Yes; that's what "Can you give an example ..." means.
I'm sorry to hear of your loss.
OK, examples of people expressing what could be called 'paradoxical positive affect' when face to face with those with whom you might expect the opposite reaction.
you can call it anything you want, the claim is that when we evidence it in conjunction with what we believe and why, then we diminish the possibility of our beliefs being delusion and increase the possibility that they are real.
So let me ask you all a question and I really do hope you all are brave enough to answer given all the flack over what I said. If testing our beliefs is not the best way to know if what we believe is truth or delusion, which is what you all have been arguing against, what do you think is? IOw's my claim has always been that the best way to know if what you believe is truth or delusion is my testing what you believe against any evidence you can find, and you all have been arguing about that for all this time.. So if the best way is not through testing, what is the better way? I really want to know the answer so that I can diminish the likelyhood of being wrong....thanks in advance for being above reproach enough to answer the question. I bolded the paragraph so that you didn't miss the question and if you come back and try to claim you did or that you already answered it it would be easy to find so that I could show you the question yet again and the lack of answer.
Not in the world I know. This kind of response is well known in counselling and mediation circles, and is not unusual in moderated situations; extreme reactions like that of the woman at the party are more unusual, but situations and people differ. The reactions you describe of seemingly paradoxical forgiveness, compassion, etc., when face to face with a source of deep anger or grief are now being widely used in mediation, from the small scale, such as petty criminal and victim meetings, to large scale reconciliations for serious crimes, even 'crimes against humanity'.
I wanted to know specifically what you meant by your 'tests' so I could assess whether I thought they were likely to support your claim, or whether basing your claim on them was delusional (false belief based on an incorrect interpretation of reality), and your lengthy responses were too vague to tell.
as I said, you are trying to argue several fallacies to what I am saying and refuse to understand that you are doing so. Fallacy #1...changing the name of something doesn't change the claim or the source of the thing. Fallacy #2...what I am telling you exists doesn't exist when even professionals see it and try to put a worldly answer on what I have tested and found to be a spiritual evidence. Now where this is your prerogative, we are NOT discussing whether or not the worlds excuses for the phenomena are right or wrong, but whether what one believes is right or wrong. Let's take science for example, for years we have held the belief that the appendix was worthless throw back of evolution. A couple of weeks ago, I read where new research says that is not the case. Where did this new research come from? From new things and ways to test the thing observed. So, if we apply that here, according to your argument, the professional people in this world recognize what I am saying we test, but instead of testing the spiritual, they test the flesh and find something they can argue as truth but they aren't testing for everything. I could be falling prey to the same thing in order to be fair about this discussion, but, then again, the discussion isn't one of convincing you or anyone else of anything, it is a discussion about how one would know if what they believe is truth or delusion. Fallacy #3...you cannot base a belief on someone elses tests and I have told you this. There are too many ways to dismiss the tests when you try to go down that road, for example, "that is just anecdotal" or as you do above and a dozen other ways. This is what makes this discussion so off topic, because now, you have turned it into a discussion about specific tests rather than about a process of knowing truth from delusion.
We have a son that is right now, very delusional...so much so that he will make up stories about things. Evidence is presented that would show him truth and he dismisses the evidence for various reasons so that he can hold to his delusion, you know, much as you are doing here in this post. The truth of delusion of a belief is dependent on your willingness or unwillingness to believe the evidence. Above, you acknowledge that this is evidence but dismiss it for various reasons so you can hold the beliefs you want. NOW, hear me when I say, I am NOT suggesting that we should not look for alternate reasons for the evidence, that is part of the testing process, but when you are told that you need to do the tests for yourself so that you can't just dismiss the results because you don't have all the facts or because you didn't witness it or whatever, you can't sit here and try to argue cases that you didn't witness, don't have all the facts on, because to do so would be delusional.
And that is enough fallacies to deal with in one claim in one post.[/quote]
If you were basing your claim on examples like those you give above, I think you were misreading a natural human response.[/QUOTE]see above....I dealt with this accusation.
