Which of us is deluded?

Originally posted by Dasa
The only religion that is free from speculation is the (Sanatan Dharma spirituality) found in the eternal Vedas and expressed in Sanskrit.(the worlds only spiritual language.

So................those who get the question wrong are deluded.( its either A. or B.)

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

I tend to agree with finnegan here that Reason is not a good criteria to use when comparing one kind of belief with another.

Dasa and RJH are a case in point. Each says : My belief is based on the Bible/Veda scriptures, and hence it is clearly authoritative. That is their Reason.

And so will everybody claim who holds any kind of religious belief.

Not sure what your point is with this question, however.

Incidentally, the same applies to ANY belief that somebody may hold. Finnegan, for example, is a socialist (if my memory serves me correctly) and thus holds certain beliefs, which I am sure he can defend logically.

Somebody else (you maybe?) will hold other political views, which, in your opinion, are based on sound (to you!) reasoning.

The whole point of any debate is to try to point out that the OTHER guys Reasoning is flawed, and mine is correct.

Originally posted by CalJust
Dasa and RJH are a case in point. Each says : My belief is based on the Bible/Veda scriptures, and hence it is clearly authoritative. That is their Reason.

That is their reason, it is not however reason (the word has more than one meaning). It is an assumption.

I tend to agree with finnegan here that Reason is not a good criteria to use when comparing one kind of belief with another.

The whole point of any debate is to try to point out that the OTHER guys Reasoning is flawed, and mine is correct.
It seems to me those two statements are contradictory or am I misunderstanding something?

Not sure what your point is with this question, however.
The point is blatantly obvious. If two people hold different beliefs and hold that the other is mistaken, what if anything can they do about it. What do you do about it? Do you think there is no solution and thus assume that you are probably wrong (given that there are a wide variety of beliefs and the probability of yours being right by chance is very low)? Do you try to ensure that you are the right one?
Or do you ignore the problem and hope it doesn't matter?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If two people hold different beliefs and hold that the other is mistaken, what if anything can they do about it. What do you do about it? Do you think there is no solution and thus assume that you are probably wrong (given that there are a wide variety of beliefs and the probability of yours being right by chance is very low)? Do you try to ensure that you are the right one?
Or do you ignore the problem and hope it doesn't matter?

Quite a few questions here, I'll give it my best shot.

As you may know from previous conversations that we have had, my own pov of what constitutes Reality has changed several times during my life. So am I 100% sure TODAY that what I believe now is the Absolute Truth? No, I am not. I hope that I will still change and learn!

Does that bother me? No, it doesn't. I do think, however, that I have grown spiritually during that process.

Do I try to convince anybody else that they are wrong? No, I don't.

I believe that I have no right to tell you that YOUR beliefs, as an atheist, are wrong. I trust that you have arrived at your beliefs in a logical and systematic way, or by some miraculous insight, or learned it at Mother's knee, or whatever. And I will not challenge that. Good for you!

There are innumerable reasons (and yes, I do understand that the word has various meanings) why we believe what we believe, or rather how we know what we know. There is even a scientific discipline concerning just that, which name escapes me for the moment.

Live and let live...

Having said the above, I want to change gear and talk about debating per se. If I accept the other guy's pov, why ever debate an issue?

A debate is valid and called for if and when two parties AGREE to put their pov on the table and defend it, because the implied condition exists that I may be wrong and perhaps learn something from the other. That is Personal Growth.

However, to debate merely to cut the other person down, to ridicule his or her position, and to show that they are stupid, or insane, or worse, is not debate. That is merely abuse.

Originally posted by CalJust
I believe that I have no right to tell you that YOUR beliefs, as an atheist, are wrong.

I am not so focused in this thread on how to change another's beliefs or even if you should try to do so. What I am asking is how, when we recognise that someone else holds a belief different from our own, we determine which of us is correct.
Although I do appreciate your comments so far and found them interesting, I am not sure you have answered my key question. I could read your comments as saying that you do not try to determine who is correct and don't really care who is really correct - but I am not certain that is the correct deduction from what you have said.

Originally posted by CalJust
However, to debate merely to cut the other person down, to ridicule his or her position, and to show that they are stupid, or insane, or worse, is not debate. That is merely abuse.

I agree. And I don't even intend this thread to be a debate at all. I am just curious as to how people resolve this dilemma or if they try to resolve it at all, and whether or not they even recognise the dilemma.
I am quite concerned that most responders don't seem to even understand what I am asking. Am I failing to express myself properly, is it a particularly difficult concept or are they deliberately not understanding? Are people so deep into attack mode that they don't know what to do with a question that actually asks for their opinion?

Originally posted by twhitehead
What I am asking is how, when we recognise that someone else holds a belief different from our own, we determine which of us is correct.
I could read your comments as saying that you do not try to determine who is correct and don't really care who is really correct - but I am not certain that is the correct deduction from what you have said.

Well, what I am saying is what is "Correct"? Against what standard? Objective TRUTH?

Then maybe I find myself echoing the words of Pilate: "What is Truth?"

(Please, this is not an invitation to the Fundamentalist Clique to sprout their favourite phrase on Truth!)

We are all trying to establish what is "Correct". Alas, I don't think we will find it by discussion, if at all.

Having said that, we may approach Truth assymptotically. Some versions of spiritual experience are probably closer than say, the FSM.
But most spiritual seekers could spot another real seeker, even if their detailed "faiths" were different.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Occam's razor is a very important tool to try and distinguish possible truths from possible fantasies.

Occam's Razor has its own limitations, which I'm sure you're aware of.

Originally posted by CalJust
The whole point of any debate is to try to point out that the OTHER guys Reasoning is flawed, and mine is correct.

Where else do think this is going?

It just hasn't gotten there yet.

Originally posted by CalJust
Having said the above, I want to change gear and talk about debating per se. If I accept the other guy's pov, why ever debate an issue?

A debate is valid and called for if and when two parties AGREE to put their pov on the table and defend it, because the implied condition exists that I may be wrong and perhaps learn something from the other. That ...[text shortened]... ion, and to show that they are stupid, or insane, or worse, is not debate. That is merely abuse.

Correct, as has been pointed out before. To much derision, I might add.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am quite concerned that most responders don't seem to even understand what I am asking. Am I failing to express myself properly, is it a particularly difficult concept or are they deliberately not understanding? Are people so deep into attack mode that they don't know what to do with a question that actually asks for their opinion?

Too often, certain posters have a method of operation that compares to:

1. Ask a question seemingly innocently asking for opinions.

2. If the answer is in line with the question-asker's beliefs, thank them for their "forum contribution".

3. If the answer is a different opinion from the question-asker, then relentlessly attack the answerer across several threads, if necessary, with endless "follow-up" questions of a derogatory nature.

4. If the answerer doesn't wish to play this game with the question-asker, then accuse them of paranoia, inadequacy, issue abandonment, etc.

300 times bitten, 301 times shy.

Even you presume the answerer is in "attack mode" and not "defense mode". That may answer why you're not getting more answers.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK. So for you, there is no resolution to the dilemma.

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.

Originally posted by Dasa
To answer this question religion must not be mentioned because there are thousands of religions on earth and to answer the question using religion is to invite falsity.

The question is this ..........................Is this world and cosmos (A.) a product of intelligent design or is it ( B.) a ransom accident.

If the answer is A. then God exists and if ...[text shortened]... nguage.

So................those who get the question wrong are deluded.( its either A. or B.)

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 physical laws. There is, for one example, nothing random in the way gravity accounts for the procession of the planets around the sun.

Originally posted by CalJust
Well, what I am saying is what is "Correct"? Against what standard? Objective TRUTH?

Well presumably any kind of correctness would do as long as you believe that you are correct about something and the other person is incorrect. But I was mainly thinking along the lines of objective truth.

We are all trying to establish what is "Correct". Alas, I don't think we will find it by discussion, if at all.
So even if someone else is correct and you are not, you do not expect to be able to ascertain that from a discussion with him? Does this apply only to certain types of knowledge? 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?