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

[amariselle]

Well, considering that you declined to answer the question about God watching rape and not intervening... there's still a huge question mark around the claim that he is "holy and righteous."

I do believe I DID give an answer. Though I acknowledge it may not have been the answer you were looking for.

 

[amariselle]

I have no logical reason to accept, all good comes from a god and all bad comes from sin.

Where do you think it all comes from then? (Good v.s. Evil)

 

[razzelflabben]

Hang on, you tested the Bible by reading what the Bible says about itself? Hmmm...

where did you get that? I said nothing at all about testing the bible by reading it, Seriously, where are you getting this non sense? What I said is that since the bible claims to be the authority on God we take claims made in the Bible that we can test to see if there is truth in the claims or not.....wow, it boggles my mind how much misrepresentation is allowed to go on in this thread....geesh.

I didn't say that I disagree with the notion of testing our beliefs. I was talking specifically about the "tests" you proposed in relation to the Bible. From what I gather, your "tests" seem question-begging.

WEll, that would be off topic from the OP and maybe we should consult the mods about why you keep trying to goad me into getting off topic?

I wasn't following the example with Joe so I have no idea what you're talking about.

you can review it, I summarized it for you.

This seems to be begging the question. Could you formalise your argument, so that we can examine the premises one by one? Is the first premise, "God says..."?

I have repeatedly done so at the risk of being reprimanded for being off topic....how about instead of trying to "prove" all believers are delusional, you stick to the topic and try to prove that there is a better way than testing to know if one is believing a delusion or not...you know, let explaining what tests you have done to suggest that..."Well, all goodness DOES come from God. He is, after all, a holy and righteous God. There is no darkness or evil in Him.

And yes, the "bad", the brokenness and the corruption are entirely the result of sin and turning away from God.

Why is this a problem?" and your response...."I have no problem with you believing that, but i cant reconcile it with reality."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do believe I DID give an answer. Though I acknowledge it may not have been the answer you were looking for.

No, as I recall, you declined to discuss it any further, leaving the question open. You can revisit it if you want, though this is probably not the right thread for it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

where did you get that? I said nothing at all about testing the bible by reading it, Seriously, where are you getting this non sense? What I said is that since the bible claims to be the authority on God we take claims made in the Bible that we can test to see if there is truth in the claims or not.....wow, it boggles my mind how much misrepresentation is allowed to go on in this thread....geesh.

Okay, and what tests have you done?

WEll, that would be off topic from the OP and maybe we should consult the mods about why you keep trying to goad me into getting off topic?

Excuse me? The question-begging nature of your apparent "tests" is off-topic?

I have repeatedly done so at the risk of being reprimanded for being off topic....how about instead of trying to "prove" all believers are delusional, you stick to the topic and try to prove that there is a better way than testing to know if one is believing a delusion or not...you know, let explaining what tests you have done to suggest that..."Well, all goodness DOES come from God. He is, after all, a holy and righteous God. There is no darkness or evil in Him.

And yes, the "bad", the brokenness and the corruption are entirely the result of sin and turning away from God.

Why is this a problem?" and your response...."I have no problem with you believing that, but i cant reconcile it with reality."

That wasn't my response.

 

[razzelflabben]

I have no logical reason to accept, all good comes from a god and all bad comes from sin.

but you didn't tell us what tests you have done to evidence there is no reason to accept it. Even my agnostic son doesn't question that good is from God and bad is from sin cause it is very well documented in our world. So I need you to give me some of the tests you have done to minimize the likelyhood that you are believing a delusion. What tests have you done?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

but you didn't tell us what tests you have done to evidence there is no reason to accept it. Even my agnostic son doesn't question that good is from God and bad is from sin cause it is very well documented in our world. So I need you to give me some of the tests you have done to minimize the likelyhood that you are believing a delusion. What tests have you done?

The burden of proof would be on the one claiming that all good comes from a god and all bad from sin.

 

[razzelflabben]

Okay, and what tests have you done?

I have repeatedly laid out the tests or at least some of the tests and how we would lay out even more.

Excuse me? The question-begging nature of your apparent "tests" is off-topic?[/quote] huh? The discussion in the OP is NOT what specific tests you are using...it is what is the best way to determine if your belief is truth or delusion. I have answered that with painfully clear and obsessively simple words and you still don't get it. If you want to talk specifically about my beliefs and tests, PM me. If you want to talk about specific religious tests, start a new thread, but please stop trying to goad me into getting off topic with all your objections that rely on you misrepresenting and purposing to misunderstand to prove that you disagree. We already know you disagree....you don't have to play games to convince us of that.

That wasn't my response.

I quoted it and checked the name, maybe someone said it to you and I got the name wrong, my apology if that was what happened.

 

[razzelflabben]

The burden of proof would be on the one claiming that all good comes from a god and all bad from sin.

so you don't care if you believe a delusion because it isn't your burden of proof to show that your delusional and others are believing truth...wow...that just seems really messed up to me

I do need to make a correction though...my son says not that sin is from evil, which when I reread my post I realized I stated it wrong, but rather that sin itself is evil.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

so you don't care if you believe a delusion because it isn't your burden of proof to show that your delusional and others are believing truth...wow...that just seems really messed up to me

Why would that be messed up? Should I shoulder the burden of proof for unicorns as well? No, because I don't claim that such entities are real. Someone who does would shoulder the burden of proof for that claim.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have repeatedly laid out the tests or at least some of the tests and how we would lay out even more.

huh? The discussion in the OP is NOT what specific tests you are using...it is what is the best way to determine if your belief is truth or delusion. I have answered that with painfully clear and obsessively simple words and you still don't get it. If you want to talk specifically about my beliefs and tests, PM me. If you want to talk about specific religious tests, start a new thread, but please stop trying to goad me into getting off topic with all your objections that rely on you misrepresenting and purposing to misunderstand to prove that you disagree. We already know you disagree....you don't have to play games to convince us of that. I quoted it and checked the name, maybe someone said it to you and I got the name wrong, my apology if that was what happened.

In case it's not clear, I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know what tests you've repeatedly laid out.

 

[razzelflabben]

Why would that be messed up? Should I shoulder the burden of proof for unicorns as well? No, because I don't claim that such entities are real. Someone who does would shoulder the burden of proof for that claim.

okay, let's explore this, why do you think that unicorns are not real? We will break this down in it's simplistic terms to try to help you figure this out. What do you base your claims that unicorns aren't real on? Specifically....no argument about whether they are or not, only that you don't seem to believe they are real but you haven't told us why you believe that or if we misread your post, why you believe they are real....after you answer that, we will build on that answer till you come to an understanding of what is being said.

 

[razzelflabben]

In case it's not clear, I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know what tests you've repeatedly laid out.

the burden of review is on your shoulders not mine

 

[Archaeopteryx]

okay, let's explore this, why do you think that unicorns are not real? We will break this down in it's simplistic terms to try to help you figure this out. What do you base your claims that unicorns aren't real on?

There's your first problem... I never claimed "unicorns aren't real." That's not a claim I'm making. Instead, I'm responding to a claim -- the claim that "unicorns are real" -- by saying that I'm not convinced of it. This does not imply that I am claiming the exact opposite.

 

[razzelflabben]

There's your first problem... I never claimed "unicorns aren't real."

reread my post, I provided for both belief and unbelief in my questions to you...so maybe your first problem is that you are not reading for comprehension.

That's not a claim I'm making. Instead, I'm responding to a claim -- the claim that "unicorns are real" -- by saying that I'm not convinced of it. This does not imply that I am claiming the exact opposite.

But what you fail to hear is that in the OP question the burden of proof is on the one who wants to know if they believe truth or delusion not the one who claims to have a belief and if you would answer the questions asked of you, you would be able to understand this simple concept soon enough.

The OP question only asks the person with a given belief how they know if that belief is true or delusion, your questions and arguments present someone who is arguing with themselves which could be argued sounds delusional to begin with. I'm going with you simply aren't understanding the discussion question, but we can go with you being delusional if you want, it's all up to you....your posts can reflect which choice you want us to make when responding to you from now on.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

reread my post, I provided for both belief and unbelief in my questions to you...so maybe your first problem is that you are not reading for comprehension.

There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. Unbelief does not mean that I claim "unicorns aren't real." It means that I'm not convinced by the claim that they are.

But what you fail to hear is that in the OP question the burden of proof is on the one who wants to know if they believe truth or delusion not the one who claims to have a belief and if you would answer the questions asked of you, you would be able to understand this simple concept soon enough.

The OP question only asks the person with a given belief how they know if that belief is true or delusion, your questions and arguments present someone who is arguing with themselves which could be argued sounds delusional to begin with. I'm going with you simply aren't understanding the discussion question, but we can go with you being delusional if you want, it's all up to you....your posts can reflect which choice you want us to make when responding to you from now on.

I'm having quite a lot of difficulty following your posts, and I don't think that's my fault at all. If we stick with the unicorn claim, what burden of proof do I have? I'm not the one making such a claim. I'm only saying that I'm not convinced by it.

 

[razzelflabben]

There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. Unbelief does not mean that I claim "unicorns aren't real." It means that I'm not convinced by the claim that they are.

yep and you were asked why you believe that? What tests have you done on unicorns to come to the belief that you do about them...that is the question at hand. What tests have you personally done to minimize the likelyhood that your beliefs about unicorns are truth and not delusion? Your response was that it was someone elses burden of proof, but you see, that isnt' what the OP is asking. The OP wants to know how you know that your belief about any given topic is truth and not delusion. Your so busy trying to put others beliefs down that you are missing the question being asked.

I'm having quite a lot of difficulty following your posts, and I don't think that's my fault at all. If we stick with the unicorn claim, what burden of proof do I have? I'm not the one making such a claim. I'm only saying that I'm not convinced by it.

that is your claim, your claim is that you haven't made a decision about whether or not unicorns are real...which is fine if that is what you want to believe, but the OP wants to know what makes you think that your belief is truth and not delusion. Notice the OP does not challenge the belief, only asks why you think that belief is truth and not delusion. Most everyone here seems to have eventually decided that testing is the best way to know. So, let's start out slow, shall we?

1. you claim you have no belief about the existence of unicorns....
A. Question....why do you think your belief is true and not delusion?
B. Question...if you agree with most here that it has to do with testing, what tests have you done that lead you to your belief that you don't know if unicorns exist or not?

When you get this figured out we will move into the belief that started this whole thing of you not understanding the question.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Which is why I have suggested and everyone seems to be arguing against the notion that we should test and allow the evidence to tell us if our beliefs are truth or delusion....I'm very anxious to see what other ways there are, but so far, no one has offered any.

I'm sure everyone will agree that testing beliefs helps us tell truth from delusion, but the test has to be something that can actually verify that belief. Look at this test for example:

1. If I clap my hands, a house fly will fly away
2. If I pull the wings off the fly and clap my hands the fly doesn't fly away.

Does this test lend evidence to the belief that when you pull the wings off a fly, it goes deaf?

Trying to determine whether or not a god exists by examining the text of a holy book can only verify the existence of that god if there's no other possible source for the book. Verifying the contents of the book can only show that the book is internally consistent. It doesn't give evidence to any god claim.

And it's been pointed out that your own test are open to interpretation, so even those can't be considered valid evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

but you didn't tell us what tests you have done to evidence there is no reason to accept it. Even my agnostic son doesn't question that good is from God and bad is from sin cause it is very well documented in our world. So I need you to give me some of the tests you have done to minimize the likelyhood that you are believing a delusion. What tests have you done?

There is no evidence to test only unfalsifiable claims.

 

[ScottA]

Most religious folk seem content to reveal that the basis of their faith is an extremely personal, internal process. They agree that there is no tangible evidence that they can produce for their beliefs and that most of it resides in dreams, visions, feelings, etc, that they claim to have experienced.

Given that this is the case and observing that different religious groups will report wildly different beliefs, it becomes reasonable to conclude that they cannot all be accurate portrayals of reality.......some, or all, must be incorrect.

Hence my question.......how does an individual know that their belief is not a delusion concocted in their own mind?

I understand the dilemma...but it would appear that your question would only serve to identify what is not believable by those who don't believe.

I mean...if the unbelievable were palatable, everyone would believe...which misses the point. The point is that, we live in one reality, and we are talking about a completely different reality. But still...how could logic and home court reality evidence be of any value whatsoever? I should think that, [actual] logic would begin with: If it is believable, it can't possibly be true.