Jump to content

People who believe in god are broken


Recommended Posts

From my point of view the ground actually is static.

 

 

No, when you're walking down the street you are moving relative to the street. That is technically true.

 

"the ground is static" is technically not true (it assumes an absolute frame... and a lot of people know that), but they believe it in everyday practice anyway.

 

That was the example I gave originally before you started trying to prove a different point.

 

 

Saying "From my point of view the ground actually is static [as I walk]" is absurdly factually wrong. In your frame, you are static. From your POV, you are static and the street moves.

 

It's fine, I'm not offended.

 

Like I said before, the belief in God is not in and of itself "broken". There's got to be a whole slew of beliefs involved that cause one to behave the way they do. My example was the belief in having a body. The point I was making is that if you guys want to make something like a periodic table (or a "paremetric hierarchy" as has been done recently by Mark Baker in "Atoms of Language", by and for the linguists), then you're going to have to specify the belief in question, and then add all of the other beliefs that would lead one to behave in an irrational way.

 

I think that this table could actually be very useful, and it's not absurd to conceive of one. It could lead to a quick diagnosis and help prevent certain occurrences, like murder.

I can provide a glimpse of what this may look like, I'll draw one up really quick.

 

Sounds fantastically complicated

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Your evidence is good, their evidence is bad. Of course you will find the comparison flawed.   We have evidence that makes belief in the big bang reasonable to you. Such evidence for belief in God i

The signal in the clouds was intercepted, and the moo was dispatched!   Anyways, so, anyone who wonders why I was dispatched, I happen to know hebrew/aramaic, and spent 12 years studying the origina

Everyone on this site believes in something. If you are broken for believing in God then you are broken for believing in anything else that could turn out to be untrue.   Anyone here believe in str

Posted Images

See above post if you're interested. It's just a glimpse of what it may look like, but the idea is there.


I could have said a few things better, but I think that if anyone decides to undertake this project, they will be much more thorough with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't those whom outright disbelieve in a higher intelligence equally as broken?

Most people who are not believers simply find the god concept so absurd, so unsupported, and so uncompelling as to not be worth their time. That's really it. Most people who are not believers would readily change their beliefs if first there were at least some sort of clear shared definition of the god concept that could achieve consensus and if second some meaningful evidence in support of that god concept were ultimately put forth.

 

However, after thousands and thousands of years of trying, we're still waiting, and the challenge has not been met (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). At some point, we should agree that it becomes reasonable to say, "yeah, that's probably the product of human imagination and cultural indoctrination instead of something real, so that will be the stance I take until I'm given good reason to think otherwise."

 

I personally feel as if it's inappropriate to say people in that position are "equally as broken" as someone who actively believes there is a magical could surfing sky dictator (not much different than Zeus or Thor)... someone who actively believes in such things despite the profound lack of evidence in favor of their nonfictional existence, but I suppose that YMMV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people who are not believers simply find the god concept so absurd, so unsupported, and so uncompelling as to not be worth their time. That's really it. Most people who are not believers would readily change their beliefs if first there were at least some sort of clear shared definition of the god concept that could achieve consensus and if second some meaningful evidence in support of that god concept were ultimately put forth.

 

However, after thousands and thousands of years of trying, we're still waiting, and the challenge has not been met (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). At some point, we should agree that it becomes reasonable to say, "yeah, that's probably the product of human imagination and cultural indoctrination instead of something real, so that will be the stance I take until I'm given good reason to think otherwise."

 

I personally feel as if it's inappropriate to say people in that position are "equally as broken" as someone who actively believes there is a magical could surfing sky dictator (not much different than Zeus or Thor)... someone who actively believes in such things despite the profound lack of evidence in favor of their nonfictional existence, but I suppose that YMMV.

 

good point, Though I do find creation theory absurd I cannot simply dismiss it until totally dis-proven, science is - after all, finding the least wrong answer through common sense, testing and speculation and then more testing.

when I say higher intelligence I don't necessarily mean the great fella on the sky dictating events which are clearly effects of circumstance and entropy, I'm simply generalizing all of the "God" figures together, or not even a life form for that matter. I can't agree that the universe was created for the sole purpose for human life, there is ​far too much evidence stacked against it, and I pass most religious stories of as exactly that, stories. All that said it still does not rule out an outside force in the universe's creation. Heck, even if it were an accident like the the great green arkleseizure theory from the Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps those who believe in god are less broken and more stil under the residual power held by the world's religions.

It's possibly not unfair to suggest it is only relatively recently that science has sort to offer explanations to questions for which religion has been fielding for millenia.

Religion is still to this day capable of doing that which it has always managed to do and that is to grip the imagination and provide a way to conceptualise existence and demonstating an individual's place within it. It offers comfort and security and an end to their need for understanding. By contrast take away a religious belief in god and what is a person left with, a cold unforgiving reality that nobody is truely capable of understanding perhaps, or the lack of certaintity for person's place within the grand scheme of things, most definately no promise of a warm & fuzzy happy ever after.

 

When faced with deciding to choose between a beautiful fantasy or a fearful reality many might not choose an unpleasant truth, even more so when you consider how our state of mental and emotional well-being is also directly tied into the perception of our reality and future.

 

Perhaps willfully ignorant might be a more accurate assessment for the many capable of understanding the evidence, whilst uneducated in the facts and or indoctrinated by religion for others may also apply as an apt description of their condition.

Edited by Nouveau
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, when you're walking down the street you are moving relative to the street. That is technically true.

 

"the ground is static" is technically not true (it assumes an absolute frame... and a lot of people know that), but they believe it in everyday practice anyway.

 

 

I'm not walking down the street, I'm sat on a chair typing so, what you have described as "technically correct", isn't remotely correct.

It's, as you put it, absurdly wrong.

 

This

"

Saying "From my point of view the ground actually is static [as I walk]" is absurdly factually wrong. In your frame, you are static. From your POV, you are static and the street moves."is , therefore, yet another strawman.

Why do you keep doing that?

In this case, you actually had to put extra words into the purported quote to try to make your point.

Did you really think people wouldn't notice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not walking down the street, I'm sat on a chair typing so, what you have described as "technically correct", isn't remotely correct.

It's, as you put it, absurdly wrong.

 

This

"

Saying "From my point of view the ground actually is static [as I walk]" is absurdly factually wrong. In your frame, you are static. From your POV, you are static and the street moves."is , therefore, yet another strawman.

 

Why do you keep doing that?

In this case, you actually had to put extra words into the purported quote to try to make your point.

Did you really think people wouldn't notice?

 

Again, my example involves someone walking down the street. Your creation of a different scenario in response is indeed a strawman, but I don't care. I don't go around accusing people of strawmanning in every post like a child.

 

I'll go ahead and take your scenario and prove to you that your statement, in context, is technically incorrect and factually wrong.

 

From my point of view the ground actually is static, to a good enough approximation for the job in hand.

 

Assuming you're sitting in a chair...

With general relativity, using Lemaitre coordinates, neither you nor the street are static right now. You are far from it. It wouldn't be a good enough approximation to get the job done.

 

In Schwarzschild coordinates you are pretty close to static. It could be close enough to get the job of sitting on a chair done.

 

If your quote is true then Lemaitre coordinates are wrong, but according to GR no set of coordinates are any more true than any other. Lemaitre coordinates are actually more complete than Schwarzschild, so you know for a fact that your statement is wrong according to the best scientific theory we have.

 

Yet you continue to believe... proving my point. People know things while believing differently all the time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, my example involves someone walking down the street. <snip> Assuming you're sitting in a chair...

With general relativity, using Lemaitre coordinates, neither you nor the street are static right now. <snip> In Schwarzschild coordinates you are pretty close to static.

Relative to whom, though? You may as well be asking (to borrow from swansont) what's the difference between a duck?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Relative to whom, though?

That's my point. These two statements are mutually exclusive:

  • All motion is relative
  • The street is static (not moving)

People are perfectly able to know the first while believing the second in everyday practice.

 

You see... this all got started when science4ever said,

 

Can one decied to believe in something one know is not true?

 

You then said,

 

Yes, but it's usually a sign of mental illness when that happens.

 

John later said "no". it is impossible.

 

I disagree with you both. I didn't give the best example using relativity, but I think people both can decide to believe something they know isn't true (it is possible), and that it is not usually a sign of mental illness. I think that is how the brain works more often than we know. There's a french saying that goes, je sais bien... mais quand meme, which sort of says what I mean. "I know very well, but anyway..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Mentally ill people don't know the delusion isn't true. Mentally sane people know things and profess opposite beliefs.

 

People who know things and color them exactly as they see them are mostly autistic... and I could make an argument for autistic people being broken.

 

"deciding to believe in something one knows is not true" isn't a sign of mental illness. It is a sign of humanity.

thinking that you're a butterfly is a delusion. Believing in God is an illusion. Believing that the ground is occasionally static beneath your feet just makes you human.

The recently released DSM 5 has an more current and relevant definition of delusion that seems to contradict the definition you've been using to support your position.

 

http://imperfectcognitions.blogspot.it/2013/06/delusions-in-dsm-5.html

 

Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

 

This is the definition of delusions in the DSM-5:

 

Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g. persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).[…] Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. […] The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity.

 

<...>

 

we may have no proof against the truth of a belief, even when the belief is wildly implausible, and this is reflected in the move from the phrase “despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary” to the phrase “despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity”.

 

More important, in my eyes the new definition narrows the gap between delusions and other irrational beliefs, making it clear that the epistemic features of delusions are not unique to pathologies of the mind, but characterise many of our everyday beliefs.

 

I saw this here where the author noted in a different context: "It’s worth bearing in mind that we’re not talking about the everyday use of the term ‘delusion’ (typically meaning mistaken) but the psychiatric definition which describes intensely held beliefs that are impervious to reality."

 

Seems to fit the way it's being used in this thread by John C and others, doesn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The recently released DSM 5 has an more current and relevant definition of delusion that seems to contradict the definition you've been using to support your position.

You have me at a loss -- I don't remember giving a definition or using a definition to support a position.

 

 

I got the distinction between an illusion and a delusion from a paper Freud wrote (The Future of an Illusion). I'd guess you've read it, but I'll quote a very small portion to be sure you see where I was coming from.

 

I don't think it contradicts your DSM-5 quote.

 

When I say that they [religious ideas] are illusions, I must define the meaning of the word. An illusion is not the same as an error, it is indeed not necessarily an error. (...) It is characteristic of the illusion that it is derived from men's wishes; in this respect it approaches the psychiatric delusion, but it is to be distinguished from this, quite apart from the more complicated structure of the latter. In the delusion we emphasize as essential the conflict with reality; the illusion need not be necessarily false, that is to say, unrealizable or incompatible with reality.

 

(...)

 

If after this survey we turn again to religious doctrines, we may reiterate that they are all illusions, they do not admit of proof, and no one can be compelled to consider them as true or to believe in them. Some of them are so improbable, so very incompatible with everything we have laboriously discovered about the reality of the world, that we may compare them ­ taking adequately into account the psychological differences ­ to delusions.

 

-Freud

 

 

 

http://imperfectcognitions.blogspot.it/2013/06/delusions-in-dsm-5.html

 

 

I saw this here where the author noted in a different context: "It’s worth bearing in mind that we’re not talking about the everyday use of the term ‘delusion’ (typically meaning mistaken) but the psychiatric definition which describes intensely held beliefs that are impervious to reality."

 

Seems to fit the way it's being used in this thread by John C and others, doesn't it?

 

I don't recall John using the word, but I'm positive that the meaning he gives it when he does use it is consistent with what you quoted. What you quoted is quite agreeable, and I don't imagine anyone using the word to mean anything very different from that definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I have, however, encountered countless engagements online with various defenders of theism (even right here in this very thread) that suggest belief in god "cannot possibly!" be a delusion since it has not been proven to be false... "God has not yet been proven not to exist so belief in that concept cannot legitimately be called a delusion" is roughly their position. The definition from the DSM 5 suggests that position is itself rather baseless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Again, my example involves someone walking down the street. Your creation of a different scenario in response is indeed a strawman, but I don't care. I don't go around accusing people of strawmanning in every post like a child.

 

I'll go ahead and take your scenario and prove to you that your statement, in context, is technically incorrect and factually wrong.

 

 

Assuming you're sitting in a chair...

With general relativity, using Lemaitre coordinates, neither you nor the street are static right now. You are far from it. It wouldn't be a good enough approximation to get the job done.

 

In Schwarzschild coordinates you are pretty close to static. It could be close enough to get the job of sitting on a chair done.

 

If your quote is true then Lemaitre coordinates are wrong, but according to GR no set of coordinates are any more true than any other. Lemaitre coordinates are actually more complete than Schwarzschild, so you know for a fact that your statement is wrong according to the best scientific theory we have.

 

Yet you continue to believe... proving my point. People know things while believing differently all the time.

 

Your example was a man walking down the street which he considers to be static.

But it is clearly moving (WRT) him.

GR shows that nothing is truly stationary in an absolute sense because there's no absolute reference frame.

So, either the road is static in the frame of reference he's referring to (probably the planet earth's surface) or his assertion that it (seems) static is totally without meaning.

My guess would be that

1) he can distinguish these two points of view and

2) he means the former.

So, what he "believes", i.e. that the road is stationary is, in fact true, because of his choice of reference frame.

The road is not moving WRT the nearby fields and houses.

 

My frame of reference is different from his.so, what we accurately say about the street differs.

 

It remains the case that, in order to seek to prove your point, you altered what I said.

That's not a valid way of making progress.

 

 

OK, now lets have a look at your "proof"

"With general relativity, using Lemaitre coordinates, neither you nor the street are static right now. You are far from it. It wouldn't be a good enough approximation to get the job done."

The job I'm doing is sitting on a chair.

I'm getting that job done.

Any and all approximations which I'm currently employing are, therefore "a good enough approximation to get the job done."

If Lemaitre coordinates say otherwise, then they are either wrong or being misapplied.

My money is on misapplication.

 

You may not have noticed, but, for most people, GR is a bit obscure.

I'm not moving WRT my chair at a significant fraction of the speed of light, nor am I in spitting distance of a black hole.

So, to a good approximation, I can ignore the relativistic corrections to Newtonian physics.

 

It is, as I said before, a good enough approximation to get the job done.

 

That's the point you miss.

I'm not labouring under the false belief that I'm stationary. I'm just well aware that I'm near enough stationary to ignore the tiny corrections.

I'm not, therefore, deluding myself about some absolute frame or reference.

 

so, could you please explain why you think that voluntary, deliberate self delusion is part of the human condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I have, however, encountered countless engagements online with various defenders of theism (even right here in this very thread) that suggest belief in god "cannot possibly!" be a delusion since it has not been proven to be false... "God has not yet been proven not to exist so belief in that concept cannot legitimately be called a delusion" is roughly their position. The definition from the DSM 5 suggests that position is itself rather baseless.

 

That makes sense.

 

It is an interesting question. Clearly, it was mistaken to have the criteria saying that the belief is either impossible or the content of the belief is false, because that couldn't be scientifically demonstrated for a lot of delusions just by way of not being able to prove a negative. They can't prove that the neighbor's cat didn't telepathically warn me about a gang of ninja mice (or... "ninj-ice" as the cats call them) .

 

On the other hand, it is very difficult to deny that delusions are at least partly identified by their confrontation with reality. I believe that part of the meaning of a delusion involves the content of the belief being mistaken or untrue, or impossible. The manner of the belief -- things like certainty and incorrigibility -- can be good qualities when the belief is true. So the definition should have some reference to the untrue nature of a delusional belief.

 

The DSM-5 appears to find the middle ground by including, "conviction... despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity". I like that balance. We don't have to prove that black belt Ninj-ice don't exist, however it is characteristic of delusions that we have 'reasonable' evidence contradicting the veracity of the belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what he "believes", i.e. that the road is stationary is, in fact true

This forum is full of people saying exactly what you just said and the next post belongs to a moderator telling them that they have to prove that the "road is stationary" or they need booted.

 

Please provide evidence that "the road is stationary" (which is only true if there is an absolute frame of reference), otherwise please admit that you are neither fit to be a member, nor less a moderator, of these forums and boot yourself immediately.

 

Good Bye.

 

 

EDIT:

 

By the way, I already know what you're going to say so let me head that off to keep this less boring. My original scenario (the thing that I introduced) involves one person saying that the street is stationary and the other person saying that it is only relatively stationary. Any piddling explanation meant to equivocate or ignore is just a strawman. You can introduce contradictions to imaginary things elsewhere. I'll be dealing with the scenario I gave.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean the bit where I said "So, what he "believes", i.e. that the road is stationary is, in fact true, because of his choice of reference frame."?

and where I clarified that, since (as we both agree) there is no absolute reference frame, it must refer to a particular one chosen by the speaker, and implicit in the discussion.

 

Do you see how missing out some words from a quote totally changes its meaning in much the same way as adding words does (like you did before)?

 

For example

"By the way, I already know what you're going to say so let me head that off to keep this less "boring!" My original scenario (the thing that I introduced) involves one person saying that the street is stationary and the other person saying that it is only relatively stationary. Any piddling explanation meant to equivocate or ignore is just a strawman. You can introduce contradictions to imaginary things elsewhere. I'll be dealing with the scenario I gave."

 

leaves "By the way, I know you're going to say boring. My thing is stationary and piddling"

and I'm sure you agree that it no longer means the same thing.

So, if you stop misrepresenting what I said, it may help progress the thread.

 

I'm not a moderator here so that's an odd comment to throw in.

​However I think what the mods have seen, but you have missed, is my explanation of what I meant by the word stationary and why.

​In précis

"nothing is truly stationary in an absolute sense"

"the road is static in the frame of reference he's referring to (probably the planet earth's surface) "

"My frame of reference is different from his.so, what we accurately say about the street differs"

"to a good approximation, I can ignore the relativistic corrections to Newtonian physics.

It is, as I said before, a good enough approximation to get the job done."

"I'm not labouring under the false belief that I'm stationary. I'm just well aware that I'm near enough stationary to ignore the tiny corrections.

I'm not, therefore, deluding myself about some absolute frame or reference."

Do you understand what I have said there?

Incidentally, I'm also wilfully ignoring the uncertainty principle.

But it's not the same as saying that it's not real- just that it's not big enough to matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean the bit where I said "So, what he "believes", i.e. that the road is stationary is, in fact true, because of his choice of reference frame."?

and where I clarified that, since (as we both agree) there is no absolute reference frame, it must refer to a particular one chosen by the speaker, and implicit in the discussion.

 

Do you see how missing out some words from a quote totally changes its meaning in much the same way as adding words does (like you did before)?

 

For example

"By the way, I already know what you're going to say so let me head that off to keep this less "boring!" My original scenario (the thing that I introduced) involves one person saying that the street is stationary and the other person saying that it is only relatively stationary. Any piddling explanation meant to equivocate or ignore is just a strawman. You can introduce contradictions to imaginary things elsewhere. I'll be dealing with the scenario I gave."

 

leaves "By the way, I know you're going to say boring. My thing is stationary and piddling"

and I'm sure you agree that it no longer means the same thing.

So, if you stop misrepresenting what I said, it may help progress the thread.

 

I'm not a moderator here so that's an odd comment to throw in.

​However I think what the mods have seen, but you have missed, is my explanation of what I meant by the word stationary and why.

​In précis

"nothing is truly stationary in an absolute sense"

"the road is static in the frame of reference he's referring to (probably the planet earth's surface) "

"My frame of reference is different from his.so, what we accurately say about the street differs"

"to a good approximation, I can ignore the relativistic corrections to Newtonian physics.

It is, as I said before, a good enough approximation to get the job done."

"I'm not labouring under the false belief that I'm stationary. I'm just well aware that I'm near enough stationary to ignore the tiny corrections.

I'm not, therefore, deluding myself about some absolute frame or reference."

Do you understand what I have said there?

Incidentally, I'm also wilfully ignoring the uncertainty principle.

But it's not the same as saying that it's not real- just that it's not big enough to matter.

 

The edited portion of my last post is my response to the thing I just quoted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I argue about time travel?

More seriously, can I argue that someone who claims that he responded to something before it happened is "broken" anyway?

If you need to use that sort of tomfoolery to make a point, then the point isn't valid.

Yet he clearly thinks his invalid point is true.

Is that broken?

 

And I'd still like him to answer the point I made earlier about his assertion that humans can, by an act of will, choose to believe something which they know to be false.

How do you do that Iggy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I argue about time travel?

More seriously, can I argue that someone who claims that he responded to something before it happened is "broken" anyway?

If you need to use that sort of tomfoolery to make a point, then the point isn't valid.

Yet he clearly thinks his invalid point is true.

Is that broken?

 

And I'd still like him to answer the point I made earlier about his assertion that humans can, by an act of will, choose to believe something which they know to be false.

How do you do that Iggy?

 

I'd be happy to answer any of that in another thread if you'd care to make one and PM me its locale, but we are detracting from this topic, so let's move on here.

 

Sorry, everyone.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fundamental to the point of the thread. If you are right then religious belief is not broken- just part of normal human behaviour.

The problem is that you stated it but were unable (at least so far) to show that it was true.

 

Are you saying we should move on because you realise you were wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are right then religious belief is not broken

 

It isn't broken.

 

Something like 90% of your fellow species have religious belief. If you think that the vast majority of your species is broken then you either need a dictionary, or a short bus to drive you away from this discussion.

 

More likely you're just fooling yourself. Speaking of which...

 

And I'd still like him to answer the point I made earlier about his assertion that humans can, by an act of will, choose to believe something which they know to be false.

Choosing to believe something which one knows is false is called, in the common human vernacular, fooling oneself. People do fool themselves all the time. 90% of our species does it on the topic of religion, and everyone does it on some topic or another.

 

Your inability to relate to that condition of humanity is a reflection upon you! Earlier I called it autistic. If you don't know what it means for a fact and a belief to contradict each other in your own head then you are at least... ehh... censoring myself...

 

If you didn't learn that people fool themselves in grade school then there is no way I can explain it in a way you'll understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread,

 

Right might be considered a relative term, given the normal subject/object understanding we all, by nature, possess.

 

Correctness, or truth, or veracity has at least two judges.

 

What you judge to be correct.

 

What the "other" judges to be correct.

 

Is the thing correct based on your judgment alone, or is it also correct, judged to be true in another case of judgement.

 

Whether this other judge is your wife, or your boss, or your "judicial system", or your preist, or your dearly departed Grandfather, or Mohammed, or the judge Mohammed was describing to us, or the scientific community, or Jesus Christ, or Buddah, it is obvious to all, that they themselves, are not the ONLY judge available, and their judgement is not the first or last or only judgement, that there is.

 

If you believe in your Grandfather, who no longer is alive and amoungst us, and his judgement, still counts as valid and true, is there a clear distinction to be made, to be made between a person that believes in God and a person that believes in Grandfathers. In terms of their brokeness or soundness, to have one of the "other" judges, or the other?

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Tar (Tar2?) is the perfect example. This is a person who calls himself an atheist yet professes and argues for a belief in god. A more perfect depth of a human fooling themselves couldn't be given.

 

It isn't an isolated incident. Knowing one thing and believing another is a very human thing to do.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.