Dennis why are you avoiding my question? Why don’t you believe there was a talking snake in the garden of eden? And with what term would you describe the people who do believe it?

eudemonia - 17 March 2010 05:43 AM

Dennis why are you avoiding my question? Why don’t you believe there was a talking snake in the garden of eden? And with what term would you describe the people who do believe it?

Eud,

Persistent chap aren’t you?  I’m not avoiding your argument, just saying it is of little use beyond making some of the minority feel superior.  But, indeed, will agree that posited gods is a delusion.  Now, what’s for lunch?

The thread here was some of the political implications of Islam.

Dennis

Dennis Campbell - 14 March 2010 07:09 PM

Some of the tenets of the ideology expressed so clearly by GH, which is called a “religion,” but which is more of a political or social ideology include the following, as best I understand it.  All of these of course “authorized” by “Allah,” which means they are held to be unquestionable by the followers.

Since Allah is a figment of Muslims’ imagination, appearing to be an idiosyncratic figment in that each sect argues with the other about who Allah is and what he wants, and I’m sure there are internal schisms as well, then none of this is “’authorized’ by ‘Allah.’”  It is authorized by authoritarian rulers who claim to know what Allah wants.

Dennis Campbell - 14 March 2010 07:09 PM

Political power is vested in theocrats who are not elected by self-appointed by the extent to which they express their allegiance and obedience to Islam Law and Allah. Mere elected officials are subservient to these theocrats. Ultimately, one man sits at the head of this political structure and is unchallengeable in his authority.  This is a vertically structured authoritarian system maintained by force, not elections.

This is no different at its core than a vertically structured authoritarian regime maintained by force arising from a military coup, such as Pinochet’s Chile or present day Burma; some people buy into the ideology which the dictator uses to justify his rule (some version of Islam, or some version of anti-communism), but everybody is stuck going along with the dictatorship on pain of a very painful death.

Dennis Campbell - 14 March 2010 07:09 PM

Freedom of inquiry, skepticism, the entire scientific method that are prerequisites to western secular education are antithetical to the governing principles of the Islamic theocracy.  In all fairness, that dilemma also exists in earlier Christian ideology, and those conflicts are still seen in current western societies in such issues as stem cell research, genetic manipulations, birth control and other issues, but in the west, the influence of fundamental Christian theology has diminished considerably.

By “in the west,” I assume you mean Western Europe, and not Texas and Kansas.

Dennis Campbell - 14 March 2010 07:09 PM

I do disagree with one of T.’s comments recently, that GH does not represent a “real” Muslim.  He does, IMO, they’re too many others like G who whack off people’s heads and blow themselves up; who threaten death to Dutch cartoonists, or women who have sex outside of the permission of their father, to think that GH is some rarity. 

Granted, martyrs can’t be too rational either.  Still, something about GH makes me think he is a troll punking this forum.

Dennis Campbell - 14 March 2010 07:09 PM

GH is not stupid, he is not “ignorant,” except of western secular and science paradigms; he is not “delusional,”

I’ve come to a new conclusion about the delusional status of the faithful.
If you believe in god, allah, hey-zeus (thank you, Eudemonia) or Yahweh, you are not delusional.

If you get down on your knees and talk to god, allah, hey-zeus or Yahweh, you are not delusional.

If god, allah, hey-zeus or Yahweh talk back to you, you are delusional.

Dennis Campbell - 14 March 2010 07:09 PM

what are your expressed opinions as to the implications and character of the kind of ideology GH represents? 

John Dean wrote a book a while ago about the two kinds of authoritarian personalities:  the authoritarian leader, and the authoritarian follower.

My understanding is that authoritarian follower personality types have a very low tolerance for ambiguity, and it follows that they would be more easily seduced by an ideology that offers clear, certain answers authored by an unimpeachable source, as relayed by an authority figure with a special relationship to that unimpeachable source.

From this, I conclude that certain Muslims have gravitated to radical Islam, just as certain christians have gravitated to James Dobson, in order to shield themselves from the anxiety that ambiguity and lack of certainty cause in them;  on the other hand, some people (Unitarians/Suffi’s) seem quite capable of holding some sort of belief in the supernatural without resorting to an authoritarian structure. 

It also appears that even atheists can be seduced by an authoritarian ideology, if they have the authoritarian follower personality structure.  Some American Nazis and skin heads subscribe to the Christian Identity Movement, but others appear to have no religious component at all.  Furthermore, the Christian Identity Movement seems to be less about religious teaching and more about a supposed ethnic distinction between christians on the one hand, and jews and arabs on the other.

The one thing that seems to set Islam apart from christianity is that Mohammad was a head of state, whereas hey-zeus was an outlaw.  I am not familiar enough with the texts of each religion to understand exactly how this distinction is expressed.  On the other hand, I’ve read enough wing-nut bloviating in blogs, from the halls of congress, and from a recent majority opinion from the 9th Circuit to know that a good many christians believe that the US is a christian state.

In short, I oppose theocratic authoritarian regimes, but also military dictatorships and elections decided by 5 members of a supreme court.

If god, allah, hey-zeus or Yahweh talk back to you, you are delusional. Might well, but claiming to have had a personal missive from god sure does enhance whatever claim is being made by a person, which arouses my cynicism in thinking some of those “god talked to me” claims are just plain lying.

The authoritarian follower, theist or atheist, is in some respects like the “true believer,” in that neither are big on democracy, but some sort of vertical political power structure in which the follower’s place is well defined and the leader’s words are not to be questioned. But Dean may go beyond the TB model, in that more people are included. The TB is more of a fanatic and fewer in number—- I sure hope.

I agree of course, if is never the “god” that articulates something, but the loyal “followers, who conveniently are in a position of considerable political power. Apart from some personal “comfort” afforded adherents, religion has always been IMO a mechanism or rationalizing social or political power, in the Mideast as well as in the west.

Dennis

T.’s last post re in effect hearing voices, as in “god talked to me,” reminded me of what was often seen in a medium security prison in Wisconsin where I worked as a senior clinical staff.  Now keep in mind that prisons do not provide a lot of choices or control to inmates, so it is a frequent observation that inmates would come up with sorts of ploys to accomplish what they’d otherwise be denied. 

This prison, as all of the others in Wisconsin, had a psychiatrist whose job it was to prescribe psychotropic medications to address some sets of symptoms.  A very popular man, easily influenced, and medications are a quite valuable commodity for bartering activities among the inmates.  Almost all of them there knew that “I hear voices” resulted in a medication prescription, and these men were most passionate and sincere in their expressions of voice hearing.  So some of us began to respond to their claims with the following:

“Oh, that sounds very serious.  Now, just to be sure we’re dealing with something grave here that will need medication treatment, so we have to ask you some questions.  Is that OK?”  Once assured by the inmate that it was fine by them, we’d note that: “we’ve found that when voices come from the right side of your head (or left side, up, or down, front or back), they’re pretty serious.  But if they come from the left side, all you need do is take an aspirin and get a good night’s sleep and they’ll go away.”  90% of the voice hearing inmates promptly affirmed the voices came from the right side.  We would sometimes vary the questions, asking about as well male or female voices, young or old, etc.  In almost every case the expression of hearing voices, or having some internal communication with a spirit, would be readily modifiable by our questions.  These questions had zero basis in research, but these men did not know that.

Point here is that in these cases, hearing voices or reporting some internal communication with some spirit or other, represented what is called “instrumental behavior,” or behavior expressed to elicit some desirable outcome, in this case drugs, and it could readily be changed by our leading questions.  Sometimes called “lying,” but “instrumental behavior” is more descriptive.  I‘ve no idea what these men “thought,” but it was fascinating how it could be changed.

As an aside, if they reported “hearing voices” did not change in response to our questions, it was far more likely to represent “classical behavior” and not lying or inferentially designated as “con game.” 

My suspicion is that when people speak readily of having some personal communication with god, I always ask myself what if anything they’re trying to either avoid or access not otherwise avoidable or accessible.  And if they speak freely of such “voices” without any observable distress and they vary their account depending on what happens after they say so, I smell a rat.

Dennis

Dennis Campbell - 17 March 2010 11:31 AM

If god, allah, hey-zeus or Yahweh talk back to you, you are delusional.

You are slipping, Dennis. Soon eudemonia, SkepticX and GGD will have you snared in their clutches. If you go this route, no beer for you.  You’ve already admitted that you cannot prove that God does not exist.  If he does, and he decides to communicate with someone, you are in no position to prove that the communication did not happen, unless it involves some behavior that can be determined to be problematic. Watch out - you are on a slippery slope, and the trinity of evil awaits.

Ecurb Noselrub - 17 March 2010 06:31 PM

Dennis Campbell - 17 March 2010 11:31 AM

If god, allah, hey-zeus or Yahweh talk back to you, you are delusional.

You are slipping, Dennis. Soon eudemonia, SkepticX and GGD will have you snared in their clutches. If you go this route, no beer for you.  You’ve already admitted that you cannot prove that God does not exist.  If he does, and he decides to communicate with someone, you are in no position to prove that the communication did not happen, unless it involves some behavior that can be determined to be problematic. Watch out - you are on a slippery slope, and the trinity of evil awaits.

Somehow, I’m not all concerned.  Respect GAD, GGD and Sx but as stated in new thread is more detail in the Psychology section cannot agree to support what seems to me a useless argument.  Not wrong, useless.  Do not try clever logic games, I’m too stupid to bite your bait.  One advantage of being a dull person, right?

Dennis