Ronin

ROFL...but can be correctly described as lying, pretending, or being deluded.

It just depends upon which argument from authority you are proposing.



PS ~ I'm going to order the book today, Clutch, and hope to be enlightened...thanks.

Clutch

You seem to be confused. Maybe a simple example will help.

Some instances of death by accident can be correctly described as death by falling on a dull axe. This description is rarely correct of deaths by accident, but sometimes correct. To say of deaths by accident in general that they are deaths by falling on dull axes is, hence, to say something false.

Good idea with the book; it's a nice summary of some very interesting research.

Ronin

Nope...you've lost me.

Is it possible or even probable that theists are lying, pretending or being deluded based upon the theory of motivation that I have laid out?

I have indicated my own personal life experiences and interaction with theists that support that this is so.

In any event, I'm very anxious to receive even more explanations regarding nonsensical beliefs via Gilovich...even if mine is regarded as an 'oversimplification'.

Clutch

It's a big world. No doubt some theists are lying, pretending, or delusional. There is no reason to think that very many are, however, let alone most or (as you've claimed) all.

Theists being people, there is every reason to think that their mistaken theistic beliefs are a function of the kind of mistakes that people generally make -- which is a pretty variegated collection.

bd-from-kg

Tercel:

No. But my disagreements with him are probably minor compared to yours.

When Swartz says this he’s talking about “compatibilist” free will. You’re talking about “metaphysical” or “libertarian” free will, which is indeed incompatible with determinism (physical or otherwise). Most people (like me) who like the concept of compatibilist free will do so because we think that the concept of free will is useful but that the concept of libertarian free will is ultimately incoherent. But that’s a discussion for another day.

In reading Swartz’s refutation of the argument that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will it's more useful to interpret it in terms of libertarian free will, because it's trivial that compatibilist free will is compatible with foreknowledge. The fact that he (apparently) doesn’t believe in libertarian free will is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.

Ronin

Well, as long as I'm no longer classed with the 'pernicious' or the 'bizarre' for my view...ROFL!!

As it is that a wise man sometimes changes his mind, yet a fool that never does ~ I will definitely entertain the mechanics of the 'variegated collection' of mistakes that people generally make and work out how it may apply to theists in this case.

Thank you very much for the debate and new information that I had not considered, Clutch.

Clutch

Where did I call you pernicious? Goodness, none of the reasons for considering you pernicious have come up here!

I used the term to describe the effect of the "lying, delusional, &c" idea on these debates; eg, after hearing the nth Christian run "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic", I'm keen to point out that this restricts the options to an unhappy degree via oversimplification.

Ronin

Well, thanks...Hey, wait a minute!

:notworthy

I have been duly shown the errors of my ways. I'll try harder to expand my horizons.

7thangel

What and absurdity! When somebody throw a ball to us on a surprise, don't we feel fear? To fear the "unknown" is natural. You just have to figure out why. And probably, on understanding such phenomena you can understand the nature of being a human, and the nature of hoping of eternal life.

Beauty and Hope are things that cannot be measured scientifically. For one to deny the existnce of these things lacks understanding of being human. This is what befalls atheism to deepest absurdity.

Why do we build schools? Why do we build prison houses? Why do we build hospitals? Why do we make laws? Why do we value life? There is a simple reason that makes these things meaningful; our appreciation of beauty. Is our appreciation of beauty really just a mere make believe? With our appreciation of beauty we have the feeling of joy. Of Joy we hope for it to last. And of hoping for joy to last we also hope of eternal life. We have something more than being rational.


Really? Cognitive Dissonance? do you recognize beauty? Do you recognize hope?

Is there right and wrong in evolution? Then why bother being atheist, or theist? Don't you recognize that somehow we are moved by our apprecation of beauty, not just mere observation? Do you consider that factor of being human?

You are judgin us of cognitive dissonance. Yet you do not have a proper representation of the facts of being human.

By the way, there are Christians, like you, who do not recognize some factors in their observation of things.


You know what? Hoping is making pretensions. But I do appreciate the beauty of hoping. Do you?

Do you hope of anything? I guess not because that is not scientific. Well, how could I tell you anyway that in those hopes I could tell you a meaningful distinction of being a human being?

Ronin

Ok...yep, I'm starting to see 'em now, Clutch.