angelo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Tolerance / acceptance is mentioned, but where does "being genuine" come from? Accepting some experience "is real", or not, is not really about jucging if the person is genuine / honest. It's about whether their belief is justified by evidence and reason.

Genuine is just another word for real, Graham. This is what the OP is all about: accepting other peoples reality, as being genuine to them. It is very easy to explain that having such a tolerance would be trivial and provide us with no information at all about what is reliable and what is not. But that is what the OP has presented to us here.

OK, "being genuine in their reported experiences" suggested something else. "Genuine reports" are not contentious. People have unusual experiences and they report how they seemed to them. Those reports being accurate reflections of objective reality is the controversial point.
Others are being genuine, but are they correct or mistaken?

A schizophrenic would think his/hers delusion are real. In fact most religions originated from these people. In those superstitious times, what would a naivete think if a delusional person told him/her a god gave them a messege for mankind!

How about "demonstrate your god is real"?
Extraordinary evidence and all that.
I doubt it actually requires schizophrenia to have a religious delusion. I'd say it only needs a cognitive illusion (c.f. optical illusion etc but more about how you interpret what's happening than seeing, feeling or hearing something that seems real.
You can find plenty of fairly normal people who think "everything happens for a reason" and put some effort into making up reasons for coincidental events. Sometimes they attribute it to unseen conscious agency (e.g. God) They don't need a hallucinations of a burning bush to do that.

jamest on this forum thinks he (and everyone else) is god acting out worldly experiences (your subjective mind is actually One God having experiences of being you without simultaneously experiencing knowledge of being God. This belief has led him to preach his gospel of "One God" for years. I don't suppose he is Schizophrenic. More likely just caught up in grandiose ideas and fighting the good fight.

What’s a naivete?

Fallible wrote:What’s a naivete?

A dyslexic nativity?

Computer says:

What does Naviete mean?

naivete. ... Naivete has four syllables and is pronounced nigh-eve-i-TAY. The root naïve is a French adjective meaning “natural, just born.” Because it suggests innocence or ignorance, naivete is often associated with children, who lack experience and knowledge.

naivete - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

I asked it about naïveté so why it answered about Naviete is beyond me.

I know what naÏveté is when used to refer the state of being naïve, but not when it’s used to refer to an individual, or a group. As for a naviete, I kind of like it.

GrahamH wrote:
jamest on this forum thinks he (and everyone else) is god acting out worldly experiences (your subjective mind is actually One God having experiences of being you without simultaneously experiencing knowledge of being God. This belief has led him to preach his gospel of "One God" for years. I don't suppose he is Schizophrenic. More likely just caught up in grandiose ideas and fighting the good fight.

"Acting out"? No.

Whatever you believe you are is your reality. You don't 'act' that way, you behave that way because this is what you think reality imposes upon you.

jamest wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
jamest on this forum thinks he (and everyone else) is god acting out worldly experiences (your subjective mind is actually One God having experiences of being you without simultaneously experiencing knowledge of being God. This belief has led him to preach his gospel of "One God" for years. I don't suppose he is Schizophrenic. More likely just caught up in grandiose ideas and fighting the good fight.

"Acting out"? No.

Whatever you believe you are is your reality. You don't 'act' that way, you behave that way because this is what you think reality imposes upon you.

But you do think there is but one subjective mind that is god, that you, and we, are god, and that this god also "orchestrates qualia" to create the world we experience and "imposes on you", don't you?

Don't you also feel you have some sort of divine mission to spread this idea?

The point raised was that "god delusions" are due to schizophrenia. What do you think of that?

GrahamH wrote:
But you do think there is but one subjective mind that is god, that you, and we, are god, and that this god also "orchestrates qualia" to create the world we experience and "imposes on you", don't you?

In a nutshell I am of the opinion that 'reality' amounts to One Being who imposes numerous ordered experiences upon itself all related to 'the universe'. This consciousness, this experience, of being a human amidst the universe is ultimately that Being's consciousness/experience. I feel justified in labelling that Being 'God' as - if I'm right, which I'm sure that I am - it clearly has the power/creativity/knowledge to be labelled thus.

Don't you also feel you have some sort of divine mission to spread this idea?

Not really, which is why I speak about it less frequently these days and only ever in this forum when I do. I did feel though that it was important for me to speak my mind though, which I've done. There's no point in me repeating arguments I've already made to more-or-less the same members, though occasionally I still have new ideas and will start new threads if and when those ideas arise.

The point raised was that "god delusions" are due to schizophrenia. What do you think of that?

I obviously think that it's a load of bollocks. And since I'm now used to atheists taking the piss and downplaying my philosophy, often nastily, I personally couldn't care less what some half-wit in an atheist forum chooses to call me.

I hope that you're well Graham. You've never had much if any charity for my philosophy, but on the whole you're one of the few who has treated me respectfully and has given me the opportunity to discuss it seriously, so hat's off to you.

jamest wrote:I feel justified in labelling that Being 'God' as - if I'm right, which I'm sure that I am -

How are you so sure? You don't think much of evidence and you can't claim to have a convincing argument for it, since in 20 years of making the argument you haven't managed to convinced anyone.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:I feel justified in labelling that Being 'God' as - if I'm right, which I'm sure that I am -

How are you so sure? You don't think much of evidence and you can't claim to have a convincing argument for it, since in 20 years of making the argument you haven't managed to convinced anyone.

My thoughts on the matter have materialised from 25 years of thinking, reading, watching, debating, and even university study. What more can I say?

One of my primary arguments is that all 'evidence' (the kind you're talking about, at least), is experiential/observed.

You cannot, SAM, undermine the notion that the whole universe is nothing other than an experience upon the basis of experiential evidence.

I can talk about this forever and have talked about it at-length many times over the years, but that's the bottom-line:

You have NO evidence which undermines my philosophy.

Nobody does. Nobody can.

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:I feel justified in labelling that Being 'God' as - if I'm right, which I'm sure that I am -

How are you so sure? You don't think much of evidence and you can't claim to have a convincing argument for it, since in 20 years of making the argument you haven't managed to convinced anyone.

My thoughts on the matter have materialised from 25 years of thinking, reading, watching, debating, and even university study. What more can I say?

One of my primary arguments is that all 'evidence' (the kind you're talking about, at least), is experiential/observed.

You cannot, SAM, undermine the notion that the whole universe is nothing other than an experience upon the basis of experiential evidence.

I can talk about this forever and have talked about it at-length many times over the years, but that's the bottom-line:

You have NO evidence which undermines my philosophy.

Nobody does. Nobody can.

I can't disprove Russell's teapot either. Why would I even try? Generating an untestable position isn't an accomplishment, and it certainly doesn't make your position true.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:I feel justified in labelling that Being 'God' as - if I'm right, which I'm sure that I am -

How are you so sure? You don't think much of evidence and you can't claim to have a convincing argument for it, since in 20 years of making the argument you haven't managed to convinced anyone.

My thoughts on the matter have materialised from 25 years of thinking, reading, watching, debating, and even university study. What more can I say?

One of my primary arguments is that all 'evidence' (the kind you're talking about, at least), is experiential/observed.

You cannot, SAM, undermine the notion that the whole universe is nothing other than an experience upon the basis of experiential evidence.

I can talk about this forever and have talked about it at-length many times over the years, but that's the bottom-line:

You have NO evidence which undermines my philosophy.

Nobody does. Nobody can.

I can't disprove Russell's teapot either. Why would I even try? Generating an untestable position isn't an accomplishment, and it certainly doesn't make your position true.

Whoa. In your previous post you implied you had "evidence" to undermine my philosophy. One post later you're admitting that you have no evidence at all. Make your fuckin' mind up.

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
How are you so sure? You don't think much of evidence and you can't claim to have a convincing argument for it, since in 20 years of making the argument you haven't managed to convinced anyone.

My thoughts on the matter have materialised from 25 years of thinking, reading, watching, debating, and even university study. What more can I say?

One of my primary arguments is that all 'evidence' (the kind you're talking about, at least), is experiential/observed.

You cannot, SAM, undermine the notion that the whole universe is nothing other than an experience upon the basis of experiential evidence.

I can talk about this forever and have talked about it at-length many times over the years, but that's the bottom-line:

You have NO evidence which undermines my philosophy.

Nobody does. Nobody can.

I can't disprove Russell's teapot either. Why would I even try? Generating an untestable position isn't an accomplishment, and it certainly doesn't make your position true.

Whoa. In your previous post you implied you had "evidence" to undermine my philosophy.

Where?

One post later you're admitting that you have no evidence at all. Make your fuckin' mind up.

Said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that generating an unassailable position is not an indication of its veracity. I said nothing about whether yours was assailable or not. Read the words I write, not the ones you wish I was writing.

jamest wrote:
Whoa. In your previous post you implied you had "evidence" to undermine my philosophy. One post later you're admitting that you have no evidence at all. Make your fuckin' mind up.

SAM wrote:Generating an untestable position isn't an accomplishment, and it certainly doesn't make your position true.

Try reading.

And no, as last Thursdayism is not a valid philosophy no evidence (with or without scare quotes) is required to undermine it.

jamest wrote:
I hope that you're well Graham. You've never had much if any charity for my philosophy, but on the whole you're one of the few who has treated me respectfully and has given me the opportunity to discuss it seriously, so hat's off to you.

I appreciate the kind words. I try to understand the positions of others. I hope I have yours fairly close by now although I certainly dont agree with your reasoning or conclussions.

But I owe an apology to all for mentioning your philosophy in this topic. I only intended to highlight that commitment to ideas about god and one's own relationship to god or innate divinity don't require schizophrenia. Of course I can't demonstrate that, but it doesn't seem to me that your particular beliefs rely on "religious experience" that might sometime result from such conditions.

Can I politely suggest that here is not the place to get into details of particular philosophy / theology?

Fallible wrote:What’s a naivete?

Fallible wrote:I know what naÏveté is when used to refer the state of being naïve, but not when it’s used to refer to an individual, or a group. < snip >

OneLook tells me it's a lack of sophistication or worldliness... https://onelook.com/?w=naivete&ls=a based on its 18 dictionaries for the word, if help is still wanted (usually it gets more like 25 or 30 dictionaries, in various categories).

No...I’m an English graduate, I know what the word naïveté means. If you notice, it has been used above in the same way that one would use a noun like ‘vicar’ or ‘caucasian’. Thats what I was referring to. The initial quote was

In those superstitious times, what would a naivete think if a delusional person told him/her a god gave them a messege for mankind!

Obviously, ‘In those superstitious times, what would a lack of sophistication or worldliness think if a delusional person told him/her a god gave them a message for mankind!’ doesn’t make any sense. He means ‘a naive person’. He means ‘a naïf’.

The OP needs introducing to my six foot cockroach ...