Originally posted by lemon limeAnd yet, having declared "I might read 'The God Delusion' some day" then, two posts later you say you're "not going waste [your] time bothering to read" it.
I know who the author is, and I'm familiar with his work.
I think knowingly mis-defining terms ~ in this case the word "delusion" ~ along with things like confirmation bias and ruling out exposing one's ideas to material that contradicts them, is not a good way to go about genuine inquiry.
02 May 15
Originally posted by FMFIf you think I can be blustered into reading a book devoted to explaining a delusional belief in God then you are delusional.
And yet, having declared "I might read 'The God Delusion' some day" then, two posts later you say you're "not going waste [your] time bothering to read" it.
I think knowingly mis-defining terms ~ in this case the word "delusion" ~ along with things like confirmation bias and ruling out exposing one's ideas to material that contradicts them, is not a good way to go about genuine inquiry.
Originally posted by lemon limeIn the OP, twhitehead says: "Is there a reliable way to test your own beliefs and identify whether or not it is your and not the other guy that is deluded?" My point is that you using a patently incorrect definition of the word "delusion", in order to justify not reading material that might challenge your beliefs, certainly cannot be framed as being "a reliable way to test your own beliefs".
If you think I can be blustered into reading a book devoted to explaining a delusional belief in God then you are delusional.
02 May 15
Originally posted by FMFDawkins defines delusion as "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence."
In the OP, twhitehead says: [b]"Is there a reliable way to test your own beliefs and identify whether or not it is your and not the other guy that is deluded?" My point is that you using a patently incorrect definition of the word "delusion", in order to justify not reading material that might challenge your beliefs, certainly cannot be framed as being "a reliable way to test your own beliefs".[/b]
Whenever Dawkins is confronted with strong contradictory evidence that flies in the face of what he believes he can always fall back on explaining how Christians are delusional.
Originally posted by lemon limeI'm interested in the challenge posed by twhitehead in his OP. He has had a go at answering his own question. For my part, I enjoy reading stuff that I am inclined to disagree with; I also like to engage people who have beliefs that are different from mine. What is your a reliable way to test your own beliefs?
Dawkins defines delusion as "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence."
Whenever Dawkins is confronted with strong contradictory evidence that flies in the face of what he believes he can always fall back on explaining how Christians are delusional.
Originally posted by lemon limeRight. But most often he relies on false evidence to support his own delusional belief. 😏
Dawkins defines delusion as "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence."
Whenever Dawkins is confronted with strong contradictory evidence that flies in the face of what he believes he can always fall back on explaining how Christians are delusional.
Did you ever see the following video with Dawkins BS answer?
Originally posted by lemon limeWhat is your reliable way of testing your own belief that the stuff [that is purportedly flying in the face of what Dawkins believes] is "strong contradictory evidence"?
Whenever Dawkins is confronted with strong contradictory evidence that flies in the face of what he believes he can always fall back on explaining how Christians are delusional.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI did point out two things that you may have missed:
Surely for questions like 'where do babies come from', or 'how high is Mt Everest above sea level' there are objective truths and discussion can lead to both parties eventually agreeing and also having a reasonably accurate answer?
1. There are some things in which the truth is easier to find out than in others, e.g. does the FSM exist?
2. Also, where two parties that differ on significant issues have an attitude of possibly learning from each other, rather than proving themselves RIGHT and the other WRONG, then such discussions can be eminently useful.
Also, issues that can be finally settled by reference to an external authority (e.g. the height of Mt E) are really a trivial subset of this discussion.
02 May 15
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI've brought up two examples of this at these boards... twice. And both times the response was the same. One was dismissed as irrelevant and other got no response at all....
What is your reliable way of testing your own belief that the stuff [that is purportedly flying in the face of what Dawkins believes] is "strong contradictory evidence"?
Nitrate levels left behind by the first living organisms (dismissed as irrelevant) and what the fossil record reveals about the Cambrian explosion (no response).
An abiogenesis event would have left behind high levels of nitrates, and it would have been the 'smoking gun' evidence irrefutably proving abiogenesis. But apparently when they didn't find these expected high concentrations of nitrates it was no longer regarded as evidence... because there was no evidence for them to regard. It doesn't matter though, because both times I've brought this up it was pointed out evolution has nothing to say about how life began, it's only a study of what happened after it began... or after it got here from somewhere else, like on a meteorite. Or when aliens visited and forgot to clean up after themselves. Or maybe it popped in from another dimension like a multiverse, or something like that.... It MUST have come from somewhere, it couldn't have just magically appeared out of thin air!
But the most revealing response I got was when I talked about the Cambrian explosion. Both times the response was zero. I can't comment on a response when there is no response, so apparently Dawkin was right... ignoring strong contradictory evidence can work to sustain a persistent belief.
02 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeWhich of Dawkins' books are you referring to?
But the most revealing response I got was when I talked about the Cambrian period. Both times the response was zero... zero response, nothing. I can't comment on a response when there is no response to comment on. So apparently Dawkings was right, ignoring contradicting evidence can work to sustain a persistent belief.
Originally posted by lemon limeSo your "reliable way of testing your own belief" in these two instances was to gauge how much interest there was in what you posted those two times on the Science Forum?
I've brought up two examples of this at these boards... twice. And both times the response was the same. One was dismissed as irrelevant and other got no response at all....[...]
But the most revealing response I got was when I talked about the Cambrian explosion. Both times the response was zero.
02 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeSo if I read you correctly, you are saying that you assume that anyone who insults you is incorrect? Or do you simply not bother to find out whether or not they are correct because of the insult?
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.
(I have to point out that the Author doesn't think you are mentally ill, and I am not convinced that you think he does.)
What is your opinion as to why my beliefs differ significantly from yours? Am I 'blinded by Satan'? Am I deluded? Am I a fool? Am I merely mistaken? How would you describe my situation?