How does one distinguish a 'belief' from a delusion?

[razzelflabben]

Have you been to Hindu or Bhuddist funerals to tell the difference? What are you comparing to?

I've already explained that OF COURSE people WHO BELIEVE in certain reality will react to death differently, BASED ON CERTAIN BELIEF ABOUT DEATH. Of itself, that reaction says nothing about WHETHER SUCH BELIEF IS TRUE OR NOT.

not Hindu or Buddhist unfortunately but Atheist, Agnostics, christian, believers, some of the fringe "christian" groups, like Jehovah witness and Amish....is that enough for a sample? All of these vs. the believer (who believes in relationship)

 

[devolved]

not Hindu or Buddhist unfortunately but Atheist, Agnostics, christian, believers, some of the fringe "christian" groups, like Jehovah witness and Amish....is that enough for a sample? All of these vs. the believer (who believes in relationship)

No, not really... because you are not differentiating between the groups that believe in some afterlife, and those that don't.

My hypothesis would be that the belief in (some form of) afterlife is the common denominator, and not the relationship with a Christian God.

Likewise, there are plenty of cultures that have a lot more mature view of death IMO as inevitability, and they celebrate life instead of mourning death.

Here's an example how some cultures handle death:

Christian funerals that I've been to would be exceedingly morbid in comparison.

 

[devolved]

I am saying that I believe the thread was created, I also believe the boards were created. How can I know if my belief is real or delusion except to test it....you know, like the OP question asks. Apply the OP question as asked to the belief that the thread was created and tell me how to know if it is real or delusion. No harder a question than the OP question, in fact, it is the same question just reworded.

1) You evaluate the mechanism of the board. You can create and post threads, and see that the entire functionality of the board is geared towards creating the threads... i.e. there seems to be not many other alternative for what you read to be injected into the system other than through "creating a thread".

You can verify the database record and compare it to the other like records to see if there's any unusual difference (given that owners will grant you access).


2) You can also see that the board in itself is a piece of software that runs on the server. We have examples of software being written, and this board actually carries a signature at the bottom of the thread with a link to the creator's site:

Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2016 XenForo Ltd.

You can buy a copy of that software and then compare it to the one that's used and see what the functionality is and if it indeed the same.

3) You can then cross-examine the people who claimed to create the software. The software is generally protected by patents and copyright laws, and the creators usually patent or copyright anything substantial. You can check the records of that.

4) You can then evaluate the alternative explanations, of which there wouldn't be many viable ones.

5) Based on the above, you can perform the above research and describe the above methodology along with facts and references. You can then submit your findings for independent review and perform a double-blind study to make sure that your biases didn't skew the results and that the results are repeatable.

There's a number of ways in which you can increase the certainty of your hypothesis or a belief system in a testable manner that has proven to be reliable in the past. It's not "all or nothing" set up either. The more of these you perform, the more certainty you'd have in confirming or ruling out whether your belief is true or not.

In most instances where certain factors are known... the above isn't necessary at all. You can merely rely on known factors, just like you do with every other belief in your life. But, if you have doubts, you can readily test these as thoroughly as you want to confirm that the belief is true.

I think the key is that you are not merely relying on your own confirmation or negation mechanisms, but also drawing and comparing the criticism to see if it's valid and if you do have some holes in your methodology. That's why criticism is important.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...The soul is composed of mind, emotions, will, talents, love and hate -- all things that are not physical.

So how would you account for the fact that specific damage to, or electrical stimulation of, specific parts of the brain can change your mind, your emotions, your opinions, and your very sense of self, in equally specific ways, and also trigger specific memories?

When the brain is anaesthetized, the mind, consciousness, and memory go away and only return when the brain becomes active again. If the soul was an independent repository of mind, wouldn't you expect consciousness to continue while the brain is inactive, so you wouldn't actually lose consciousness?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm beginning to think that you all aren't thinkers enough to have a good discussion with...not said as an insult just saying that I am harder on my views than you all are, but I don't have to reinvent what I say in order to make an argument against them...I wanted challenge, the only challenge I found was the challenge to get you all to not reinvent what I said. There were a couple of good discussion moments, but they were short and very pale compared to the criticisms I present to myself...which is painfully disappointing....

You might want to look up the Dunning Kruger Effect, because I think the non-theists on these boards might believe you're suffering from it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's a belief I have that this thread was created, but how can we know if that belief is delusion or not? as per the OP question. Notice we are talking about this thread and these boards, not creation/evolution in this experiment to see if any of you know how to discuss things. Call it a social experiment

Let's see; we already know that this forum provides a facility for members to create a new thread, we already know there are forum members, and when we see the thread title and the original post attributed to a forum member, we can infer that it's overwhelmingly likely that the named forum member used the provided facility to create this thread and make the first post. Simples

 

[Chriliman]

that last post inspired me to try it one last time and see if anyone on here really knows how to have a discussion....one of the common beliefs that people have is that of creation verses evolution. Without talking about which is more or less "scientific" let's talk about how we could test to know if something, anything at all is created.

For example, in the above post, I assumed this thread was created, how could I test that assumption to know if it is true or delusion? Any takers? It's a belief I have that this thread was created, but how can we know if that belief is delusion or not? as per the OP question. Notice we are talking about this thread and these boards, not creation/evolution in this experiment to see if any of you know how to discuss things. Call it a social experiment

For starters, from my subjective perspective, it is clear that this thread came into existence from some other source. So I at least know it exists because I can clearly see it. Secondly, the thread is conveying information to me that I can understand and I know based on my limited experience as a human being that anything that conveys information has to have an intelligent source behind it. IOW, information itself is not intrinsically intelligent and therefore cannot logically convey itself, it must be understood and conveyed by intelligence.

Based on this analysis, I can confidently conclude that this thread was created by an intelligent mind, but for what purpose? I don't really know, it would require the intelligent mind to reveal the true purpose. I assume SteveB28 created this thread for the purpose of honest understanding and not because he has some secret plan to show all religionists and/or theists are wrong in everything they say.

How'd I do?

 

[razzelflabben]

No, not really... because you are not differentiating between the groups that believe in some afterlife, and those that don't.

hum...so atheists believe in an afterlife like the christians do???? Interesting, I never knew that...pretty cool..what does that afterlife look like for an atheist? For a non believer in general?

My hypothesis would be that the belief in (some form of) afterlife is the common denominator, and not the relationship with a Christian God.

well, since the measurable peace we are talking about doesn't follow your hypothesis I would have to disagree based on the evidence we are able to collect, but at the moment I am more interested in you claims about atheists and afterlife. I mean most of the atheists I have talked with about afterlife all seem to think there is nothing, we just die and that is all there is...now you are telling me that isn't true, that atheists believe in an afterlife...please show some evidence to back your claim...thanks.

Likewise, there are plenty of cultures that have a lot more mature view of death IMO as inevitability, and they celebrate life instead of mourning death.

Here's an example how some cultures handle death:

Christian funerals that I've been to would be exceedingly morbid in comparison.

we have a friend who is from Swaziland she was talking to us a lot about death and funerals and the difference culturally. But we aren't talking about cultural differences, now are we? In fact, even Haitians have a very difference cultural mourning and one of my best friends of all time is Haitian. In fact, his father was a voodoo witchdoctor until he came to Christ, which gave him a lot of experience with comparing not only cultural differences when he was here in the states, but the difference Christ and religion both have on the same culture. Do you want me to ask him if he will talk to you about the things I am telling you? Like I said, I don't take these things lightly. I am in fact, my own worst critic when it comes to finding truth.

 

[devolved]

hum...so atheists believe in an afterlife like the christians do???? Interesting, I never knew that...pretty cool..what does that afterlife look like for an atheist? For a non believer in general?

I'm talking about various groups that believe in the afterlife... not just Christians. You realize that it's not an exclusively Christian claim, right?

well, since the measurable peace we are talking about doesn't follow your hypothesis I would have to disagree based on the evidence we are able to collect, but at the moment I am more interested in you claims about atheists and afterlife. I mean most of the atheists I have talked with about afterlife all seem to think there is nothing, we just die and that is all there is...now you are telling me that isn't true, that atheists believe in an afterlife...please show some evidence to back your claim...thanks.

1) In which way would the "measurable peace" you are talking about doesn't agree with it?

2) You misunderstood what I was saying about various groups and afterlife. You seem to only compare Christians and atheists. Likewise, the term "atheist" is not a uniform term. It's a term that doesn't say anything specific about what people believe other than that they don't believe in deities.

There are atheists who believe in afterlife. For example, Buddhism is an atheistic religion that holds some form of afterlife. There are atheists who hold to new age ideas, and so on and so on.

You seem to have a very narrow view of atheism. Not all atheists ascribe to methodological naturalism.

we have a friend who is from Swaziland she was talking to us a lot about death and funerals and the difference culturally. But we aren't talking about cultural differences, now are we? In fact, even Haitians have a very difference cultural mourning and one of my best friends of all time is Haitian. In fact, his father was a voodoo witchdoctor until he came to Christ, which gave him a lot of experience with comparing not only cultural differences when he was here in the states, but the difference Christ and religion both have on the same culture. Do you want me to ask him if he will talk to you about the things I am telling you? Like I said, I don't take these things lightly. I am in fact, my own worst critic when it comes to finding truth.

I'm merely addressing your claim that the common element between how people would react to death and loss is "relationship with God" or lack of it. I've shown you that there are other common factors and elements that do come to play and can potentially explain it better.

You dismiss these based on some vague "measurable factors" that you don't really unpack or differentiate.

 

[razzelflabben]

1) You evaluate the mechanism of the board. You can create and post threads, and see that the entire functionality of the board is geared towards creating the threads... i.e. there seems to be not many other alternative for what you read to be injected into the system other than through "creating a thread".

not so, it could have just evolved, it could just have spontaneously appeared. What makes you sure the belief that the thread and boards were created is truth and not delusion? You aren't answering the question. Remember, I get to play the game as if I were you all this time around.

Oh and don't forget you didn't tell us the mechanism you would use in your approach to the topic. That was a huge issue here...

You can verify the database record and compare it to the other like records to see if there's any unusual difference (given that owners will grant you access).

by what process would we do that and how would that tell us that they didn't evolve or just spontaneously appear...see, you aren't answering the question.

I'll work on the reinvention of your arguments as we go, it's a skill I still need to learn.

2) You can also see that the board in itself is a piece of software that runs on the server. We have examples of software being written, and this board actually carries a signature at the bottom of the thread with a link to the creator's site:

Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2016 XenForo Ltd.

You can buy a copy of that software and then compare it to the one that's used and see what the functionality is and if it indeed the same.

how would we verify or falsify the test? You didn't give us any thing to compare, you just said, compare....what are we to compare? Anyone could make up something that sounded right, right? That was one of the arguments you tried to make when I said that we would measure the things we were looking for. Here, you say compare but we have nothing so far that would be falsifiable nor do we know what the comparison would tell us or how to compare....come on, put your back into this and show me how to discuss the topic fairly and openly with maturity rather than reinvention and non sense...so far you are failing miserably. So far you have given nothing nearly as refined as I gave you.

3) You can then cross-examine the people who claimed to create the software. The software is generally protected by patents and copyright laws, and the creators usually patent or copyright anything substantial. You can check the records of that.

whoooooo nelly, you told me that asking questions was not a valid way of testing....sorry, no dice. when will you all show me how this is suppose to be done...you know, shame me for speaking truth instead of challenging me on what I said? Oh and for the record, the yous in this post are all you all yous.

4) You can then evaluate the alternative explanations, of which there wouldn't be many viable ones.

how would we evaluate whether or not the thread and boards just evolved or spontaneously appeared? You see, your problem is that you are just assuming the thread and boards were created, you can't do that, remember. You have to assume they don't but pretend you are assuming they might and then work backwards from there...nothing you say here is based on a logical well thought out method of determining whether or not the thread is created, why not? Why don't you do what you claimed I wasn't and show me how to do it?

5) Based on the above, you can perform the above research and describe the above methodology along with facts and references. You can then submit your findings for independent review and perform a double-blind study to make sure that your biases didn't skew the results and that the results are repeatable.

Hum, so you submit for independent review that I believe that the thread was created...lol..I don't know a single person that would take you seriously because you are suppose to be testing the belief, not the thread....how did you miss this...your trying to argue a thing when we are arguing a belief....how dishonest of you...this will not fly cause you are testing a thing, who would we submit a belief to?

There's a number of ways in which you can increase the certainty of your hypothesis or a belief system in a testable manner that has proven to be reliable in the past. It's not "all or nothing" set up either. The more of these you perform, the more certainty you'd have in confirming or ruling out whether your belief is true or not.

so, here is the argument you all made when I said this, so here I will give it back to you....so, you are going to test every thread and every site and every person that uses them...wow, okay, present the evidence.

In most instances where certain factors are known... the above isn't necessary at all. You can merely rely on known factors, just like you do with every other belief in your life. But, if you have doubts, you can readily test these as thoroughly as you want to confirm that the belief is true.

but you haven't given us anything to test, why not? Why do you boast of knowing something you don't? Seriously, this isn't just a game, I am asking you to show me what you claim I didn't do and all you do is give me dribble that I either said and you ignored or dribble that does not apply to the claim being tested. Put your money where your mouth is and show me what I am missing and don't just say, "I did" cause I showed you you didn't...how fun is this?

I think the key is that you are not merely relying on your own confirmation or negation mechanisms, but also drawing and comparing the criticism to see if it's valid and if you do have some holes in your methodology. That's why criticism is important.

No one, especially me is upset about criticism, in fact, I thrive on it, but what I don't thrive on is misrepresentations of what I said, then false accusations based on those misrepresentations.

 

[razzelflabben]

You might want to look up the Dunning Kruger Effect, because I think the non-theists on these boards might believe you're suffering from it.

you mean like some posters here have confessed to doing to me? Interesting, you accuse me when some of you all confess to doing it to me....can you say projection...

 

[razzelflabben]

Let's see; we already know that this forum provides a facility for members to create a new thread, we already know there are forum members, and when we see the thread title and the original post attributed to a forum member, we can infer that it's overwhelmingly likely that the named forum member used the provided facility to create this thread and make the first post. Simples

no, no, no, I was told that observation and questioning are not valid mechanisms...come on put some effort in...

 

[razzelflabben]

For starters, from my subjective perspective, it is clear that this thread came into existence from some other source. So I at least know it exists because I can clearly see it. Secondly, the thread is conveying information to me that I can understand and I know based on my limited experience as a human being that anything that conveys information has to have an intelligent source behind it. IOW, information itself is not intrinsically intelligent and therefore cannot logically convey itself, it must be understood and conveyed by intelligence.

Based on this analysis, I can confidently conclude that this thread was created by an intelligent mind, but for what purpose? I don't really know, it would require the intelligent mind to reveal the true purpose. I assume SteveB28 created this thread for the purpose of honest understanding and not because he has some secret plan to show all religionists and/or theists are wrong in everything they say.

How'd I do?

all things the believer can claim and would be mocked for as having a "blind faith" you have to do better than that...

 

[devolved]

not so, it could have just evolved, it could just have spontaneously appeared. What makes you sure the belief that the thread and boards were created is truth and not delusion? You aren't answering the question. Remember, I get to play the game as if I were you all this time around.

Oh and don't forget you didn't tell us the mechanism you would use in your approach to the topic. That was a huge issue here...

Do you really believe that it could have just evolved? If you really do, then we can carry on this conversation further.

 

[devolved]

all things the believer can claim and would be mocked for as having a "blind faith" you have to do better than that...

Do you really think that "God exists and is responsible for creating the universe" and "This thread and forum was created" are anywhere near the same type of claims that carry the same type of evidence?

I would actually approach a New Agers and Bhuddists, who are atheists with the same criticisms that I apply to your claims. I'm not playing favorites here.

You are not thinking this through.

 

[Ronald]

Why would we need the endocrine system for? You realize that emotional states could be induced simply by injecting adequate hormones, right? Are hormones a part of the soul too?

Chemicals, drugs, hormones, sugar, minerals or the lack of, vitamins, water or the lack, coffee, etc., stimulate us, energize us or deplete us and yes they effect are physical bodies. But what I'm talking about are the initial emotions or love, hate or fear and thoughts as well, begin in the heart and soul of man and THEN are manifest in our physical bodies.
Example: If you see something that effects you emotionally, your mind first has to process this information. It may take a split second, then it sends these messages/impulses through your body, via neuro-transmitters and such. You might start shaking or go into shock or react with a reflex or shout out in anger or cry. Nevertheless, you mind first processes that info.
If you have an inkling that there is life after death, you must realize that everything that makes us who we are goes with us. This is what the Bible means when it says, God made us in His image. That's not physical, it is invisible. What is His image composed of? Mind, Emotions, Will and Spirit.

 

[devolved]

Example: If you see something that effects you emotionally, your mind first has to process this information. It may take a split second, then it sends these messages/impulses through your body, via neuro-transmitters and such. You might start shaking or go into shock or react with a reflex or shout out in anger or cry. Nevertheless, you mind first processes that info.
If you have an inkling that there is life after death, you must realize that everything that makes us who we are goes with us. This is what the Bible means when it says, God made us in His image. That's not physical, it is invisible. What is His image composed of? Mind, Emotions, Will and Spirit.

So, you claim that a mind and can exist apart from the body (if not, then clarify how can you know the difference)? What would be the evidence of that?

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm talking about various groups that believe in the afterlife... not just Christians. You realize that it's not an exclusively Christian claim, right?

hum...so you don't know anything about voodoo beliefs...http://jamesduvalier.com/history-beliefs-traditions-voodoo-part-haitian-vodou/
In addition, I personally haven't witnessed by my husband has and will testify to what he saw and it is the same as what I am saying...he grew up in Nigeria where the contrast was believers verses Muslims...same phenomena....it's interesting how you make claims you can't back up isn't it?

1) In which way would the "measurable peace" you are talking about doesn't agree with it?

we had a long discussion about this previously I think you have the ability to figure out what I am saying, I'm not that bad at communication no matter what you might want to accuse me of.

2) You misunderstood what I was saying about various groups and afterlife. You seem to only compare Christians and atheists. Likewise, the term "atheist" is not a uniform term. It's a term that doesn't say anything specific about what people believe other than that they don't believe in deities.

and yet I specified other groups as well...interesting how you didn't read those words, how is that reading for comprehension?

There are atheists who believe in afterlife. For example, Buddhism is an atheistic religion that holds some form of afterlife. There are atheists who hold to new age ideas, and so on and so on.

not what you were asked, you were asked for a wide spread belief, not, oh some do and some don't...

You seem to have a very narrow view of atheism. Not all atheists ascribe to methodological naturalism.

no, I am saying that atheism as a belief system does not include an afterlife in their belief system

I'm merely addressing your claim that the common element between how people would react to death and loss is "relationship with God" or lack of it. I've shown you that there are other common factors and elements that do come to play and can potentially explain it better.

but remember we are looking for common denominator, not can I take and individual and explain something away....oh wait, was that one of the things I said that you didn't read or one that you reinvented? I can't keep track any more.

You dismiss these based on some vague "measurable factors" that you don't really unpack or differentiate.

actually this is a false accusation but since that is all this thread seems to be when it comes to things of religious nature, I'm not surprised....you see, I did put forth several things that were measurable and how we would measure. I even gave a checklist for Love which was one of the things we include in that testing for the claims God makes as evidence of Him according to scripture. What did you do with it? Oh, you threw it out because you thought it would be easier to make a claim against a peace that is far beyond our circumstances, right? Lol, you try too hard.

 

[razzelflabben]

Do you really believe that it could have just evolved? If you really do, then we can carry on this conversation further.

it doesn't matter what I believe as per the OP question and the discussion at hand...so carry on.

 

[Ronald]

So how would you account for the fact that specific damage to, or electrical stimulation of, specific parts of the brain can change your mind, your emotions, your opinions, and your very sense of self, in equally specific ways, and also trigger specific memories?

I had a special friend who had cerebral palsy. Damage was done to his brain, causing physical inability to control his body normally. If was difficult to understand his speech -- but he was brilliant, wise and an elder in the church. He had his Masters Degree from Pepperdine U and wrote book.
That said, the mind and brain are intricately integrated. I won't go into how integrate it is because it is beyond my conception or ability to grasp. With a quadrillion connections, the brain is complex to say the least.

Guess what though, God doesn't have a brain. He has a mind, because He is Spirit - invisible. When He emptied himself into a human vessel, Jesus, of course Jesus had a brain. When Jesus died, he said to the man next to him, "Today you will be in Paradise ... without a brain btw.
If you don't believe in God, of course this may sound ridiculous and so there is not much else I can tell you. But one thing, a retarded person, though he is not up to speed as the rest of us, if he receives the Lord as his Savior, when we meet him in heaven, he won't be retarded. Remember that movie, Awakened with Robin Williams and Robert Dinero? He was in this catatonic state with little to no response, yet there was a person inside who came alive for awhile. It was the drug that opened the door and allowed his mind to control his body, but eventually the door closed.

When the brain is anaesthetized, the mind, consciousness, and memory go away and only return when the brain becomes active again. If the soul was an independent repository of mind, wouldn't you expect consciousness to continue while the brain is inactive, so you wouldn't actually lose consciousness?

Right, they found a way to shut the door, stop the person's ability to function, disconnect the mind from the brain if you will.