03 May 15
Originally posted by CalJustI was brought up Christian and became atheist at about 13. Not through discussion with anyone else by via my own deduction. I also didn't personally know any atheists at the time nor did I have internet access as we do today so did not have access to the writings of atheists.
The key exceptions would be those that have actually changed their beliefs,
...but merely for the negative aspects of the system in which he found himself.
That was not the case for me. I changed my beliefs purely because Christianity appeared not to be the truth. (unless you count not being true is a 'negative aspect'.)
In fact, I would be very surprised if you could show that you yourself actually practiced, or applied, the steps that you have outlined.
Correct. I do not routinely presume that I am deluded nor test my possible delusions that often. I am merely outlining the procedure I occasionally take when I get the opportunity to discuss such things with people who have beliefs different from mine - which is mostly only in this forum. Even in this forum I usually presume that I am right and others are deluded and do not question the possibility that I am deluded.
However, my question remains a valid one. If two people meet and both think the other deluded, is there a method they can use to try and resolve which of them is deluded. Let us assume that both of them wish to arrive at the truth of the matter and are willing to consider the possibility that they are the deluded one.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOK, I will consider this question.
However, my question remains a valid one. If two people meet and both think the other deluded, is there a method they can use to try and resolve which of them is deluded. Let us assume that both of them wish to arrive at the truth of the matter and are willing to consider the possibility that they are the deluded one.
The first problem, however, is with your initial supposition that the purpose is to discover which of them is deluded, which presupposes that at least one of them is deluded (whatever it is that you understand by that term.) Maybe both of them are approaching truth from different sides?
If the purpose was to try to understand the other person, and there is goodwill on both sides (which, incidentally is almost NEVER the case in SF debates!) the chance of reaching some kind of understanding (even if it is to agree to disagree) is quite high.
In my own discussion with, for example, Buddhists, the approach has NEVER been to determine which of us is deluded. I have examined my son's position and learnt from his path, and I have deep appreciation for their basic principles. But I have never really felt a resonance in my spirit with the more detailed teachings, like their views on hell, Karma and reincarnation.
I don't believe that he is "deluded", nor does he think I am, although both of us recognize that we see the world differently.
So your basic premise is wrong. The purpose (imho) is not to point out the "delusion" in each other, but to promote understanding.
Having said all that, there still remains the issue of "delusionality" in those that proclaim a certain path, but don't travel it themselves. It is to these that Jesus adressed his harshest criticisms, as "whitewashed tombstones" and hypocrites. People like Smugface. For these there is little hope, and discussions on "delusion" are pearls before swine.
Originally posted by CalJustWell the word 'deluded' can cover a range of meaning. Lemon lime pretended he thought it meant specifically mentally ill. It can however merely mean believing something that isn't true.
But I have never really felt a resonance in my spirit with the more detailed teachings, like their views on hell, Karma and reincarnation.
I don't believe that he is "deluded", nor does he think I am, although both of us recognize that we see the world differently.
Now if someone believes that reincarnation is possible, that is either true or it is not true. If it is not true, then that person may be deluded. Although the word doesn't really mean the same thing as 'mistaken', so possibly one could be merely mistaken about reincarnation rather than deluded. I am not sure when which word is most appropriate.
But without using the word 'deluded', do you think your son could be wrong about reincarnation? By the phrase 'seeing the world differently' are you trying to maintain that you could both remain right despite having opposing views on the factuality of reincarnation?
03 May 15
Originally posted by CalJustYou are a hypocrite trying to appear tolerant of other peoples views. But I know that you are not. 😏
OK, I will consider this question.
The first problem, however, is with your initial supposition that the purpose is to discover which of them is deluded, which presupposes that at least one of them is deluded (whatever it is that you understand by that term.) Maybe both of them are approaching truth from different sides?
If the purpose was to ...[text shortened]... Smugface. For these there is little hope, and discussions on "delusion" are pearls before swine.
The Near Genius
03 May 15
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf something that would have been irrefutable (strong) evidence does not exist, can the absence of this evidence be regarded as strong contradictory evidence?
Well the word 'deluded' can cover a range of meaning. Lemon lime pretended he thought it meant specifically mentally ill. It can however merely mean believing something that isn't true.
Now if someone believes that reincarnation is possible, that is either true or it is not true. If it is not true, then that person may be deluded. Although the word doesn ...[text shortened]... at you could both remain right despite having opposing views on the factuality of reincarnation?
There was universal agreement an abiogenesis event would have left behind high levels of nitrates. It would have been irrefutable evidence of abiogenesis, and creationists would have been forced to agree with Christians who say God used evolution for creating life on earth. But this didn't happen because the evidence wasn't there.
Some people may argue that lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, but in this case it does. So the question of origins has mostly* been passed off to suggesting life originated somewhere else, and then came here to earth... it's also dealt with by saying evolution has nothing to do with origins.
* some of them didn't get the memo.
By the way, you stated in one of your messages (page 5) that I had said you are delusional. I suggested Dawkins might be deluded, and told FMF he's delusional if he thinks he can bluster me into reading a book that tells me I'm delusional, but I couldn't find where I had called you delusional. So unless you are FMF (or Dawkins) I must assume you were treating me to a joke of your own (without a smiley face next to it)...
If that was a joke, then yes, I have no sense of humour. Please include a smiley face next time.
(oh, and by the way, which one was the joke? the one where you called me delusional, or the one where you claimed Dawkins called you mentally ill?)
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
04 May 15
Originally posted by finneganAaaaah nice...................a man who is well mannered and polite is gifted.Tell me wise man............................what is the difference between true religion and false religion.Certainly, grasshopper.
[i]In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the highest and most mendacious minu ...[text shortened]... I disagree with a lot of this Nietzsche essay but this section is relevant and appropriate imho.
However............over intellectualizing can steer the boat off-coarse and away and away and awaaaaaaaay
04 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, not necessarily. It depends on the situation.
If something that would have been irrefutable (strong) evidence does not exist, can the absence of this evidence be regarded as strong contradictory evidence?
There was universal agreement an abiogenesis event would have left behind high levels of nitrates.
You already declined to discuss this. Either agree to discuss it and start a thread on it, or stop repeating it.
Some people may argue that lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, but in this case it does.
Then why are you so reluctant to actually discuss it?
So the question of origins has mostly* been passed off to suggesting life originated somewhere else, and then came here to earth...
That is not true. The vast majority of scientists studying abiogenesis still hold that it happened on Earth. Again, if you wish to discuss this please start a thread.
By the way, you stated in one of your messages (page 5) that I had said you are delusional. I suggested Dawkins might be deluded, and told FMF he's delusional if he thinks he can bluster me into reading a book that tells me I'm delusional, but I couldn't find where I had called you delusional.
You said:
The response (and lack of response) I received fits with Hawkins' definition of delusion:
Since I either responded or didn't, you called me delusional.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Is that supposed to be another joke or is it you not calling me insane? I don't see a smiley face.
04 May 15
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
No, not necessarily. It depends on the situation.
[b]There was universal agreement an abiogenesis event would have left behind high levels of nitrates.
You already declined to discuss this. Either agree to discuss it and start a thread on it, or stop repeating it.
Some people may argue that lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, but in thi ...[text shortened]... that supposed to be another joke or is it you not calling me insane? I don't see a smiley face.
The response (and lack of response) I received fits with Hawkins' definition of delusion:
Since I either responded or didn't, you called me delusional.
All I said was it fits with Hawkins' definition of delusion, I wasn't talking specifically about you. I was talking about the response (and lack of response) I received after twice posting on 1. abiogenesis and 2. the Cambrian explosion.
And I didn't say it happened at the Science Forum as FMF seems to think... I probably posted those messages here at this forum.
The only response I got from you at the time was on one of the abiogenesis posts. You said something to the effect that you hadn't heard of this before. Most people today haven't heard of this, because the golden grail of abiogenesis (high levels of nitrates) did not materialize... it wasn't there.
Not knowing about it doesn't mean you are delusional, it means you don't know about it. And if you didn't notice the Cambrian posts then so what? The same people ready to argue over anything else were conspicuously silent and chose not to respond to the Cambrian posts.
I basically compared the Cambrian period to the long stretch of time preceding it where nothing seemed to be happening with relatively simple life forms... and then BAM, many new complex and different creatures (a variety of new body types) showed up. It's regarded as the big bang of evolution, and can't come close to being explained by something like punctuated equilibrium...
Oh great, now I've just given a summary of both those posts, and now someone can claim i'm insane for bringing this up for the third time... so for the record, I am not expecting a different result. I do not expect anyone here changing their minds based on evidence contrary to what they believe.
04 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeAnyone care to answer this question?
If something that would have been irrefutable ([b]strong) evidence does not exist, can the absence of this evidence be regarded as strong contradictory evidence?
There was universal agreement an abiogenesis event would have left behind high levels of nitrates. It would have been irrefutable evidence of abiogenesis, and creationists wo ...[text shortened]...
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.[/b]
"If something that would have been irrefutable (strong) evidence does not exist, can the absence of this evidence be regarded as strong contradictory evidence?"
Saying "No, not necessarily. It depends on the situation." could be a way of challenging Dawkins definition of delusion without saying why he was wrong, as well as being an answer to my question.
04 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeBut you did include me, and that is the post I was responding to.
All I said was it fits with Hawkins' definition of delusion, I wasn't talking specifically about you.
Not knowing about it doesn't mean you are delusional,
Yet that is what you said. In reality, not knowing about it does not fit Dawkins' definition of delusional contrary to your claim.
And if you didn't notice the Cambrian posts then so what? The same people ready to argue over anything else were conspicuously silent and chose not to respond to the Cambrian posts.
And I am sure they have reasons other than the ones you are imagining.
I basically compared the Cambrian period to the long stretch of time preceding it where nothing seemed to be happening with relatively simple life forms... and then BAM, many new complex and different creatures (a variety of new body types) showed up. It's regarded as the big bang of evolution, and can't come close to being explained by something like punctuated equilibrium...
If you have a point (I can't see one) please start a thread and make it. I am more than willing to discuss it.
Oh great, now I've just given a summary of both those posts, and now someone can claim i'm insane for bringing this up for the third time... so for the record, I am not expecting a different result. I do not expect anyone here changing their minds based on evidence contrary to what they believe.
The thing is, it doesn't really constitute evidence contrary to what they believe.
Suppose I announce that some cows have brown hair. This clearly disproves the existence of God. And no, I won't be discussing why.
Are you going to change your beliefs given that I have just presented some evidence contrary to what you believe? Seriously, its indisputable evidence, I can even post pictures of brown cows.
04 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeI already answered it. It depends on the situation. In many cases, it clearly does not.
Anyone care to answer this question?
"If something that would have been irrefutable (strong) evidence does not exist, can the absence of this evidence be regarded as strong contradictory evidence?"
An example is sufficient to refute it:
A matching DNA test of a blood sample found on the murder weapon is strong evidence that accused was the murderer. The absence of said matching DNA evidence is not strong evidence that he is not the murderer.