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

[razzelflabben]

You don't get answers about fictitious characters.

why not? How do we know they are fictitious? See, some here are claiming God to be fictitious and others are claiming He is not...how then would we know truth if we don't even know how to test for the characters we do know are fictitious or not? Aren't the ones we know for sure like a base line of understanding? At least to the one who wants to know truth above all else.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

why not?

Fictitious characters don't have objective facts about them. There have been alternate versions of Superman published by DC Comics, but even apart from that, anyone can write a story with a character called Superman and alter any of the details from what most people understand of the character's backstory. In the latest Fantastic Four movie, the character Human Torch is black. Does that mean that the movie is "wrong", since he's traditionally portrayed as white? Nope.

How do we know they are fictitious?

We understand Superman to be fictitious because we have good evidence that he is, and no evidence that he isn't.

See, some here are claiming God to be fictitious and others are claiming He is not...how then would we know truth if we don't even know how to test for the characters we do know are fictitious or not?

Testing to see if the subject of a story is fictitious or not requires corroborating evidence. Other than checking for logical impossibilities or internal consistency, you can't tell from the source material alone. The best you can do is disprove the possibility of a character existing (Superman described as a spherical cube can't exist). You can't show that the character exists. You need outside sources to start to move toward confirmation.

Aren't the ones we know for sure like a base line of understanding? At least to the one who wants to know truth above all else.

Not sure what you mean by that.

 

[razzelflabben]

Fictitious characters don't have objective facts about them. There have been alternate versions of Superman published by DC Comics, but even apart from that, anyone can write a story with a character called Superman and alter any of the details from what most people understand of the character's backstory. In the latest Fantastic Four movie, the character Human Torch is black. Does that mean that the movie is "wrong", since he's traditionally portrayed as white? Nope.

so, you are then suggesting that Superman is a fictitious character because there are no objective facts about him. I personally require more than just that, but okay we can work with that. There are objective facts about God, that would they by reason of your logic here that God is real. As I said, personally, I require a great deal more evidence than that to determine if something is real or not, but we are asking you the OP question here, not me. Thanks for the answer, I respectfully disagree.

We understand Superman to be fictitious because we have good evidence that he is, and no evidence that he isn't.

Not if the only evidence you have is objectivity as you say above. But that is okay, you finally answered the question and since I disagree with you that that is enough to tell us the truth, we can agree to disagree and go on our happy ways, unless of course you want to try to defend you stand that all we need is something objective to go by.

Testing to see if the subject of a story is fictitious or not requires corroborating evidence. Other than checking for logical impossibilities or internal consistency, you can't tell from the source material alone. The best you can do is disprove the possibility of a character existing (Superman described as a spherical cube can't exist). You can't show that the character exists. You need outside sources to start to move toward confirmation.

now, I'm very confused....here you change your story from the above, but that doesn't confuse me since I have seen you do this in your posts before, it's a bit hard to follow you when you do this, but not the problem.

The PROBLEM is this is exactly the same thing I say to you about knowing if God is real or delusion and you argued that we couldn't do that for God. So, the very thing you have been arguing against this whole time for ways to know if our belief is real or delusion is not your go to thing for knowing if something is real or delusion. This is what makes this confusing. You have been this entire time telling me this isn't how we know if God is real or delusion only to come here to this point and say, it is how we would know if God is real or delusion. This double standard is a problem for me and a huge problem for effective communication.

Not sure what you mean by that.

don't worry about it, you have already shown us that you have apparently changed your mind as per this post.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

so, you are then suggesting that Superman is a fictitious character because there are no objective facts about him.

Nooo, I said you can't get answers about a fictitious character. Because there aren't any objective facts about them. I didn't say that it was the only criteria to determine if someone is fictitious.

I personally require more than just that, but okay we can work with that. There are objective facts about God, that would they by reason of your logic here that God is real.

There aren't any objective facts about any god that I'm aware of.

As I said, personally, I require a great deal more evidence than that to determine if something is real or not, but we are asking you the OP question here, not me. Thanks for the answer, I respectfully disagree.

You disagree with something I didn't say.

now, I'm very confused....here you change your story from the above, but that doesn't confuse me since I have seen you do this in your posts before, it's a bit hard to follow you when you do this, but not the problem.

The PROBLEM is this is exactly the same thing I say to you about knowing if God is real or delusion and you argued that we couldn't do that for God. So, the very thing you have been arguing against this whole time for ways to know if our belief is real or delusion is not your go to thing for knowing if something is real or delusion. This is what makes this confusing. You have been this entire time telling me this isn't how we know if God is real or delusion only to come here to this point and say, it is how we would know if God is real or delusion. This double standard is a problem for me and a huge problem for effective communication.
don't worry about it, you have already shown us that you have apparently changed your mind as per this post.

Yes, you're very confused. Focus on this part:

"Testing to see if the subject of a story is fictitious or not requires corroborating evidence. Other than checking for logical impossibilities or internal consistency, you can't tell from the source material alone. The best you can do is disprove the possibility of a character existing (Superman described as a spherical cube can't exist). You can't show that the character exists. You need outside sources to start to move toward confirmation."

 

[razzelflabben]

Nooo, I said you can't get answers about a fictitious character. Because there aren't any objective facts about them. I didn't say that it was the only criteria to determine if someone is fictitious.

I simply responded to the post you made as it was given in address to the question you were asked, nothing more or less. You know, responding to the post in question, not what someone makes up in their head about a poster.

There aren't any objective facts about any god that I'm aware of.

how sad, cause I gave you several including one with a checklist...funny how one can miss those things when they are too busy reinventing arguments to respond to the post isn't it?

You disagree with something I didn't say.

not at all, I simply responded to your post as you wrote it, if you intended something else, all I have to do is ask someone that doesn't know you and it's all good. At least that is what you have been arguing for this whole time. Personally, I would rather ask for clarity but when I asked you for that, you refused to provide it, so I have to go by what your post says....sorry for your luck.

Yes, you're very confused. Focus on this part:

"Testing to see if the subject of a story is fictitious or not requires corroborating evidence. Other than checking for logical impossibilities or internal consistency, you can't tell from the source material alone. The best you can do is disprove the possibility of a character existing (Superman described as a spherical cube can't exist). You can't show that the character exists. You need outside sources to start to move toward confirmation."

exactly what you have been told repeatedly about God and refused to accept. Which leaves us with this quandary, were you speaking out of turn when you disagreed previously, or are you speaking out of turn in this post? Ah, the choices we have to make when people refuse to address posts rather than reinventions they attribute to specific posters....

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I simply responded to the post you made as it was given in address to the question you were asked, nothing more or less. You know, responding to the post in question, not what someone makes up in their head about a poster.

Untrue. I said:

"You don't get answers about fictitious characters."

You replied:

"Why not?"

I replied:

"Fictitious characters don't have objective facts about them."

Nowhere do I even hint that I'm implying that I believe that "you are then suggesting that Superman is a fictitious character because there are no objective facts about him."

You're either confused about what I wrote or dishonestly putting words in my mouth. Neither practice leads to constructive conversation.

how sad, cause I gave you several including one with a checklist...funny how one can miss those things when they are too busy reinventing arguments to respond to the post isn't it?

I don't believe you've specifically given me several objective facts about any god. I think you're mistaken again.

Ah, the choices we have to make when people refuse to address posts rather than reinventions they attribute to specific posters....

You seem to be projecting again, as you're the one doing this. Not me.

 

[razzelflabben]

Untrue. I said:

"You don't get answers about fictitious characters."

You replied:

"Why not?"

I replied:

"Fictitious characters don't have objective facts about them."

Nowhere do I even hint that I'm implying that I believe that "you are then suggesting that Superman is a fictitious character because there are no objective facts about him."

now, now, now, that isn't nice to suggest that I am not being honest, especially when you left out so much of the conversation, like when you asked me about why I believe that Superman is not fictitious even after I stated clearly we were looking at a fictitious character, or when you were asked to explain yourself and you came up with your need for objective facts and I said I personally need more, like previously talked about, things like tests, outside sources, etc. See, when you leave out important parts of the conversation and further take things out of context, it is easy to manipulate them into something that didn't happen. Problem is, I don't play those games, which puts you in a pickle which is evidenced from how hard you are trying in this post.

You're either confused about what I wrote or dishonestly putting words in my mouth. Neither practice leads to constructive conversation.

neither is true, so I am suppose to by forum rules just ignore you here....sad really cause I believe that communication is important in life in general, but we are told not to care about communication so I'm ignoring this.

I don't believe you've specifically given me several objective facts about any god. I think you're mistaken again.

well, that is just your reinvention of the facts and I am suppose to ignore that as if you and it didn't happen. Not sure how that benefits anything, but disrespectful posts are just that, disrespectful posts and when they are coupled with false accusations, they become even more disruptive to those that want to discuss the topic at hand.

You seem to be projecting again, as you're the one doing this. Not me.

wow, now you attack my character directly...how shameful...ignoring you as per the forum rules...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

now, now, now, that isn't nice to suggest that I am not being honest, especially when you left out so much of the conversation, like when you asked me about why I believe that Superman is not fictitious even after I stated clearly we were looking at a fictitious character,

I specifically did not ask you why you believe that Superman is not fictitious. You're once again putting words in my mouth.

Now, as to the first time you did this, please explain to me how:

"You don't get answers about fictitious characters." and "Fictitious characters don't have objective facts about them." leads to you saying "you are then suggesting that Superman is a fictitious character because there are no objective facts about him."

Because I'm not suggesting that at all. Which leads back to you misrepresenting what I said.

And once again communication has broken down between you and a non-theist. You know, you seem to have the same issue with all the non-theists here. You can either believe that we're all wrong, and wrong for the same reasons, or you might realize that the miscommunication might just reside in you. Because we're trying to have a constructive conversation with you, but you seem to be purposely antagonistic.

well, that is just your reinvention of the facts

If you specifically gave me objective facts about any god, then it shouldn't be a problem in pointing to the post that you mentioned this.

So I guess we'll just leave it at the fact that you can't use any text to check if the supposed author of the text is real or not.

Ok?

 

[devolved]

neither is true, so I am suppose to by forum rules just ignore you here....sad really cause I believe that communication is important in life in general, but we are told not to care about communication so I'm ignoring this.

I've had communication with hundreds of believers in a forum setting. I've never actually experienced some many claims of "misrepresentation, character defamation, and flaming" to the tune that I've experienced communicating with you.

It would be a lot simpler if you abstain from "character assassination" complaints, and leave the expletives talk aside (aka... lols, the 15 year old son references, and geeshes, and wows) which are of zero use in this forum. Instead, why not focus on attempting to clearly and concisely present your ideas and concepts in a way that a person can understand and respond to.

If a person can't understand, or responds to something else it doesn't automatically mean that they are assassinating your character on purpose. It may be just that, they misunderstand what you are saying because your verbal semantics and understanding differed. Complaining about that doesn't solve the communication problem on your end.

What continually amazes me in this particular case is that your test imply some unusual form of humility and patience that's an evidence for what you claim to believe, and there seems to be a lack of that in conversations with you. You are usually the first one to cry foul, and when you are shown that it's not the case, you move on without any due apology, "rinse and repeat".

So, forgive me for saying this, but if your test is the 1st Corinthians type of love... I simply don't see the evidence of it demonstrable in how you conduct your conversation here. Hence, the irony is that your claim breaks down before we move on to anything else.

 

[Ronald]

so, let me get this right, your answer to the OP is that we can know that we believe truth by giving ourselves over to God and letting Him reveal Himself to us.

Romans 1 tells us the truth, but men reject it and they are without excuse. There is tangible evidence, what has been observed in creation, visible and invisible. Repeating myself again, and it's getting tiring. You need to go back and read the comments.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that we know truth from delusion because God reveals it. Is that right? If so, how could others distinguish the difference in their beliefs?

That's the problem they suffer with! They are spiritually blind.

What you are talking about here is not morality but rather righteousness....that is, doing what is right or some call it integrity. These are two different things. You still have not shown morality.

Come on.
1."Of or related to conduct or character from the point of view of right and wrong.2. Of good character; right or proper in behavior.
3. Teaching standards of right and wrong.
4. Capable of distinguishing between right and wrong." Funk & Wagnals Dictionary

so, let's refresh the challenge...present even one scripture that says that God is moral and then show one scripture where scripture says He is just. You see, scripture does not equate God with morality because as I said, morality is subjective and man designed whereas justice is objective and God designed.

God is the Light from which we see truth (what is good), the Light that shines in the darkness (what's evil).
The whole Bible is about good and evil and knowing the difference. Righteousness is doing what's right.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/morality

One of God's purpose to give us the Bible was that we know the difference between good and evil. Eating from tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil set us on a moral path. We are given a moral code which is our conscience that dictates to us what is right and wrong even prior to our being born of God. God puts the Law in our hearts, no longer on tablets of stone.

 

[razzelflabben]

I specifically did not ask you why you believe that Superman is not fictitious. You're once again putting words in my mouth.

Now, as to the first time you did this, please explain to me how:

"You don't get answers about fictitious characters." and "Fictitious characters don't have objective facts about them." leads to you saying "you are then suggesting that Superman is a fictitious character because there are no objective facts about him."

Because I'm not suggesting that at all. Which leads back to you misrepresenting what I said.

And once again communication has broken down between you and a non-theist. You know, you seem to have the same issue with all the non-theists here. You can either believe that we're all wrong, and wrong for the same reasons, or you might realize that the miscommunication might just reside in you. Because we're trying to have a constructive conversation with you, but you seem to be purposely antagonistic.

wow, so now, responding to your posts as you write them is me having a problem with non theists that I converse with all the time and we have some amazingly wonderful discussions. I'm curious, how did you draw the conclusion you did based solely on my objection to being taken out of context, having my ideas reinvented and then further insulted with false accusations and all this while some posters here did the same to others as well? You know, outside sources that confirmed it wasn't just me inflating things...seems to me that you need to review your conclusions so that they line up with the evidence at hand. But, I have been told to just ignore bad behavior from those on this thread that insist on behaving poorly....so ignoring. Oh, and just for the record, when I took responsibility and tried to improve my communication skills I was told that was inflammatory and that I shouldn't do that anymore.

so, we have 1. the evidence of your posts
2. the evidence of others that have the same problem with some posters here
and 3. we have me being told that trying to improve my communication skills is inflammatory which would ultimately mean that I'm not the problem, huh?

If you specifically gave me objective facts about any god, then it shouldn't be a problem in pointing to the post that you mentioned this.

see the multiple posts where we talked about it. There are so many it would be too cumbersome to try to list them all, especially since they were already scrutinized and no rational objection was offered.

So I guess we'll just leave it at the fact that you can't use any text to check if the supposed author of the text is real or not.

Ok?

huh? That sentence doesn't even make sense and you want to blame my communications skills...lol

 

[ToddNotTodd]

wow, so now, responding to your posts as you write them is me having a problem with non theists that I converse with all the time and we have some amazingly wonderful discussions.

As I've pointed out, you didn't respond to my posts as I wrote them.

Point to where I asked you why you believe that Superman is not fictitious, as you claimed. And you're dodging the question of how:

"You don't get answers about fictitious characters." and "Fictitious characters don't have objective facts about them." leads to you saying "you are then suggesting that Superman is a fictitious character because there are no objective facts about him."

we have me being told that trying to improve my communication skills is inflammatory which would ultimately mean that I'm not the problem, huh?

Who said this to you?

see the multiple posts where we talked about it. There are so many it would be too cumbersome to try to list them all, especially since they were already scrutinized and no rational objection was offered. huh?

Since you're not actually answering, I'm forced to assume you don't have an actual example of where you've specifically mentioned to me any objective facts about any god. Which is sad since it could have been a good source of conversation.

That sentence doesn't even make sense and you want to blame my communications skills...lol

What word didn't you understand?

 

[razzelflabben]

I've had communication with hundreds of believers in a forum setting. I've never actually experienced some many claims of "misrepresentation, character defamation, and flaming" to the tune that I've experienced communicating with you.

that is because of two things, 1. they have become convinced that preferential treatment will be given to certain people and 2. they have become convinced that standing up to bullies is not somehow Love. (biblical version). iN fact, you would be surprised at how many people speak to me about agreement on the bad behavior but don't know what to do about it. I'm just vocal about it rather than passive is all.

It would be a lot simpler if you abstain from "character assassination" complaints, and leave the expletives talk aside (aka... lols, the 15 year old son references, and geeshes, and wows) which are of zero use in this forum. Instead, why not focus on attempting to clearly and concisely present your ideas and concepts in a way that a person can understand and respond to.

clear and concise presentation of my ideas and concepts doesn't work with certain people....

If a person can't understand, or responds to something else it doesn't automatically mean that they are assassinating your character on purpose. It may be just that, they misunderstand what you are saying because your verbal semantics and understanding differed. Complaining about that doesn't solve the communication problem on your end.

which is why I am very patient with people until they prove they are intentionally reinventing and purposing to stir anger and contempt with false accusations and otherwise poor behaviors.

What continually amazes me in this particular case is that your test imply some unusual form of humility and patience that's an evidence for what you claim to believe, and there seems to be a lack of that in conversations with you. You are usually the first one to cry foul, and when you are shown that it's not the case, you move on without any due apology, "rinse and repeat".

let's look at the facts, shall we, remember this is just 3 sentences and I am pointing out misrepresentations in these three sentences alone. 1. the tests I suggest said nothing at all about humility and patience even though they come in much later they are harder to test for, thus not on the list as I repeatedly showed

So, let's see, you repeatedly were given a list without either of these and corrected dozens of time and you want us to believe that your misrepresentation is accidental? You know, like me saying there are some things on the list that are not able to be measured and must be dismissed as such and you and other posters add things that were never on the list and you were told weren't and pages and pages of corrections later you still misrepresent what I said as you are doing here....cool, do I get to do the same to you and then claim it is all your fault?

2. I have not said anything about what I believe. In fact, through this entire thread I have not only refused to speak about my personal beliefs but I have pointed out that to talk about my personal beliefs would be off topic. this insistence to remain on topic has offended both sides of the God issue. So, your second misrepresentation in these three sentences that I am talking about some personal belief has been scrutinized again, by both sides for pages and pages and pages and I even reported a couple of posters who relentlessly tried to goad me into getting off topic. So, why after that much discussion and clarification do you still not understand that when I say I am not nor will I talk about my personal beliefs only the process as per the OP question do you assume I mean the opposite? Is that a communication problem as well? Oh wait, asking if I am being clear is somehow inflammatory, sorry, let me change my question...how can I be more clear than saying, I am not nor will I talk about my personal beliefs because to do so would be off topic? Show me how to reword it so that clarification of communication is effective...thanks for the lessons.

3. "there seems to be a lack of communication with me" and yet, there are tons of posts that do nothing but explain to you and other posters what I mean when I say, "I am not nor will I talk about my personal beliefs because to do so would be off topic." I lack communication and patience with you according to this claim even though there are so many posts it would be cumbersome to show them all where I put great effort and patience in explaining to you all what I mean when I say, "I am NOT or will I talk about my personal beliefs on this thread because to do so would be off topic."

4. I have cried foul on arguments that didn't make any sense. On posters who demonstrated that they could not be civil in their posts, nothing else. To make this accusation anything else at all is false accusations of my character and since we are up to 4 misrepresentations already, I'm let everything in that sentence stay right there.

So, who is owed an apology? Hum, you have in three sentences misrepresented things that were painfully clear no less than 4 times. I previously took the time to show a post that had 5 blatant misrepresentations all of which were offensive to my actual position in no less or more than 2 sentences and no one apologized nor did I demand an apology because it has been painfully apparent that certain posters on this thread think they don't have to be civil in posting.

So, forgive me for saying this, but if your test is the 1st Corinthians type of love... I simply don't see the evidence of it demonstrable in how you conduct your conversation here. Hence, the irony is that your claim breaks down before we move on to anything else.

Since it isn't my claim it would only falsify the claim if I made the claim but remember, "I am NOT nor will I discuss my beliefs in this thread because to do so would be off topic of the OP."

But since that isn't clear yet and you haven't shown me how to make it clearer, I guess we are at am impasse in you not knowing what I mean when I say, "I am Not nor will I discuss my beliefs in this thread because to do so would be off topic." and I don't know how else to say it so that you can understand what I mean when I say it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Romans 1 tells us the truth, but men reject it and they are without excuse. There is tangible evidence, what has been observed in creation, visible and invisible. Repeating myself again, and it's getting tiring. You need to go back and read the comments.

your confusing me with other posters, cause this is pretty much what I originally thought you said, but then the other post confused me so I asked you to clarify. Other posters here are being difficult to say the least. Asking for clarification should be a mark of courtesy not difficult posting. And just for the record, thanks for clarifying.

That's the problem they suffer with! They are spiritually blind.

yeah, that was talked about pretty extensively.

Come on.
1."Of or related to conduct or character from the point of view of right and wrong.2. Of good character; right or proper in behavior.
3. Teaching standards of right and wrong.
4. Capable of distinguishing between right and wrong." Funk & Wagnals Dictionary

who establishes what is right or wrong? Scripture says the law does, not society. You know, what I keep telling you about the difference between morality and justice. But really, it isn't worth arguing over.

God is the Light from which we see truth (what is good), the Light that shines in the darkness (what's evil).
The whole Bible is about good and evil and knowing the difference. Righteousness is doing what's right.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/morality

exactly, but righteousness and morality are not the same thing.

One of God's purpose to give us the Bible was that we know the difference between good and evil. Eating from tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil set us on a moral path. We are given a moral code which is our conscience that dictates to us what is right and wrong even prior to our being born of God. God puts the Law in our hearts, no longer on tablets of stone.

Scripture says that the law was written on our hearts not morality or subjective social construct.

 

[razzelflabben]

As I've pointed out, you didn't respond to my posts as I wrote them.

Point to where I asked you why you believe that Superman is not fictitious, as you claimed. And you're dodging the question of how:

"You don't get answers about fictitious characters." and "Fictitious characters don't have objective facts about them." leads to you saying "you are then suggesting that Superman is a fictitious character because there are no objective facts about him."



Who said this to you?



Since you're not actually answering, I'm forced to assume you don't have an actual example of where you've specifically mentioned to me any objective facts about any god. Which is sad since it could have been a good source of conversation.



What word didn't you understand?

see previous post, ignoring as I have been told to do, because apparently trying to clarify isn't good communication either.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

see previous post, ignoring as I have been told to do, because apparently trying to clarify isn't good communication either.

Who's telling you these things? Are they also telling you not to misrepresent other people?

 

[devolved]

that is because of two things, 1. they have become convinced that preferential treatment will be given to certain people and 2. they have become convinced that standing up to bullies is not somehow Love. (biblical version). iN fact, you would be surprised at how many people speak to me about agreement on the bad behavior but don't know what to do about it. I'm just vocal about it rather than passive is all.

1) Respectfully disagreeing with someone's worldview, or attempting to show where they may be mistaking is not a definition of Bullying. Perhaps it is yours, but that's not what Bullying is.

2) You seem to know awfully lot about other people's true motives and reasons for their behavior.

So, who is owed an apology? Hum, you have in three sentences misrepresented things that were painfully clear no less than 4 times. I previously took the time to show a post that had 5 blatant misrepresentations all of which were offensive to my actual position in no less or more than 2 sentences and no one apologized nor did I demand an apology because it has been painfully apparent that certain posters on this thread think they don't have to be civil in posting.

Again, I'm not interested in this anymore, because it's exhausting. Hence I'd rather discuss this with someone else who presents their thoughts in a way that I perceive to be more concise, clear and more civil.

 

[razzelflabben]

ignoring as per forum rules

and just for the record, let it stand that in 3 sentences I was misrepresented no less than 5 time and one of those I asked for someone to show me how to say it in a more clear and concise way and the result was above. Doesn't sound like an interest in effective communication when I ask for someone to show me where I am wrong and instead I get insults, accusations, and dismissal. I wonder why if my communication skills are the problem, no one will help me learn how to communicate my ideas better when they misrepresent me so many times in just a few short sentences? Isn't that curious?!

 

[devolved]

Doesn't sound like an interest in effective communication when I ask for someone to show me where I am wrong and instead I get insults, accusations, and dismissal. I wonder why if my communication skills are the problem, no one will help me learn how to communicate my ideas better when they misrepresent me so many times in just a few short sentences? Isn't that curious?!

I have a feeling that people do that to you a lot At least it seems like it from merely gleaning from your responses to various people in this thread. It eventually boils down to you being wronged somehow.

Again, this type of perceived hostility takes the fun out of conversations like these. I'd rather avoid it all-together if it invokes such frustration in you.

 

[razzelflabben]

I have a feeling that people do that to you a lot

no, not really, in fact, most people tell me that my communication skills are in the gifted category which is evidenced in most of the discussions I get into even with people who totally don't agree with me and have problems with disagreements. Which makes the accusations here even more curious doesn't it

But how about we get back to topic and you answer the question of the OP, how do you know that your belief is truth and not delusion?