Which of us is deluded?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Well, I did sneak in one test question in the form of a statement. How it's interpreted is mostly dependent on the particular delusion subscribed to:

I might read 'The God Delusion' some day, because it would be interesting to see some examples of delusional thinking.

Yes, I did notice that (and noted the possible meanings). I am not sure what you are testing though.

Do you expect to be able to accurately determine which is the delusional thinking in the book? If so, what is your method?

Originally posted by RJHinds
My answer is A, however, I believe the intelligent designer is the God described in the Holy Bible and not from Vedas from India.

So are you suggesting there are 2 Gods?......................and the animal slaughtering and meat eating God of the Bible is the true God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The trouble with "Reason" is that it has to work with some premises, assumption, or first principles: one tends to Reason from one thing to another, not from nothing. So the conclusions you arrive at will have a lot to do with where you start from and with what constraints.
I agree. But do you have a better solution than reason? And can reason also n ...[text shortened]... and see if they stand up to scrutiny, or do you have some other method of resolving the dilemma?[/b]

The trouble with "Reason" is that it has to work with some premises, assumption, or first principles: one tends to Reason from one thing to another, not from nothing. So the conclusions you arrive at will have a lot to do with where you start from and with what constraints.
I agree. But do you have a better solution than reason? And can reason also not question assumptions?

Firstly, it is a historical fact that the history of "Reason" is embedded in the history of religion. Plato used Reason as a way to overcome or escape the transience of life to which Heraclitus had pointed: the realm of Forms was an eternal / timeless realm in which Truth could reside. That is why Christianity has been called "Plato for the masses." People like Avicenna (Muslim), Maimonides (Jew), Anselm (Christian) and many others developed the principles and practice of Reason to which we are heirs. The high tide mark of dependence on Reason was possibly in the work of Kant. (The Catholic Church continues to rely on a version of so called Thomism - a development of Aquinas' work.)

Science today does not rely on Reason. It relies on the scientific method, which includes but is not restricted to Empiricism - in practice, that means experiment and observation, but also theory formulation and speculation and the discovery of laws, on scientific education and the transmission of both knowledge and also methodologies. techniques and skills. Quite how this works out is a topic for long debate but it is simply not the case that science can be distinguished from religion by the use of Reason. It is religion, not science, where Reason plays the dominant role, as exemplified for example in the fascinating and untiring investment in so called biblical exegesis.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you do not have a method. (As you simply assert that you are the one that is not deluded.)

Are you blind Sir...............

There are only 2 options to determine who is deluded.

So are you a believer in an accidental random world or an intelligently designed world?

There is only 1 honest and intelligent answer..............isn't there?

Originally posted by Dasa
Are you blind Sir...............

There are only 2 options to determine who is deluded.

So are you a believer in an accidental random world or an intelligently designed world?

There is only 1 honest and intelligent answer..............isn't there?

Maybe you are blind, since I patently demonstrated that there are not only two options.

Originally posted by finnegan
You present a false dichotomy. The alternative to intelligent design is not the absurd notion that the universe and its history are a product of totally random, accidental events. The entire point of modern scientific cosmology is its ability to supply a detailed and comprehensive account of the universe and its history with reference to intelligible phys ...[text shortened]... le, nothing random in the way gravity accounts for the procession of the planets around the sun.

Are you a fool Sir.................................?

Are not the laws of nature and the perfections of life not intelligent?

There is only 1 honest intelligent answer Sir.

Originally posted by finnegan
Maybe you are blind, since I patently demonstrated that there are not only two options.

An honest man shall bring the question in mind to only 2 plausible causes.

Which cause to you back A. or B.

The answer is not difficult for the honest person..

Originally posted by Dasa
Are you a fool Sir.................................?

Are not the laws of nature and the perfections of life not intelligent?

There is only 1 honest intelligent answer Sir.

Are not the laws of nature and the perfections of life not intelligent?

Of course they are and unravelling the mysteries of the natural world makes science the most fascinating possible activity - far more exciting and more enlightening that the insufferable introversions of religious dogma.

But you are the fool in your insistence that this demonstrates the necessity of an intelligent designer. You leap from the marvels of the natural universe in all its mysteries and put in their place the insipid dogmas of religious bigotry.

Originally posted by Dasa
An honest man shall bring the question in mind to only 2 plausible causes.

Which cause to you back A. or B.

The answer is not difficult for the honest person..

A dishonest man seeks to trick the unwary into accepting a false dichotomy. That is a rhetorical device intended to confuse and manipulate and not worthy of anyone claiming to seek let alone teach the truth.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I did notice that (and noted the possible meanings). I am not sure what you are testing though.

Do you expect to be able to accurately determine which is the delusional thinking in the book? If so, what is your method?

Yes, I did notice that (and noted the possible meanings)

The problem with my test is that I am the one who wrote it, so it's not actually a valid test. It can't accurately test for bias unless it's not known who the tester is... and unfortunately there was no way for me to introduce that particular test control into the statement.

Originally posted by finnegan
Are not the laws of nature and the perfections of life not intelligent?

Of course they are and unravelling the mysteries of the natural world makes science the most fascinating possible activity - far more exciting and more enlightening that the insufferable introversions of religious dogma.

But you are the fool in your insistence that this demonstra ...[text shortened]... al universe in all its mysteries and put in their place the insipid dogmas of religious bigotry.

Sir.............are you referring to the Bible when you complain.(rightly so)

You clearly have not read one word of true spirituality found in the Vedas (have you)

True religion has no comparison to false religion..............and you have been contaminated by false religion haven't you?

Tell me wise man............................what is the difference between true religion and false religion.

You have no idea do you?

Originally posted by finnegan
A dishonest man seeks to trick the unwary into accepting a false dichotomy. That is a rhetorical device intended to confuse and manipulate and not worthy of anyone claiming to seek let alone teach the truth.

With respect......Please stop rambling and pick A. or B or else do not try and avoid the question by throwing a smoke screen up (by way of the ramblings.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I did notice that (and noted the possible meanings). I am not sure what you are testing though.

Do you expect to be able to accurately determine which is the delusional thinking in the book? If so, what is your method?

Do you expect to be able to accurately determine which is the delusional thinking in the book? If so, what is your method?

My method is to start by recognizing the meaning of the word 'delusion', and then see how it is being used. Delusions and delusional thinking is usually indicative of mental illness.

The next step is to recognize the underlying meaning behind the premise of a "God delusion".

The third step is to not waste my time bothering to read about how the author thinks I'm mentally ill.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Delusions and delusional thinking is usually indicative of mental illness.

I don't think this is true at all. The word "usually" certainly makes your assertion incorrect. A "delusion" is a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea or belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary ~ and it can be used both subjectively and objectively. While perhaps sometimes delusions might be connected to a mental health issue, the claim that delusions are "usually indicative of mental illness" cannot be substantiated and I suspect you know this but merely wanted to set up your final line: The third step is to not waste my time bothering to read about how the author thinks I'm suffering from a mental illness which sounds like a in-fact-I'm-not-going-to-read-the-book cop out.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't think this is true at all. The word "usually" certainly makes your assertion incorrect. A "delusion" is a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea or belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary ~ and it can be used both subjectively and objectively. While perhaps sometimes delusions might be connected to a mental health issue, the claim tha ...[text shortened]... ng from a mental illness which sounds like a in-fact-I'm-not-going-to-read-the-book cop out.[/b]

I know who the author is, and I'm familiar with his work.