PaulS

If you want to call yourself a bigot and intolerant of other people's views, knock yourself out, but I would appreciate it if you don't lump me (or others) into that category (the category where Burl and you seem to agree that everyone is an intolerant bigot). You are both simply misusing and exaggerating the terms. I actually don't really mind if somebody wants to consider me a bigot (for inadequate reasons in my opinion) but what irks me the most is this very ordinary justification of a term which is so wrong. You actually belittle the real seriousness of bigotry and intolerance when you replace it simply for instances of people holding and or arguing opposing or disagreeing beliefs. In regards to justice, you also must apply justice correctly and in accordance with the law, not simply the populism of the day or how you favour the understanding of a term such as bigot. The real injustice would be that you think a crime is committed when in fact you are not even understanding the definition of the so-called said crime. You've actually made up a crime where no such offence existed.

If you're talking context, are you also considering the context of you stating that I said something bigoted before then going on to say that this thread reminds you of a book that you call bigoted? Maybe you didn't consider your previous accusation of bigotry or realise that drawing a similarity between this thread and bigotry somewhat places me as a bigot, so in your mind you weer just accusing Dawklns of being a bigot? Okay then. But to answer your question, yes, I do think it is inaccurate to call Richard Dawkins a bigot, unless you don't want to use the word bigot as per its written definition. Dawkins strongly refutes a Christian ideology there is no doubt, but as I have already pointed out, bigotry is intolerance and is usually regarded as a spiteful and hateful intolerance at that. I don't know if you've seen many Dawkin's debates but he is usually absolutely tolerates others opinions and points of view and gives them every chance to present their side of the story - he just strongly refutes them as he is entitled to do. Refusing to accept somebody else's beliefs is not bigotry. By your standards it would seem that anyone who strongly refutes another's belief is a bigot. This is a misuse of the word entirely. Dawkins is not intolerant of religious opinions - he thinks they are wrong and is prepared to speak out about them particularly against the framework of these beliefs taking pride of place (for some) in law (10 Commandments be displayed in Courthouses), in schools (the insistence to teach creation or intelligent design instead of the science of evolution) and in the area of politics mixing with religion. As much as you might not like what he and so called 'militant atheists' believe, it is not bigotry to refute other people's beliefs. Just as you have a right to tell my why your beliefs are true, I (and Richard) have a right to tell you they are not true and why we thinks so. Again, this is not bigotry or intolerance.

Yes, that's what i said ("a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions"). So I am curious as to where you see the 'intolerance' part of the definition of the word being displayed in any way here. Do you think the title of this thread (one thing VERSING another) displays intolerance? There was a repertoire of exchanges in this thread and the other, much like a formal debate on a stage. When debating as such, is it typical to accuse the other of intolerance when putting forward and/or defending their argument/points of view? If so, you seem to be setting a very low bar for intolerance. The synonyms used for intolerance such as bigotry, narrow-mindedness, small-mindedness, parochialism, provincialism, insularity, fanaticism, dogmatism, illiberality etc are all pretty strong words to use against anyone who may debate an opposing point of view (or who may agree on some differences but debate the similarities). I'm just trying to clarify for future discussion if this is how you see intolerance and bigotry.

Burl, when you say "well said Jack", is this really the position you adopt around the term bigot and bigotry also?

Just on this word 'bigotry' - I think we need to understand what we are talking about here. The word bigot, as I understand it, means a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions (Oxford dictionary). Another definition (Cambridge Dictionary) describes a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs (people can fee l free to say that about my side of the argument if they want) and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life: The key to bigot and bigotry is intolerance and dislike of others because of their views. I don't think a few interchanges or disagreements on views in a thread or two can or should be labelled as bigotry. Otherwise it would seem to me that everyone who disagrees or refuses to accepts the others opposing view would seem to be a bigot by your understanding. I have displayed no such intolerance, even though I may disagree and debate others beliefs and points of view.. Indeed by titling this topic psychopathy VERSUS belief I was acknowledging there are differences (accepting others views to a degree), but acknowledge I was primarily discussing similarities. Now I have no intention of discussing the topic any further per se, but I think I need to address your charge of bigotry as I don't think that is an appropriate description and I think your explanation above doesn't correctly understand the definition of the word. Ignorance is one thing, equating religion with mental illness is another, but neither are of themselves, bigotry. Disagreeing with others beliefs is not intolerance

Personally, honestly, I don't think I would make that assumption at that point and would try to understand better. But maybe that's just me. I simply did not find the responses put forward to my questions/issues, satisfactory to my logic and reason so I wanted to work through it further and so I started a new, more appropriate thread. I tried to layout my reasons in my introductory post which you seem to have interpreted as me not being truthful. I can understand you thinking the above about what I wrote I guess (but I don't know you well enough to say that), but I have no issue with that. Nonetheless, to limit any further aggravation around the issue I thought better to drop it and apologise for any misunderstanding. No problem. Personally, I don't think I was being bigoted but fair enough if you form that opinion. Whatever the case, I'm glad we're all good and I hope we can continue the forum with many debates, dialogue and other items as they arise. Peace and good will to you too. I mean that.

To end my participation in this thread let me say to all - I sincerely and truly apologise if I have offended anybody. That was never my intention. Clearly it took me a while to realise how inflammatory this subject is/was for some so I am more than happy to drop it (even delete it from the site if anybody feels that strongly about it). Please understand that I was only ever seeking genuine discussion and debate around the matter because I truly don't see it the way others do and I have often debated issues on this forum to help with my thinking and of which, many times people have helped me change or form different understandings based on their preparedness to engage and debate issues. In short, sorry. I don't think anyone can equate religious believers to delusional psychopaths and I never meant for any comment of mine to be interpreted that way.

You did say that I was denying what I had previously implied. I pointed out that that was not the case at all. You then accused me of making similar statements, refused to give me the benefit of the doubt and accused me of lying about genuinely seeking to try and flesh out the concepts in debate/dialogue. I am certainly not seeking any compliments but do hope to not have false accusations made. But look, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to worry that you don't agree with me. I can try to assure you that I am only seeking genuine dialogue and reasoned debate on the issue, but obviously you're not going to believe me. I don't think I can change that. As you don't know me personally, can't read my body language and can't hear the inflection in my words, I understand how the shortcomings of email/posting may not accurately convey one's intention. In my mind I am not trying to slander anyone, inflame anything, or sound derogatory. There is no campaign here. I raised the delusional psychopath discussion in another thread and I felt it took away from that thread and for me, as it hadn't been resolved (in my opinion), so I wanted to further discuss it in another thread of it's own. If you go back to the original thread thread you will see that the first thing I said about this matter was "For me, the delusional psychopath's reality is just as valid as the God believers reality, in that neither can be regarded as reality but can be regarded as opinion." To me that is an observation open to challenges of course, but it was never intended as rude or derogatory and I am surprised that you interpret my 7 or so years engaged with this forum as all of a sudden becoming a campaign to ridicule and equate religion to mental illness.

Or there is another explanation we don't fully grasp yet. I don't think it is logical to say a creation needs a creator but a creator doesn't need a creator. Rather than failing miserably at defining what the creator is, I suspect we are simply failing at identifying what is behind the big bang. I don't say that can't be a creator, but rather that we simply don't know so it is possible that it isn't a creator. Yep, we can say that. It might not be correct though, that's all. I am certain that any scientist is smarter than me.

Agreed, Language is limiting and at best it implies a form of communication that simply tries to best describe a thing or no thing as we commonly agree. It matters nothing, other than when trying to clarify during a dialogue what one is referring to. Agreed that individuals have their own opinion and ideas concerning their level of consciousnesses and understanding, but if we are going to try and communicate, surely we must have some agreeance concerning what terms means what and to who!

No doubt - Facts today can be refuted tomorrow if new evidence is introduced or if new experiments verify new facts. Clearly, new knowledge has updated old knowledge a number of times throughout history. And I agree - science is simply a descriptor. That said, I think it is the best descriptor we have to work with than other descriptors that simply reply upon an individual's perception or understanding or 'truth'.

Rubbish. I am not denying anything I have said. Please, read my words anywhere and tell me where ounce I have said that delusional psychopath = religious believer. I simply haven't. When I first raised it I carefully said "...in certain ways". Sorry that some seem so precious that I can't make an observation and then discuss it, but the facts are that I made a reference to certain characteristics being similar and that is all. Show me where I have stated the contrary. So who defines what constitutes a violent fanatic and who defines what constitutes a delusional psychopath? Maybe any discussion should be extended to violent atheists as well. I have no problem with you doing so. I'm not trying to be hasty but I am happy to discuss. I just don't get why some are so defensive about this - I have raised an insinuation that there are similarities. By all means, lets discuss them. No problem. Don't care. All I am saying is that there appear to be some similarities in that the psychopath or somebody suffering from psychopathy, both think they are believers of truth. is this not so?

Nobody is updating religious people to delusional psychopaths unless it is religious people who are seeing themselves that way. I am only stating/questioning some similarity in the concepts but am trying to flesh them out in debate/dialogue. At what level of crazy is delusion defined to have commenced and mere stubbornness to have stopped? Well as the definition I cited explained, it's when a belief is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.” So from that I ask "who determines what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument?" Society? Culture? Religious books? Science? I certainly agree there are shades of grey. I think this is a poor argument but clearly those who support it don't. I'm not sure how the point can be genuinely progressed any further. So would you consider the violent, throat-slitting ISIS jihadist a psychopath, or just a stubborn religious believer? Perhaps atheism should be, I'm not really sure. Would you care to genuinely discuss that and make points for and against? I am not emotionally tied to any label so would be more than happy to work through this with you if you are genuinely asking the question, but can I suggest we start a separate thread to keep the separate dialogues clear.

No probs. Lest any further discussion/debate be seen on my behalf as going on and on, I'll leave your above as the last word. Cheers.

I raised in a different thread that in certain ways there are things in common between delusional psychopathy and religious belief. Now that may seem offensive and aggravating to some, but would anyone care to rationally discuss the point? I don't mean to offend, but rather the words, definitions and experiences we have around these words seems to point to some similarities in some ways (in my opinion) so I would like to discuss it further and flesh it out more with others. I would really appreciate people coming to this argument with a calm and open mind. What makes somebody a delusional psychopath? Firstly, let's consider the definition of delusion: "A delusion is a fixed, false belief. It's “an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.” Seems pretty straight forward initially, but let's probe a bit. What do we mean when we say fixed, false belief? How do we verify if a belief is false or not? Should we be able to verify our beliefs? If we can't verify our beliefs, does that make our belief false or true? What if generally accepted as reality is wrong, like when people were so certain the earth was flat and that the sun rotated around the earth? What about opposing beliefs? If one belief is that we should kill our enemies and another beliefs is to not to, which belief is false? Personally, I think it depends on which camp you sit in, but I would like to hear other opinions. Now a psychopath is defined as a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour. We have no problem in saying that a person who murders because they hear voices telling them to murder or because they know that's what God wants them to do, has a mental disorder. It sems to me thought that what may be abnormal or violent social behaviour could in other societies be seen as quite normal (see below example). But let me ask you this - is a true-believing, God-faithful, jihadist ISIS member who wishes to slit the throats of as many infidels as they can because they truly believe their God wants them to do this (the evidence is there - just ask them), a delusional psychopath, a religious believer, or both, or neither? Is there any comparison, in certain ways? If our definitions require us to determine whether beliefs are false or true, do we need to validate our beliefs in order to prove whether they are false or true? Or do we accept majority rule and say that because the majority of our society think something is true (or rather the majority is not particularly offended by the belief that some have) we will uphold that belief as true (or least offensive) even when it contradicts what the majority of another society may consider the truth?

Continually? You mean the two times I have mentioned those words in this thread? And from that you KNOW how I truly view religious beliefs/positions? You fall far short of understanding how I truly view people's religious beliefs/positions if you in any way think I am saying they are all delusional psychopaths. You seem pretty certain about the fact that God is not verifiable. Are you open to changing your mind on that perhaps? Mate, I made my case how & why I referenced aspects of delusion to religious belief. Instead of the hyperbole, review what I say and tell me that you disagree that a delusional psychopath believes they know the truth and that they think they are right in what they understand, and tell me that this is in no way similar to many, most, if not all religious people. That was the only comparison I was drawing and I still think it is worth discussing (but perhaps not with you obviously). I can't help it if there are similarities and I chose to point that out and discuss them. Is it causing harm? Apart from it causing offence when we really should just be having a rational discussion without all the upsetedness, I don't even begin to compare it to the harm that religious people, who you well know, have caused serious harm to many, throughout history. So sorry if you're going to get a little upset over a sentence or two, but really, take a chill pill. It's just a couple of sentences in a single thread. Why are you so upset that I re-mention my parameters around belief? You are doing the very same thing by telling me what you think God is and why I can't set parameters. We both have views we are arguing for. I'm not upset with yours even if I don't agree with them. Seriously, how I am being any more offensive than you? Free reign? It's a discussion mate. Talk to the point, not the person. Accusing me of all these 'wrongs' is not debating and discussing the issues I raise but basically telling me off because I choose to raise them. "Just can't let statements like these, on either side, have free rein - otherwise the proponents might actually think they're right" - Clearly you need to convince me that I am wrong, but of course, you're open to changing your mind and not biased in any way. Just, wow.

Not quite accurate, Burl. Science is not a process for determining the least accurate but rather it seeks a systematic organisation of knowledge about the universe and its parts where this knowledge is based on explanatory principles whose verifiable consequences can be tested by independent observers. It seeks positive statements of truth but recognises potential shortcomings so is prepared to allow for change upon the introduction of new evidence. As you would know, science encompasses a large body of evidence collected by repeated observations and experiments. But what you confuse for determining that which is least false is actually science approaching true explanations as closely as possible all whilst its investigators claim no final or permanent explanatory truths. Science changes and it evolves but verifiable facts always take precedence. The process may well determine a positive statement of truth, it's just that science is smart enough to reserve the right to change that view if other evidence deems change appropriate. I don't know personally how Aquinas can accurately define God's characteristics and suspect, that with all best intentions, Aquinas' opinions are no more valid than the next person who thinks God has different characteristics to those of Aquinas' God. God is perfect you say (or Aquinas says) - why does God have to be perfect? Can't God make mistakes? If not, why not? It seems to me that it is a human ideal not to make mistakes and thus this has been imposed upon some definitions of God. Again, more of the anthropomorphic God stuff we have seen throughout history of all Gods. Now Aquinas is free to feel this way, but I'm not sure that he is qualified to determine God as such.

I know I said I'd let you end this discussion, but I do need to correct your misunderstanding of what I said. I clearly said that "well may religious belief be comparable to the delusions of a psychopath, in certain ways". I doubt you would disagree with me that a psychopath considers their delusion as very real, true and beyond question. Similarly do you about your religious/spiritual beliefs. It seems that neither party can verify their belief in any practical way recognised by the world as verifiable, yet they still passionately believe. Is that not a certain way that they are comparable? That's the only similarity I draw. if it offends you and possibly all other religious and spiritual people then I feel it is their loss that this offends them so much. My intention is to discuss and debate, not offend. As for your view above, I don't agree with your assumptions, broad or otherwise, but I did say you could have the last word, so I won't address it further.

To me, your point makes no sense at all. Clearly it does to you, but I suggest that is a matter of personal belief and faith as opposed to reason and logic as we commonly use those terms. I'm sure with every single other decision and thing you do in life, you expect validation and evidence otherwise you wouldn't believe it, participate in it, expect from it, contribute to it, etc. But when it comes to defining God, all that seems to go out the window and you seem to just say "God can't be validated because God simply is". That seems nonsensical to me. But I don't think we're going to get anywhere with it - I say God, like Remote Viewing, needs validation and evidence, not just personal belief. Of course people are free to believe what they want, I'm just saying that to claim reality one typical needs to establish that reality through validation and evidence. You don't agree and continue to say that God doesn't need evidence and/or can't be validated or proved as reality. It's almost as if we're on two different planes of discussion, so i don't think we should progress this any further. You can have the last word if you like.

I find it interesting that your 'reason' goes so far as to think that a 'creator' must be behind all this otherwise 'all this' has just happened by itself or by chance, but your reasoning stops at considering how such a creator came into being - either by itself or by chance or something else. I'm sure you're aware of this argument, but you seem to be making that very point, that is, we need to attribute 'all this' to some higher power because we can't understand how it could happen without such, yet we seem content to allow that higher power to simply exist without a creator. I don't see creation itself as any such proof. In fact, the fact that one uses the word creation shows that we already have a bias (due to our lack of knowledge and understanding of how and why 'all this' started - we already assume something needs to be 'created'by a creator). So i take none of this as any such proof of a creator but rather accept that we don't know the answers yet (although we have remarkably improved over recent centuries so I hold out hope that we might work it out one day). I would argue that such 'reason' has already been abandoned if one has come to a belief in God existing because 'reasoning' just doesn't cut it in getting to that point. One has believed because they believe for whatever reasons they have personally deduced, but I don't see a logical, demonstrable reasoning process that can stand up to any sort of rigour. It seems apparent to me that believers 'reason' each in their own way to come to a conclusion about God (hence the many different varieties of belief in God - what God means. what God stands for, what God wants, what God doesn't want, that God doesn't want or not want at all, etc). I am not mocking believers in any way but rather am saying faith in God is not a demonstrable ';reasoning process' but rather, a personal matter. If it was 'reason' I would suggest one would need to be able to demonstrate the process and validate such reasoning, which currently cannot be done.

No, I don't miss or ignore it - I get what you're saying about God not being a thing. For me, as I have said earlier, we can validate emotion and feelings - these are not 'things' either. So I think the requirement for evidence of God sits in the same basket for convincing me of 'reality' and requires validation. You feel that validation. I don't. Does that make you right and me wrong - I don't think so. Well may the Christian position be that God is real - that does not make it right. To say then that "God is not real doesn't work" - not sure how that fits into sense of logic - "because it doesn't work for me I won't say that?". You can reject God as fiction and say God is real all you want - that will not change the reality, whatever that may be. The logic you have laid out in the above paragraph makes no sense - Just because you don't like something said a certain way in no adds to or subtracts from the reality of it. And well may religious belief be comparable to the delusions of a psychopath, in certain ways. History has certainly demonstrated religious belief and tendencies that have provided obscene results. So debate away but we will have to agree to disagree when considering what one considers verifiable reality and what one doesn't. No hard feelings. As for me missing what the term 'God' means for Progressives, can I ask if you are including agnostic or skeptic Progressives in that statement? Do you have a clear definition of who can call themselves a Progressive and who can't?. I think you're making a very broad assumption there about who and what is a Progressive and what standard of verification of reality such may consider appropriate. Are you referring to some documented dogma somewhere that says precisely what 'Progressives' mean by the term 'God'? Not your version, but if there is there any agreed version anywhere that clearly states that this is what 'Progressives' will accept and won't accept when using the term 'God'? From what I can tell, 'Progressives' have views ranging from outright scepticism and atheism, through to views closer to your own so I suspect not all, possibly not even the majority, fit into the box you are saying they do. But maybe that's for another debate some time.

Yep - I agree.

So it is in that context, i.e. that we don't know what our thoughts are made of or how and why the brain comes up with the thoughts that it does, where I say that we simply don't understand how the mind works well enough to understand how the mind running away with its thoughts occurs. Maybe 'why' the mind runs aways with these thoughts is a better word to use for my statement. We know that the mind does run away with thoughts (in some people) no argument, and we have some excellent, practical ideas of how to address it (although I don't think it is a simple as changing a tire), but I don't believe we fully understand thought or the mind yet, is what I was saying. You seem to agree.

Thormas, In relation to your comments about evolving religious belief and how in relation to God's violence in the OT, that I was reading the bible literally. Let's be clear: I said “That's a bit too convenient and biased of a summation for me. Gods have forever been vengeful, jealous, harmful and just plain nasty to humankind throughout the history of Gods. You said “…And, in your references to the OT you rely on a literal reading whereas many believe this is not the way to read the OT. I said “I don't rely on a literal reading, I rely on the author writing stories about their God and it's pretty clear they held a view (in many cases) that 'their' God was on 'their' side and chose them to win battles and gave them instructions to destroy others etc. You said “You don't but others do and thus we have the nasty God. Actually, the biblical authors' view is not pretty clear as even the greatest biblical scholars debate whether, for example, the biblical writer literally believed in Adan & Eve or simply use it to say something about man, woman, mortality, evil and God. I said “This is just way off track. Are you saying some bible authors wrote that God wanted people stoned for certain reasons, but didn't mean it? Some authors wrote that God gave his 'chosen people' favouritism in defeating enemies and wanted those people to dash children's heads against stones, and take virgins as prisoners? I am confused how you can mistake some of the violence in the OT as simply myth and/or misinterpretation and then say that it's modern's people's interpretation of the OT that makes God nasty. Whilst stories like Adam and Eve are clearly myth and other stories are a way of explaining things, there are, without a doubt, numerous stories written by authors who believed God was a God of war (but on their side), God was in favour of violent justice (but that's okay because it is God), that God supports the idea of violence against others under certain circumstances (genocide, stonings, etc) because God decrees it as okay. That's not interpretation of what is written, that IS what was written by certain OT bible authors. There is no alternate view to some of the more violent laws and decrees and statements about God wanting violence enacted upon others - that is what they thought God stood for and wanted. Now you might not agree with these authors, but that in no way takes away from them that this is how they viewed God. Most scholars actually agree that a number of authors in the OT wrote of a violent God because they believed in a violent God. So myself and others are not interpreting a view that didn't exist to many of these authors (and I think you would agree, but that's not how I see you having expressed yourself). Traditional Christianity accepts that OT God is part of the Trinity including the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. So traditional Christianity struggles in today's world justifying those violent and abusive God beliefs that some OT authors held. I would suggest this is why movements such as Progressive Christianity arose - to try and maintain beliefs which people feel are valid but to also deal with the ones that people today see as invalid. Like I said previously though, if you were to debate some of these original authors today, then i would suggest they would think you misunderstand God - and they'd probably seek to have you stoned to death for it too, because that's their 'reality' of God. I never disagreed that we do have an evolution of Christian thought and changing beliefs in what God is and represents. I would suggest these changes are a reflection of society and not the other way around, but we aren't debating that so I will only make the point that I agree beliefs about God have changed, I just don't necessarily agree that they have changed to more accurately reflect a 'reality' that some say exists but which has not be verified/validated by all common understanding and use of the term 'reality'. That God wanted people stoned to death for certain offences (a barbaric and cruel punishment) was part of the 'reality' of God for the authors of Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Leviticus. Other who viewed the reality of God as wanting acts of genocide committed and babies dashed upon rocks also include the authors of Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Judges. I think most biblical scholars would agree that the 'reality' of God for many of these OT authors was that God justified violence that today we consider abominable, and rightly so.

I'm not saying something could not be real or true, I am saying that by all common standards of the use of the English language, you don't get to state something as reality unless you can validate or verify it. That is the standard, common use of the term 'reality' when we say something exists. If you want to use the term to support the notion that something exists but cannot be validated or verified beyond all reasonable doubt, then Personally I don't think you should use the term reality. But maybe that's just my opinion. I'm happy for you to have yours, I just choose to debate it. Pink unicorns are an exaggerated example but just as valid - if they cannot be substantiated they are regarded as not reality by most. God, whatever that term means to whomever, is in a similar boat but unlike unicorns, it is an old canard because for whatever reason, some people insist it is real to them. I'm not debating that it is not real to them but am simply stating that from the point of view of a person who does not find it real, that there is no evidence to support this notion or to substantiate it as reality. Now of course this can be different in different cases because we all know that nobody has a single, absolutely agreed by everybody else, position of what God is precisely. No, I'm just trying to point out that words, to the best of their ability, try to convey meaning so we can communicate with and understand one another. If we start to fudge those words (as in the definition of reality) then we are really starting to move the goal posts in my opinion. The parameters 'I' set are simply the use of the English language I would suggest, and I don't think I was the one to set them.