Is it fair to call belief in YHWH an illusion?

[Mr Spinkles]

Well then, I seriously doubt you've followed the show closely.

So you are saying that if I HAD followed the show closely, I would have been shown conclusive evidence that ghosts exist? Please post this evidence or show me where I can find it.

Somehow though, I don't think that would matter much.

I took the time to outline my arguments, bring in some facts that I feel support my opinions, and quote my sources. I went to the website of the TAPS group you mentioned and read some general information they posted about themselves. I am trying to have a serious discussion. This dismissiveness is unwarranted.

If you wish to sterotype whole groups based off of certain instances, that is your perogative. It's not a very good argument though, im my opinion.

If you would like to explain why that is your opinion, or support it with relevant facts, I would gladly listen.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No one has responded to posts #62 or 63....I thought I laid out some pretty solid arguments there.

 

[Random]

No one has responded to posts #62 or 63....I thought I laid out some pretty solid arguments there.

Oh yeah, well, absolutely no-one responded to my arguments in post #29, not even one quote or mention.

I stopped reading your posts on this thread @ 61 when you adopted "delusion" instead of the OP's "illusion" in reference to Yahweh GOD. How can something experiencable qualify as a false belief?

 

[Mister_T]

So you are saying that if I HAD followed the show closely, I would have been shown conclusive evidence that ghosts exist? Please post this evidence or show me where I can find it.

Assuming everything that they're showing is legit, yes. As far as the evidence your seeking, watch the show.

This dismissiveness is unwarranted.

You don't seem to have any problem dissmissing people as delusional or frauds while claiming your idealogy to be "conclusive evidence." Actually you just posted some else's musings which I would hardly call conclusive evidence.

Sorry if I offended you. I'm just having a hard time believing that you're as open minded on the subject as you claim.

Have you ever watched T.A.P.S.? If not, why are you so quick to dismiss them? Seems like you didn't hear about them until now. Am I wrong?

If you would like to explain why that is your opinion, or support it with relevant facts, I would gladly listen.

How about you explain to me how making generalizations is being intellectually honest? It's the same thing as a Christian saying that all Atheists believe what they do because they don't want to follow God's commands.

As far as the evidence you seek, I've pointed you in the direction I feel is compelling.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Assuming everything that they're showing is legit, yes.

Ah.

As far as the evidence your seeking, watch the show.

I wouldn't say I'm seeking evidence for ghosts so much as I'm challenging you to back up your opinions, namely your opinion that ghosts are credible whereas Zeus is not.

You don't seem to have any problem dissmissing people as delusional or frauds while claiming your idealogy to be "conclusive evidence." Actually you just posted some else's musings which I would hardly call conclusive evidence.

I'm not being dismissive, because I'm supporting my opinions with facts. I posted facts from social science, neuroscience, geography, history, comparative religion, psychology (okay not really a "fact" but I can explain this one in greater detail if needed), and I posted an introduction to the study of the history of religion, in posts #63 and 62. I think all of these things strongly support the idea that god-beliefs are cultural and psychological delusions.

Sorry if I offended you. I'm just having a hard time believing that you're as open minded on the subject as you claim.

You didn't offend me.

Have you ever watched T.A.P.S.? If not, why are you so quick to dismiss them?

I didn't dismiss them. I assumed they hadn't shown conclusively that ghosts exist because such an event would have generated an explosion of international scientific and media frenzy. You then indicated that my assumption was wrong, so I asked you for evidence. Then you said that I must watch the show and assume everything they show is legit. :areyoucra

Seems like you didn't hear about them until now. Am I wrong?

I have read about a number of paranormal investigative groups, including those responsible for the show "Ghosthunters", which I think is TAPS.

How about you explain to me how making generalizations is being intellectually honest? It's the same thing as a Christian saying that all Atheists believe what they do because they don't want to follow God's commands.

Could you be more specific? What intellectually dishonest generalizations have I made, in your opinion? Please provide direct quotes.

As far as the evidence you seek, I've pointed you in the direction I feel is compelling.

A TV show?

 

[rojse]

Merely disproving one sighting of a ghost does not disprove all sightings of ghosts.

 

[love]

If I am delusional it is in my own mind. Why should anyone else care?
I hope I stay in this perceived state of happiness for eternity.
I know God loves me and He will always be with me.

There may be many names but there is only one God.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I stopped reading your posts on this thread @ 61 when you adopted "delusion" instead of the OP's "illusion" in reference to Yahweh GOD. How can something experiencable qualify as a false belief?

I don't know, but the question raised in the title of this thread has to do with belief in YHWH, and a belief certainly can be a delusion or "false belief".

Merely disproving one sighting of a ghost does not disprove all sightings of ghosts.

Very true. I don't pretend that it is possible to disprove all the numerous sightings of mermaids, leprechauns, aliens, unicorns, faries, werewolves, vampires and witches, either.

What's interesting is how the frequency and nature of such sightings can be compared to the cultural environment of the times and explained as cultural delusions.

 

[gnostic]

Even Homer ridiculed some of the more fanciful stories about gods and goddesses in his day, so a couple of thousand years later there's ample precedent for that as well.

You got to remember that Homer was never a priest or clergy of any kind. He was bard or poet as much as he was an author. He was writing, reciting or singing for an audience; he was no initiate to customs or rituals of any specific religion.

Surely you don't think Homer is the prophet for the Greeks, do you?

 

[Mister_T]

I wouldn't say I'm seeking evidence for ghosts so much as I'm challenging you to back up your opinions, namely your opinion that ghosts are credible whereas Zeus is not.

Well once again, I never said Zeus wasn't credible. I did say ghosts are more credible as Zeus and I have already stated my reasons why: Consistent testimony.

I'm not being dismissive, because I'm supporting my opinions with facts.
I posted facts from social science, neuroscience, geography, history, comparative religion, psychology (okay not really a "fact" but I can explain this one in greater detail if needed),

You posted theories, not facts, for one. Second I could post "facts" about the Bible and the Quran. I can post "facts" for every subject that you covered in favor of the God of Abraham....what's your point? What exactly does this prove and how does this make me wrong?

and I posted an introduction to the study of the history of religion, in posts #63 and 62. I think all of these things strongly support the idea that god-beliefs are cultural and psychological delusions.

How does a history of religion disprove God and the supernatural? I can post archealogical "evidence" for the Bible. Again, what does this prove? And I wasn't aware society had determined anti-Christian propaganda to be conclusive evidence for the God "delusion":

From developmental psychology: When small children are indoctrinated into an unpopular religion we call it brainwashing. When they are indoctrinated into a popular religion we call it Sunday School.

C'mon now.

I didn't dismiss them. I assumed they hadn't shown conclusively that ghosts exist because such an event would have generated an explosion of international scientific and media frenzy.

So in other words you haven't watched the show, and you determined they weren't credible based off an assumption. That's some fine research and investigation

Ghost hunting isn't considered "real science" to begin with, so why would the "official" scientific community get excited about evidence for something that they don't believe in, in the first place? And in case you haven't noticed, there has been a media frenzy about this. You see this subject in the media all the time.

You then indicated that my assumption was wrong, so I asked you for evidence. Then you said that I must watch the show and assume everything they show is legit. :areyoucra

I didn't say that you had to assume anything, I just said watch it for yourself.

Could you be more specific? What intellectually dishonest generalizations have I made, in your opinion? Please provide direct quotes.

Sure.

Judging by the number of TV shows and books they produce, I have no doubt they must be very hardworking. And yet, no conclusive evidence of ghosts has been forthcoming.

Conclusive evidence of delusion and fraud, on the other hand, have been forthcoming in countless cases. And, as the author of skepdic argues:

So people who provide evidence for ghosts are delusional and/or commiting fraud? And regarding the evidence according to your authors musings "We must rely on anecdotal evidence, which is always incomplete and selective, and which is often passed on by interested, inexperienced, superstitious parties who are ignorant of basic physical laws"

So these people are not only frauds and delusional, they're also superstitious, inexperienced, who are ignorant and only provide anecdotal evidence. Oy vey!

A TV show?

Yes, a T.V. show. Do you have a problem watching it?

 

[Fluffy]

I think it is unnecessary and unproductive to use terminology that might be percieved as insult, however unintended any offence might be. It is likely that a theist will take offence to that word and similar so it becomes our responsibility to avoid that. It is irrelevant whether they should or should not be offended if we are the ones who wish to have a productive conversation.

In order for a belief to be rational, it must cohere with reality and it must provide a bridge between the believer and reality.

To satisfy the first what we are saying must actually be true. To satisfy the second, we must have sufficient reason to believe what we are saying.

Lets say I claim that Jesus exists because my bedroom is painted red. Jesus does actually exist, so my belief is true, but I am wrong for holding that belief because I lack the justification necessary to be right.

Theistic claims are limited by the level of conviction with which they are held. This goes beyond what induction is able to provide and so are inherently in violation of both requirements. I think they struggle more with the second requirement than the first, however.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well once again, I never said Zeus wasn't credible. I did say ghosts are more credible as Zeus and I have already stated my reasons why: Consistent testimony.

Well, let's get specific. My impression is that experiences that are attributed to ghosts can be anything from seeing a full-fledged human figure to objects moving on their own to sounds or voices or colors or anything seemingly inexplicable. The main thing that I find consistent is that people consistently attribute the experience to the actions of a disembodied person when no other explanation is available. What sorts of consistencies do you find compelling?

You posted theories, not facts, for one.

I posted a bunch of facts. It's a fact that the number one predictor of religious belief is the religious beliefs of one's parents and surrounding culture. It's a fact that certain stimulation of the brain gives 4 out of 5 people the feeling of an other-worldly "presence" nearby that many attribute to lost loved ones or God. It's a fact that the spread of god-beliefs matches the spread of missionaries and conquerors. It's a fact that, in general, the religions that spread the most and are most dominant today are the ones that stipulated a god who wants his followers to spread the faith. And it's a fact that young children are very, very impressionable, so if you teach them about certain god-beliefs at a young age, they are likely to retain them, irrespective of the objective validity of said beliefs.

These are all facts that i.m.o. support the assertion that people would still have various god-beliefs whether or not gods exist, and thus god-beliefs can be explained as cultural delusions.

To take an example, if belief in the Abrahamic god had NOT spread by missionaries and conquerors; if instead YHWH had appeared to BOTH the Aztecs and the Hebrews and given them each identical lists of the Ten Commandments before peoples from Eurasia and the Americas ever made contact; then that would be pretty good evidence AGAINST the idea that belief in YHWH is product of culture. Of course, that's not what happened.

Notice that I said belief in YHWH (or Zeus or what have you). Even if belief in gods is derived from somewhere other than external reality, that does not mean that gods do not *exist* per se. It just means that belief in them can be explained without having to invoke the actual existence of any gods.

Second I could post "facts" about the Bible and the Quran. I can post "facts" for every subject that you covered in favor of the God of Abraham....what's your point? What exactly does this prove and how does this make me wrong?

See above. I encourage you to post any facts that you feel support your argument.

How does a history of religion disprove God and the supernatural?

A history of religion does not disprove God and the supernatural. I didn't claim that it did. What I claimed a history of religion could show was: "...belief in gods is readily explained by the economic, political, and social environment of the times, and it is readily explained as adaptations from earlier god-beliefs."

I can post archealogical "evidence" for the Bible. Again, what does this prove?

Well the issue at hand is whether or not it is fair to characterize belief in the Abrahamic god as popular delusion in the same sense that one might characterize belief in Zeus or other gods as popular delusion. I would suggest that no fair interpretation of archeological or other evidence will make the Abrahamic god rise above all the others i.t.o. plausibility. But if you feel otherwise by all means educate me.

And I wasn't aware society had determined anti-Christian propaganda to be conclusive evidence for the God "delusion"

What I said wasn't intended to be anti-Christian, but anti-indoctrination; I could have referred to the youth indoctrination of any religion.

I guess what I was trying to point out is the undoubted fact that with coaching children will believe what they are told and very likely carry those beliefs into adulthood. Thus once a system is in place where adults inculcate children into certain beliefs, it should not be surprising that those beliefs survive, whether or not they are accurate.

But I see your point. I withdraw the comment.

So in other words you haven't watched the show, and you determined they weren't credible based off an assumption.

No, I did not determine they aren't credible based off an assumption. I did not determine anything about whether or not they are credible. All I assumed was that they had not conclusively shown that there are ghosts, because my understanding of our current state of knowledge was that the existence of ghosts is highly controversial to say the least.

You then indicated that my assumption was incorrect. I'm willing to accept that if you can provide details on the conclusive evidence for ghosts of which I had been previously unaware.

Ghost hunting isn't considered "real science" to begin with, so why would the "official" scientific community get excited about evidence for something that they don't believe in, in the first place?

The scientific community normally gets excited when solid evidence is provided. Scientists didn't always believe in evolution, general relativity, or even that matter is made of atoms, you know. I would suggest to you that ghost hunting isn't considered "real science" because of methodological flaws and a long history of fraud and pseudoscience.

And in case you haven't noticed, there has been a media frenzy about this. You see this subject in the media all the time.

I stand corrected. I was thinking of something more along the lines of a front-page story in the Washington Post or Scientific American proclaiming "Ghosts Proven!"

I didn't say that you had to assume anything, I just said watch it for yourself.

So, even if one doesn't assume that everything they're showing is legit, one will still find conclusive evidence for ghosts in the show?

Sure.
So people who provide evidence for ghosts are delusional and/or commiting fraud?

No, not necessarily. All I was saying is that a great number of cases have turned out that way. In cases where the whole thing was a trick of the mind or delusion, I wouldn't characterize the people involved as "delusional" in the sense that they are irrational or unintelligent.

Rational, intelligent people can and do fall victim to self-deception, wishful thinking, and mistakes in reason that lead to delusion. For example: Seventy percent of college students think they are above average in leadership ability. Only two percent think they are below average.
--Thomas Gilovich How We Know What Isn't So (qtd in http://www.skepdic.com/selfdeception.html )

And regarding the evidence according to your authors musings "We must rely on anecdotal evidence, which is always incomplete and selective, and which is often passed on by interested, inexperienced, superstitious parties who are ignorant of basic physical laws"

So these people are not only frauds and delusional, they're also superstitious, inexperienced, who are ignorant and only provide anecdotal evidence. Oy vey!

He said the parties are often superstitious, inexperienced, etc. That's a fact. I can post many examples, if you like.

Yes, a T.V. show. Do you have a problem watching it?

No. The question is whether or not it will provide conclusive evidence for ghosts. What kind of evidence should I expect to see?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think it is unnecessary and unproductive to use terminology that might be percieved as insult, however unintended any offence might be.

Good post Fluffy. I appreciate your input, but again I should point out that this is all in the context of a candid discussion on a public forum. I wouldn't walk up to a random person on the street, uninvited, and start giving my opinions about gods, whatever they were.

I don't think our discussions on this forum would be very productive at all if people refrained from saying anything that might be percieved as an insult, or if people refused to engage in discussion because the topic offends them. This is especially true in light of the fact that many members' beliefs on this forum involve other members being tortured for eternity in hell.

 

[Random]

I'm going to get @ least one comment on post #29 if I have to die doing it !

 

[Draka]

Yahweh means the sound your breath makes. If Yahweh dies, that means you are not breathing anymore and are yourself dead.

In certain mystical trance-states one can be heard to breath in yah and exhale weh, rhythmically. Since the connexion of breath to Spirit and soul is as old as the concept of God Himself, it is not too intellectually taxing to derive a belief in an external being or GOD who's name is Yahweh, right? As in, we praise His holy name with our very breaths, etc? Understandable...

However, if only it were that simple. I have explained this before and no-one listened, but the Yahweh experience is linked to the Fear of GOD, or rather more specifically Fear of the Higher Intelligence that the mind percieves. But there may as well be no division in it @ all, as the person who percieves the Higher Intelligence is one and the same as the Higher Intelligence itself. It is the GODself one is experiencing, and Yahweh is the name of the GoDSelf. It is more complicated still when one considers an internal realiztion of deity against an exoteric belief in one.

In any case, to answer the OP question, NO: one cannot treat Yahweh the same as Zeus, Thor, Odin etc...the difference is sublime, perhaps, but all -encompassing.

Ok, here's your comment on the post you wanted so much:

Huh??? :areyoucra

 

[Random]

Ok, here's your comment on the post you wanted so much:

Huh??? :areyoucra

Thank you so much!

 

[doppelganger]

Re: the brilliance of post #29.

The idea of "Yahweh" being a symbolic representation of "breath" is really quite interesting, Conor. Can you elaborate on this please? Is there a tradition about this being the meaning of "YHVH"? An occult history behind this interpretation?

Do you see this metaphor in relation to the divinity of language or the Logos?

 

[spiritually inclined]

The thing to reiterate is that every Christian knows exactly what it’s like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims, for instance. Muslims have the same reasons for being Muslim as Christians have for being Christian. They have a book they’re sure was written or dictated by the creator of the universe-because the book says that it was written or dictated by the creator of the universe. Christians look at Muslim discourse and find it fundamentally unpersuasive. Christians aren’t lying awake at night worrying about whether they should convert to Islam. Why not? Because Muslims can’t really back up their claims. They are clearly engaged in a style of discourse that is just not intellectually honest. It’s not purposed to genuine inquiry into the nature of the world. It is a reiteration of dogma, and they are clearly committed to a massive program of self-deception. Every Christian recognizes this about every religion other than Christianity. So every Christian knows exactly what it is like to be atheist. They just don’t turn the same candor and intellectual honesty on to their own faith.

Exactly.

I find it extremely hypocritical when Christians try to say that the god of the Qu'raan is unloving and wrathful when the Old Testament god is just as wrathful if not more so (and vice versa). Such people use critical judgment until it comes to their own religion, where criticism is then suspended.

James

 

[Buttercup]

I think we all need to accept the fact there are people who will not believe anything unless it can be proven undoubtedly scientifically. And then there are those who have a much larger base for acceptance of the supernatural. As long as a person applies my signature to their daily lives, they can keep from becoming George W. Bush.

 

[Mister_T]

The main thing that I find consistent is that people consistently attribute the experience to the actions of a disembodied person when no other explanation is available

The phenomenom known as ghosts is labeled as unexplainable for one. Second, there is a consistency in this phenomenom. Also a disembodied person is not the only explanation, but it is the best one at the moment.

What sorts of consistencies do you find compelling?

Electronic Voice Phenomenom (EVP) and full bodied apparitions to start with.

I posted a bunch of facts. It's a fact that the number one predictor of religious belief is the religious beliefs of one's parents and surrounding culture. It's a fact that certain stimulation of the brain gives 4 out of 5 people the feeling of an other-worldly "presence" nearby that many attribute to lost loved ones or God. It's a fact that the spread of god-beliefs matches the spread of missionaries and conquerors. It's a fact that, in general, the religions that spread the most and are most dominant today are the ones that stipulated a god who wants his followers to spread the faith. And it's a fact that young children are very, very impressionable, so if you teach them about certain god-beliefs at a young age, they are likely to retain them, irrespective of the objective validity of said beliefs.

You have shown facts that these things can happen. You have not shown that facts that all theism is a result of such things or if it's even applicable to every one of them.

I'd also like to comment on thet "other wordly, feel good" study: Sit down with a devout theist such as a Christian, and ask how many of them base their beliefs off of a "good feeling" they get. In fact, Christians preach quite the opposite: Faith in God is not about feelings.

To take an example, if belief in the Abrahamic god had NOT spread by missionaries and conquerors; if instead YHWH had appeared to BOTH the Aztecs and the Hebrews and given them each identical lists of the Ten Commandments before peoples from Eurasia and the Americas ever made contact; then that would be pretty good evidence AGAINST the idea that belief in YHWH is product of culture. Of course, that's not what happened.

Notice that I said belief in YHWH (or Zeus or what have you). Even if belief in gods is derived from somewhere other than external reality, that does not mean that gods do not *exist* per se. It just means that belief in them can be explained without having to invoke the actual existence of any gods.

I could say the fact that Atheism didn't pop up until the 6th century B.C. and that virtually all cultures had an instictive belief in a higer power is proof that belief in God is valid. That doesn't mean that Gods do "exist" per se. It just means that belief in them can be explained without having to invoke any cultural observations. We're just going in circles here.

A history of religion does not disprove God and the supernatural. I didn't claim that it did. What I claimed a history of religion could show was: "...belief in gods is readily explained by the economic, political, and social environment of the times, and it is readily explained as adaptations from earlier god-beliefs."

A history of religion could also show that belief in God could be readily explained by the existence of God and the cultural observations are the result of there actually being a God.

Well the issue at hand is whether or not it is fair to characterize belief in the]Abrahamic god as popular delusion in the same sense that one might characterize belief in Zeus or other gods as popular delusion. I would suggest that no fair interpretation of archeological or other evidence will make the Abrahamic god rise above all the others i.t.o. plausibility. But if you feel otherwise by all means educate me.

Well that is not what was being addressed in that particular post, but ok. Once again though, I go back to my earlier argument of consistency of interaction of the Abrahamic God as opposed to Zeus.

You then indicated that my assumption was incorrect. I'm willing to accept that if you can provide details on the conclusive evidence for ghosts of which I had been previously unaware.

I can point you towards pictures, but you will probably dismiss them as being photoshopped or a "lighting" anomoly. I can point you towards videos, but you will probably dimiss them as being fraudulent or some other "natural" explanation that you will manage to think of. I can't point you towards testimonies documenting interactions, but you will probably dismiss them as people imagining or "seeing" things. Maybe I'm wrong?

What would you accept as proof?

The scientific community normally gets excited when solid evidence is provided. Scientists didn't always believe in evolution, general relativity, or even that matter is made of atoms, you know. I would suggest to you that ghost hunting isn't considered "real science" because of methodological flaws and a long history of fraud and pseudoscience.

The problem is the "official" scientific community, sets the rules and limits for what is considered "evidence." It's like asking someone who supports evolution to prove his theory, but he can only use the Bible to do so.

It's no secret that they consider ghosts and the supernatural not being real, a fact based of the rules and limits that they have set. Then they ask advocates for ghosts to "bring on the evidence" using only their rules and limits. It's no wonder they aren't taken seriously.

I stand corrected. I was thinking of something more along the lines of a front-page story in the Washington Post or Scientific American proclaiming "Ghosts Proven!"

Read what I posted above.

So, even if one doesn't assume that everything they're showing is legit, one will still find conclusive evidence for ghosts in the show?

If a person thinks that someone is not legit, they're not going to believe any evidence that is presented by them. That's a given.

One has to be open minded enough that what is being shown has the possibility of being legit. That is what I was getting at.

All I was saying is that a great number of cases have turned out that way.

So because some people in a group are dellusional or commit fraud, does that mean that all people in that group are guilty of the same thing? That seems like the picture you are trying to paint.

Rational, intelligent people can and do fall victim to self-deception, wishful thinking, and mistakes in reason that lead to delusion

And such a thing is not limited to advocates for God and the supernatural. It applies to all groups of people......even "scientists."

He said the parties are often superstitious, inexperienced, etc. That's a fact. I can post many examples, if you like.

And you would post these examples in contrast to what exactly? I also wasn't aware that there was a way to factually prove that an individual was superstitious, inexpereinced, etc. Again this is proven in contrast to what? Is there a graph or percentages of people who are proven to be these things and people who are not?

No. The question is whether or not it will provide conclusive evidence for ghosts. What kind of evidence should I expect to see?

I can tell you will see evidence and of what type until I'm blue in the face. Wheter or not you accept them as such is a different story. Once again we are delving into the realm of subjectivity.

You can expect to see what people testify about when experiencing ghosts. Although I warn you that most of their investigations result in them debunking a lot of claims. When they do come across something that is unexplainable though, you can be sure that they tackled it from every possible angle before coming to such a conclusion. Also I recommend focusing on their investigating instead of the actual people. It is a reality show after all.