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

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

You aren't following... I'm not convinced. I don't believe.

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.

But you aren't asking me about something I believe... You're asking me about something I don't believe. And the answer to that is simple: I don't believe unicorns are real because I'm not convinced; I see no good reason to believe that they are real creatures. In what way am I obligated to disprove claims that are already unfounded?

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?

This would seem to be contradictory. In (1) you say that it is "no belief," and yet in (A) you ask about a "belief."

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

Given what you've written here, I'm not sure that it's me whose not understanding...

 

[bhsmte]

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

Human nature/psychology

 

[razzelflabben]

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?

yep, we already talked about how the tests have to be something that can be measured and even that they need to be something that can be duplicated, as in not just, oh it happened once let's call it. We also talked already about how the tests have to be done enough times to see a distinct pattern that we can use to claim viable conclusion with....what new are you trying to add to the discussion?

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.

since that wasn't the claim, I am wondering why you are presenting it as if it was and even more troubling why you would present it in a post where you are supposedly responding to something I said...can you explain how you feel justified to quote me, then talk about something that is totally contrary to what I said and believe? Thanks, I am really interested why so many here think that misrepresenting posters is somehow okay with forum rules. Your response will help me understand the mentality.

In fact, I openly talked about how we couldn't "test for God" and why and how that isn't a problem for my claim.

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

well, since they can be measured and have distinct things that can be measured about them you are wrong on two levels 1. they are measurable which is the requirement for something that we want to test and 2. what I personally believe is not the topic of this thread what is the topic is why I think my beliefs are truth not delusion...the answer is painfully simple, I test using measurable things, if even one thing doesn't pan out, the whole belief is falsified and I look for a new belief....not as hard as you all are trying to make this out to be....geesh I don't get you alls problems with this.

 

[razzelflabben]

There is no evidence to test only unfalsifiable claims.

Hum....wouldn't definition be a test we could do? That was the first one my son went to, you know, a son that has been taught to test things and use ration and logic before holding to any belief. Shall we look up the definitions?

Then, we also have observations, we were told that it flies in the face of the real world and yet we see evil all the time and can trace it back to sin...that is a test. In fact, I have yet to see a single instance of evil that is not also sin.

We could try to claim natural disasters as evil though I don't think that fits the definition. Now this one we would have a hard time testing because the biblical claim would be that it is the result of sin in the world and I don't know any way to measure that, but we already have two tests we can measure.

Now, since the second test leads to the first and visa versa, we can also look at some ways to test for good coming from God. The first test will be to see what things are attributed to God.

Then we can look at claims of what God provides, for example, the Bible claims that God created the world, a world whose ecosystem when left to function as it should provides us with everything we need to live and survive, most would call this good. I guess we might want to look at the idea of what is good but since it wasn't my claim in question I was just going with classical definition.

etc. etc. etc. And yes, each of those things is falsifiable but sorting it all out here is off topic yet again, so we just hint at some of the tests we can do.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

yep, we already talked about how the tests have to be something that can be measured and even that they need to be something that can be duplicated, as in not just, oh it happened once let's call it. We also talked already about how the tests have to be done enough times to see a distinct pattern that we can use to claim viable conclusion with....what new are you trying to add to the discussion?

You can also measure and duplicate the "pulling wings off flies" test. But that doesn't mean the test give evidence to the belief.

since that wasn't the claim, I am wondering why you are presenting it as if it was and even more troubling why you would present it in a post where you are supposedly responding to something I said...can you explain how you feel justified to quote me, then talk about something that is totally contrary to what I said and believe? Thanks, I am really interested why so many here think that misrepresenting posters is somehow okay with forum rules. Your response will help me understand the mentality.

So are you saying that you're only testing the Bible to see if it's internally consistent? Or are you testing to see if your belief in a god isn't a delusion? The former test really doesn't say anything about theology at all, and if it's the latter then, as I've mentioned, your test can't show that a belief in your god isn't a delusion.

In fact, I openly talked about how we couldn't "test for God" and why and how that isn't a problem for my claim.well, since they can be measured and have distinct things that can be measured about them you are wrong on two levels 1. they are measurable which is the requirement for something that we want to test and 2. what I personally believe is not the topic of this thread what is the topic is why I think my beliefs are truth not delusion...the answer is painfully simple, I test using measurable things, if even one thing doesn't pan out, the whole belief is falsified and I look for a new belief....not as hard as you all are trying to make this out to be....geesh I don't get you alls problems with this.

Once again, if you're using a false test to convince yourself that your belief isn't a delusion, then you're making an error. Similar to the "pulling wings off flies" test.

What evidence do you have that the only interpretation of your tests is the god you believe in?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Hum....wouldn't definition be a test we could do? That was the first one my son went to, you know, a son that has been taught to test things and use ration and logic before holding to any belief. Shall we look up the definitions?

Then, we also have observations, we were told that it flies in the face of the real world and yet we see evil all the time and can trace it back to sin...that is a test. In fact, I have yet to see a single instance of evil that is not also sin.

We could try to claim natural disasters as evil though I don't think that fits the definition. Now this one we would have a hard time testing because the biblical claim would be that it is the result of sin in the world and I don't know any way to measure that, but we already have two tests we can measure.

Now, since the second test leads to the first and visa versa, we can also look at some ways to test for good coming from God. The first test will be to see what things are attributed to God.

Then we can look at claims of what God provides, for example, the Bible claims that God created the world, a world whose ecosystem when left to function as it should provides us with everything we need to live and survive, most would call this good. I guess we might want to look at the idea of what is good but since it wasn't my claim in question I was just going with classical definition.

etc. etc. etc. And yes, each of those things is falsifiable but sorting it all out here is off topic yet again, so we just hint at some of the tests we can do.

Seems like an awful lot of question-begging, but I can't quite tell because you haven't laid out your argument in a concise syllogistic form.

 

[razzelflabben]

You aren't following... I'm not convinced. I don't believe.

yep...your belief is that you don't believe....we all get it, not that hard....what makes you think this has to be as hard as you are trying to make it out to be. We all know you don't know if unicorns exist or not, iow's your belief is that you do not know if unicorns exist or not....but you refuse to answer the question of what testing has brought you to that belief. Which is the question on the table, not all the other things you are trying to make it.

But you aren't asking me about something I believe... You're asking me about something I don't believe. And the answer to that is simple: I don't believe unicorns are real because I'm not convinced; I see no good reason to believe that they are real creatures. In what way am I obligated to disprove claims that are already unfounded?

you said you believed that you didn't know if unicorns exist or not, now you are changing your mind...I'm calling anything that is that fickle delusion, but that is just personal opinion and has nothing to do with the current discussion. And yes that is from testing.

"In what way am I obligated to disprove claims that are already unfounded?" Your belief is that unicorns are unfounded, thus, the question is why do you think that belief is true and not delusional? Whether or not you believe in unicorns doesn't change the question at all. So shifting your belief doesn't get you out of the quandary you are finding yourself in.

This would seem to be contradictory. In (1) you say that it is "no belief," and yet in (A) you ask about a "belief."

Given what you've written here, I'm not sure that it's me whose not understanding...

see above..your shifting sand is making it hard for you to follow...if you stick to a belief about unicorns it will help you figure out what is being said.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Seems like an awful lot of question-begging, but I can't quite tell because you haven't laid out your argument in a concise syllogistic form.

Absolutely. If you're not starting with "let's see if a god actually exists", then everything after seems to be question begging. Good can't come from a god that doesn't exist.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

yep...your belief is that you don't believe....we all get it, not that hard....what makes you think this has to be as hard as you are trying to make it out to be.

You should realize that your statement isn't coherent. Non belief is by definition NOT a belief...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

yep...your belief is that you don't believe....we all get it, not that hard....what makes you think this has to be as hard as you are trying to make it out to be. We all know you don't know if unicorns exist or not, iow's your belief is that you do not know if unicorns exist or not....but you refuse to answer the question of what testing has brought you to that belief. Which is the question on the table, not all the other things you are trying to make it.

You apparently don't get it. What testing do you think I need to do? I'm not the one making the claim. I'm merely telling you that I'm not convinced of it (i.e., I don't believe it). And I already told you why I don't believe it: the absence of good reasons to believe it.

you said you believed that you didn't know if unicorns exist or not, now you are changing your mind...

Um, no, I never said that. Recall that you insulted my reading comprehension earlier...

"In what way am I obligated to disprove claims that are already unfounded?" Your belief is that unicorns are unfounded, thus, the question is why do you think that belief is true and not delusional? Whether or not you believe in unicorns doesn't change the question at all. So shifting your belief doesn't get you out of the quandary you are finding yourself in.

What quandary? I've explained clearly why I don't believe that unicorns are real creatures. The burden of proof is on the individual claiming that they are. What evidence do they have to present?

see above..your shifting sand is making it hard for you to follow...if you stick to a belief about unicorns it will help you figure out what is being said.

I'm starting to think that you're projecting here... But then again, I can't quite tell given that your posts are difficult to follow.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... 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?

'You all'? it's just me here, speaking only for myself. And I haven't been arguing against testing our beliefs, I'm all in favour of it - although it's more difficult than most people think.

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..

Nope; you may be thinking of someone else - I've been questioning your particular claim and testing methodology.

Fallacy #1...changing the name of something doesn't change the claim or the source of the thing.

Where did I say it did? I just gave an informative label to something you described.

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.

Wait, are you saying that it's a fallacy that I don't agree with your interpretation?

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.

Nonsense; people have all kinds of beliefs about stuff they haven't and couldn't test for themselves. In science, use of 'belief' is implicitly qualified, there are no proofs or absolute truths (although, in practice, some ideas are so well supported that they are beyond reasonable doubt within their context of application). You can certainly be more confident that your belief is sound if you've tested it yourself, but you really have to know what you're doing, else there's a good chance that confidence will be misplaced.

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.

To demonstrate to yourself that you are not deluded requires the right sort of tests and methodology.

The truth of delusion of a belief is dependent on your willingness or unwillingness to believe the evidence.

No; the truth of a delusion or belief depends on the real-world facts of the matter, whatever you believe about the evidence. You can believe something to be true based on false evidence, and if what you believe is actually true, you are not deluded in that belief (although you may be deluded in believing that the evidence you base it on is true).

Above, you acknowledge that this is evidence but dismiss it for various reasons so you can hold the beliefs you want.

No, I'm suggesting that you are misinterpreting your evidence.

You claim to be testing your beliefs, but I suspect that what you are actually doing is confirming your beliefs - looking for evidence that supports your preconceptions. To borrow a leaf from your book, calling it 'testing' doesn't make it so. To properly test, you need to define the objective criteria that would falsify your belief (i.e. define precisely what it would take to show your belief is wrong), then devise an objective way to show that those criteria don't hold.

With many beliefs, proper testing is simply not possible to do, because the criteria are subjective; I suggest the belief you think you tested falls into this category, and I suspect your tests weren't objective and weren't attempting to falsify the criteria that would show your belief to be wrong.

But I'm prepared to be shown wrong - you may not have posted all the details, or I may have misunderstood your posts. So can tell me what objective criteria would falsify your belief, and how your tests were an objective way to show these criteria do not hold?

 

[razzelflabben]

You can also measure and duplicate the "pulling wings off flies" test. But that doesn't mean the test give evidence to the belief.

ah...not sure what you mean...if I test thoroughly which we already talked about the necessity to do, it gives us evidence to base our belief on. Whether right or wrong, that is the best way to minimize delusion and maximize truth in any belief.

You wouldn't be trying to remove the thorough testing discussion we already had would you?

So are you saying that you're only testing the Bible to see if it's internally consistent? Or are you testing to see if your belief in a god isn't a delusion? The former test really doesn't say anything about theology at all, and if it's the latter then, as I've mentioned, your test can't show that a belief in your god isn't a delusion.

wow, I'm getting dizzy from all you alls merry go round antics to try to avoid a simple truth.

In what I am purposing, it depends on the belief what we are actually testing. For example, if I want to know if the claims in the bible are true, I test the claims in the bible. If I want to know if the claims made by the God of the Bible are true, I test the claims made by the God of the Bible. If I want to know if there is reason to believe the God of the Bible is true, I test those claims that show evidence of His existence. If I want to know if a given theology or doctrine are try, I test the theology or doctrine. Each a different belief, each a different set of tests...how is this hard people?

Oh and remember, we aren't even trying to prove that any single belief is a delusion as you try to change the topic once again. What we are doing is trying to show how to minimize the risk of any belief being delusion. As stated about a zillion times now, in belief we are never talking about absolutes, only probabilities...not sure why you all are so determined to change the OP topic but it is getting really old really fast to try to keep you all on topic....maybe it is time for mod help to keep the thread on topic?

Once again, if you're using a false test to convince yourself that your belief isn't a delusion, then you're making an error. Similar to the "pulling wings off flies" test.

yep, which is why we had that whole discussion about what constitutes a proper test and what doesn't...you are welcome to review that part of the discussion if you like.

What evidence do you have that the only interpretation of your tests is the god you believe in?

Huh? More trying to goad me into getting off topic...shame on you...1. I have repeatedly said that in belief there is no absolute, thus your question is asking me to give you information that is not only off topic but contrary to what I have said and believe. 2. I have boldly said that each person should do their own tests and determine for themselves what they believe yet here you want me to defend my own interpretation as if I believe it is somehow a magical carpet ride to true, but just as troubling is that asking me this is off topic yet again.

 

[razzelflabben]

Seems like an awful lot of question-begging, but I can't quite tell because you haven't laid out your argument in a concise syllogistic form.

lol...oh my, after all the pages and pages of scrutiny of my claims that we should test...after all the pages and pages of me showing how that would look in what I personally believe, and you still try to goad me with this....lol....lol...lol...oh my....

Okay, deep breath...let's try this a different way...since you refuse to answer the questions about the unicorn belief you keep trying to avoid, let's ask this question. What tests have you done that falsify the existence of God....keeping in mind that Atheists believe there is no god and agnostics believe they don't know if there is a God or not. OR in the case of humanism, that we are our own god....what tests have led you to believe that your specific belief (we already know you keep changing your belief in relation to what you think gets you out of a pickle) so that your belief is based on what you think is truth and not delusion?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

yep and if the root of each is consistently the same, at the very least we should be suspicious that the roots that are the same might have something to do with it.

I get that; it's enumerative induction.

which is why it must be tested, but you all seem to not get that for some strange reason.

In your previous post, you appeared to describe the repeated consistencies you observed as being the tests. By all means explain where I'm going wrong - but no more stories, please.

...What I am telling you is that God is one of the variables we have to test for

OK, so what are your objective criteria that uniquely distinguish God, and how do you objectively test for them?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

lol...oh my, after all the pages and pages of scrutiny of my claims that we should test...after all the pages and pages of me showing how that would look in what I personally believe, and you still try to goad me with this....lol....lol...lol...oh my....

Okay, deep breath...let's try this a different way...since you refuse to answer the questions about the unicorn belief you keep trying to avoid, let's ask this question. What tests have you done that falsify the existence of God....keeping in mind that Atheists believe there is no god and agnostics believe they don't know if there is a God or not. OR in the case of humanism, that we are our own god....

First, pointing out your question-begging is not goading. See the definition of both terms. Second, you can be an agnostic and an atheist; they are not mutually exclusive categories. I am an agnostic atheist. Third, humanism doesn't posit that "we are our own god."

what tests have led you to believe that your specific belief (we already know you keep changing your belief in relation to what you think gets you out of a pickle)

What indicates that I "keep changing [my] belief in relation to what I think gets [me] out of a pickle"? That assertion seems to come from nowhere, backed up by nothing.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

ah...not sure what you mean...if I test thoroughly which we already talked about the necessity to do, it gives us evidence to base our belief on. Whether right or wrong, that is the best way to minimize delusion and maximize truth in any belief.

You wouldn't be trying to remove the thorough testing discussion we already had would you?

Once again, no. A test does not necessarily give evidence to a claim if the test can't give evidence for a claim.

1. I have repeatedly said that in belief there is no absolute, thus your question is asking me to give you information that is not only off topic but contrary to what I have said and believe.

I'm not talking about absolute belief, I'm talking about what constitutes good evidence. Testing the Bible to see if it's internally consistent only gets you to "The Bible is (or isn't) internally consistent." It doesn't say whether the Christian god exists or why it even matters if the Bible is internally consistent.

2. I have boldly said that each person should do their own tests and determine for themselves what they believe yet here you want me to defend my own interpretation as if I believe it is somehow a magical carpet ride to true, but just as troubling is that asking me this is off topic yet again.

Like I've mentioned before, people who are delusional do their own tests and find that they aren't delusional. So each person doing their own tests can't be enough. You have to be able to externally verify claims to help make sure they aren't delusions.

 

[razzelflabben]

You apparently don't get it. What testing do you think I need to do? I'm not the one making the claim. I'm merely telling you that I'm not convinced of it (i.e., I don't believe it). And I already told you why I don't believe it: the absence of good reasons to believe it.

ARGHHHHHH...what do you not get? SEriously what don't you get. Your belief is that you don't know...which is a perfectly fine belief. But the question is how do you know that your belief that you don't know is truth and not delusion? You are the one making the claim, your claim is that you believe you don't know the answer. The question is what makes you think that your belief that you don't know the answer is not a delusion.

Look at it this way, let's say there is a cake on the table, you say, I don't believe there is a cake on the table, I don't believe that there is a cake on the table, I don't know what to believe about whether or not there is a cake on the table. You are being asked why you don't know, what tests did you do that came back inconclusive as to what is or is not on the table.

Um, no, I never said that. Recall that you insulted my reading comprehension earlier...

What quandary? I've explained clearly why I don't believe that unicorns are real creatures. The burden of proof is on the individual claiming that they are. What evidence do they have to present?

wow, really, we are going there...first you said you don't believe in unicorns then you said you don't know if you believe in unicorns which was the point you were supposedly trying to make then you went back to not believing in unicorns and I said that the shifting sand thing was evidence to me personally of a belief that is delusion. You didn't like that, so we tried again and still you refuse to answer the simple little question. I think it is time to treat your posts as hostile.

I'm starting to think that you're projecting here... But then again, I can't quite tell given that your posts are difficult to follow.

I asked you a very simple question and you not only refuse to answer but then change your claim several times so you can try to claim I am projecting....what would I be projecting? You refuse to answer the question and I have answered every single question asked of me....so what then would be the projection? We have you refusing to answer any questions and me answering every single question asked, I don't see any projecting anywhere in that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

ARGHHHHHH...what do you not get? SEriously what don't you get. Your belief is that you don't know...which is a perfectly fine belief. But the question is how do you know that your belief that you don't know is truth and not delusion? You are the one making the claim, your claim is that you believe you don't know the answer. The question is what makes you think that your belief that you don't know the answer is not a delusion.

Could you respond to what I have actually written, rather than the words you are trying to put in my mouth?

wow, really, we are going there...first you said you don't believe in unicorns then you said you don't know if you believe in unicorns

No, I never said such a thing... Again, respond to what I've actually written or don't bother responding at all.

I think it is time to treat your posts as hostile.

You insulted my reading comprehension and now all of a sudden my posts are deemed "hostile"? Hmmm...

I asked you a very simple question and you not only refuse to answer but then change your claim several times

I never changed my claim because I never made a claim. I responded to a claim (i.e., the claim that unicorns are real creatures).

 

[amariselle]

Human nature/psychology

But why is human nature/psychology the way it is? Surely evolution could/would have produced better results than what constitutes "evil?" Why would we, as the most advanced species, also not be the kindest and least likely to do destructive and harmful things? (In fact, it is quite the opposite)

Not to mention, there is much that is "evil" and destructive that doesn't come from human nature/psychology at all. Things like disease and natural disasters that kill many.

Human nature/psychology is not a sufficient explanation, in my opinion.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But why is human nature/psychology the way it is?

No one has a complete understanding how human nature evolved. That lack of knowledge doesn't mean that we didn't evolve our nature.

Surely evolution could/would have produced better results than what constitutes "evil?"

Why would you assume this?

Why would we, as the most advanced species, also not be the kindest and least likely to do destructive and harmful things? (In fact, it is quite the opposite)

Why do you believe that we're the most "advanced" species? Other species are bigger, stronger, faster, etc. And what does it have to do with being kind?