoric Middle East," or to apologize to me for so flagrantly lying about what I said. I'm not interested in putting up with any more of your juvenile posturing, so I'll be putting you on ignore if you don't sack up and take responsibility for your dishonesty.

(06-01-2014 10:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  You claimed that the genetic data did not disprove the BoM historicity, but that article clearly does.

It does absolutely no such thing. As I explained, the Book of Mormon does not necessarily demand the presence of Near Eastern DNA in Native Americans. You just kept ejaculating "Nu-uh" without ever actually addressing my concern.

The story in the BoM clearly does require ANE DNA to be present in native Americans, otherwise that story is false.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-01-2014, 10:55 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 10:45 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  Dude you can play word games all you want..

There's the mark of the person who can't see the argument because it's too far over their head.

(06-01-2014 10:45 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  in the end you believe that there is a planet called kolab and that Red Indians were actually from middle east Confused

No, that's not what I believe at all, but it's spelled Kolob, and it's not a planet, it's a star. In the end, you don't know jack about me, what I believe, or the topics I'm discussing. You're just ejaculating your naive prejudices on the internet because it makes you feel bigger.

(06-01-2014 10:45 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  dude if you don't want your beliefs to be mocked then simply don't have ridiculous beliefs like that.

As I've said, I don't care about being mocked, I care about me and others being misrepresented. Claiming theists unilaterally have serious psychological disorders is flagrant and idiotic misrepresentation.

(06-01-2014 10:45 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  Don't go on expecting people to take your religion(Mormonism)seriously it makes just as much as logical&rational sense as Scientology or young earth creationism.

I don't expect anyone to take it seriously, I just expect them to be honest and informed. That appears to be too much to ask of most of the Thinking Atheists around here.

(06-01-2014 10:45 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  I don't want sound cold,

Then don't presume to condescend to millions of people you don't know.

(06-01-2014 10:45 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  but that's clearly a case of "Drunk driving" the alcohol only affects the body of the person who takes it.

Now who's playing stupid word games? The alcohol may not have gotten into the blood of the three people who died, but if you insist it did not affect them, then you're not worth any more of my or anyone else's time.

(06-01-2014 10:45 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  you're making it sound like alcohol consumption by default is bad thing which is pretty much subjective.

No, alcohol consumption is unilaterally and objectively a bad thing. It kills brain cells no matter what and produces a state of cognitive impairment, and that's just with moderate drinking. That it's fun and is therefore not bad is the subjective part.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: