• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You understand that faith is not a synonym to knowledge, right? Faith is claiming to know based on some promise.
actually, faith is trust or confidence in what you believe. What you are trying to argue against if belief not faith.
So, he is asking "HOW do you know?" . Saying "faith" is same as saying

"Well... I don't really know, but I have this strong gut feeling that it's right... so I'm going with my gut"

That's essentially what you seem to be saying, or at least what you sound like in this instance.
sorry, that is not the same thing...it just isn't...I disagree with the assertion the poster made, but your analysis here is wrong. Faith being that trust in what we believe, has nothing to do with a feeling of right or wrong, rather it is a trust that what I have a gut feeling about as right is right enough to trust it. IOW's blind belief is the gut feeling that something is right or wrong faith is the trust that what I believe is reality and not delusion.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You understand that faith is not a synonym to knowledge, right? Faith is claiming to know based on some promise.
actually, faith is trust or confidence in what you believe. What you are trying to argue against is belief not faith.
So, he is asking "HOW do you know?" . Saying "faith" is same as saying

"Well... I don't really know, but I have this strong gut feeling that it's right... so I'm going with my gut"

That's essentially what you seem to be saying, or at least what you sound like in this instance.
sorry, that is not the same thing...it just isn't...I disagree with the assertion the poster made, but your analysis here is wrong. Faith being that trust in what we believe, has nothing to do with a feeling of right or wrong, rather it is a trust that what I have a gut feeling about as right is right enough to trust it. IOW's blind belief is the gut feeling that something is right or wrong faith is the trust that what I believe is reality and not delusion.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, what sounds magical is proposing that there is a supernatural entity that one is able to form a "personal relationship" with by means that are either unexplained or poorly understood.
the discussion on this thread is not whether or not a personal relationship with God is possible, probable, magical, or other. The question is, how can we know if our beliefs are real or delusion. The Bible claims, no matter what we think of it, that a personal relationship with God is not only possible but is testable. Thus, we can answer the OP question by saying, test what is testable and from there draw an logical conclusion just like we would in any scientific endeavor. You all keep trying to change the topic into things it isn't which confuses the entire thread.
The process of making and evaluating claims isn't what's magical; rather, it's the entity that we are discussing and its mode of interaction that seems entirely magical. If I recall correctly, devolved has alluded to this in his exchange with you.
That is off topic...what is on topic is that if we test and all the tests come back to yes, then the logical conclusion is that what I believe to be true based on the tests is more likely to be real than delusion.

How is that so hard to understand? Now, if you want to discuss all this other stuff, start a new thread with that being the topic and invite me over. You know, something like, is it possible that God wants a real relationship with us? Or can we have a relationship with God? Or maybe how do we know if we have a real relationship with God? Or something like that, but that question is not on the table in this discussion and you would have far less trouble with comprehension if you keep in mind the OP question and stick to it.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Many books make such claims. I see no reason to privilege the Bible in this regard. So what indicates that the Bible is "the authority on that deity"? (emphasis added)
Okay, let's start with this question and build from it...what other books claim to be the authority on who God is and what He says....please list them so we can check each one out for accuracy...thanks...
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,182.00
Faith
Atheist
actually, faith is trust or confidence in what you believe. What you are trying to argue against is belief not faith...
OK, so what are the grounds for this trust or confidence? One usually has grounds (reasons) for trust or confidence in something.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
OK, so what are the grounds for this trust or confidence? One usually has grounds (reasons) for trust or confidence in something.
Well, that is what I have been telling you from my personal perspective, it's about testing the claims the Deity or authority of that deity claim is evidence for His relationship in and through us.

Most however, base it solely on what happens within themselves when they actually believe unto salvation.

The two ideas are similar and yet different. For example, I don't rely only on what happened within me, I also look at other people and see the difference. We have a guy in our church that has been atheist all his life, the last month give or take a few days he gave his life to Christ and the difference in the man is stark and mesmerizing so to speak. And, it matches every single thing that scripture says will be evident in a true believer when the HS "sets up His home" within our hearts. The others that you talk to, see the same kinds of changes within themselves but stop looking there. So it is similar but different, they take their faith from the inward evidence and emotional change...I take my from testing that change and comparing it to other tests that can be done on other people (like the passage, you will know them by their love, type idea if you want to know where the concept comes from)
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,182.00
Faith
Atheist
Well, that is what I have been telling you from my personal perspective, it's about testing the claims the Deity or authority of that deity claim is evidence for His relationship in and through us.
Can you give an example of such a test that you've done (or point me to it if you've already posted one) ?

I understand that there is a book of scripture with stories and claims that can (potentially) be validated, e.g. historically, culturally, politically, or scientifically verified. But how does testing the claims in a book confirm the existence of a deity? Are there verifiable statements of fact that were not conceivably knowable by the people of the time?
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Can you give an example of such a test that you've done (or point me to it if you've already posted one) ?

I understand that there is a book of scripture with stories and claims that can (potentially) be validated, e.g. historically, culturally, politically, or scientifically verified. But how does testing the claims in a book confirm the existence of a deity? Are there verifiable statements of fact that were not conceivably knowable by the people of the time?
The first list comes from Galatians 5...the fruit of the spirit. But before we get into this, let's back up a bit.

What we want to test is the claims the primary authority for the deity claims as evidence of that deity. In this case, scripture is the primary authority for what is attributed to God.

God then claims (according to the authority on who God is) that He gives man a guarantee of salvation. IOW's when a man believes unto salvation they are given an down payment of sorts. That down payment is the HS. Most people stop here. They believe unto salvation, "feel" different, notice a change and then call it "faith" or evidence.

Personally, I am too much of a skeptic to leave it at that, I want to know exactly what that guarantee is and how I can see evidence of that guarantee or down payment. Look at it this way, if I buy a house, I would want a receipt for the down payment especially if it was made for me and not something I took from my own account, right? So, we need a receipt, or evidence that this is truth and not delusion. Scripture claims that evidence is the HS and we will know the HS by what He does, that is, the evidence of HIs existence.

There are many things the HS does in our life. Interestingly enough one is to guard us from delusion, but that isn't exactly measurable so we leave that off the list of testable things. As I said, the first and easiest list to find is from Galatians, the fruit of the spirit. The first of that fruit is Love. Now, the world's definition of love is a warm fuzzy feeling (short version obviously) but the Love talked about here is the Biblical Love found in I Cor. 13. This Love has specific characteristics that we can observe and or measure. The list of those characteristics is found in I Cor. 13. We can add some stuff to the list, but that will also come up in other of the fruit so we can hold off on it.

Without going into the whole list, since it would be off topic, let me give you the best definition we can come up with after deep study of what it is...Love is putting another above self in an act of humility creating covenant whose intent/purpose is reconciliation/restoration. Notice that without even listing the characteristics, it is much much more than just a warm fuzzy emotion. In fact, this Love consumes the whole man. It's core is humility, so without humility, there is no Love. It creates a covenant, without covenant you have no Love, it has a purpose, without that purpose, you have no Love. this is a specific Love with things that are observable and measurable and if you have never seen it, I will pray that you do, it's pretty amazing. Anyway, moving on...every one of the characteristics in I Cor. 13 has to be present in order for it to be considered LOVE....but, what is equally important is that according to the bible the source of Love is God Himself. that is why when we test for Love and find it only existing in people who are living in the HS as per other tests all evidenced none falsified, we can know that we are not delusional to conclude that it is NOT irrational to believe that God is.

Joy is the second one, it is not, even though someone on this thread tries to change it to happiness. Joy is a feeling of peace and contentment no matter the situation.

Have to run for a few brief moments, will wait for some of this to soak in before going any further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chriliman
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,182.00
Faith
Atheist
...What we want to test is the claims the primary authority for the deity claims as evidence of that deity. In this case, scripture is the primary authority for what is attributed to God.

... according to the bible the source of Love is God Himself. that is why when we test for Love and find it only existing in people who are living in the HS as per other tests all evidenced none falsified, we can know that we are not delusional to conclude that it is NOT irrational to believe that God is.
OK, so let me get this straight - scripture makes the claim, tells you it's God's word, and tells you the criteria that will verify it ? Don't you see a problem with that?

You say you've tested for Love and found it only exists in people who are living in the HS ? So how many people have you tested for Love, and how did you test them?

How do you know that no people who do not live in the HS have Love? Seems to me, you'd either have to test literally everyone, or propose that people who have Love live in the HS by definition (which is begging the question).

Incidentally, what does 'believing unto salvation mean'? believing in salvation? believing they're saved? believing sufficiently to ensure salvation? (how would that be measured?)
 
Upvote 0

Swan7

Made in the image of His Grace
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2014
9,171
7,365
Forever Summer
✟461,609.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

MOD HAT ON


This thread has been cleaned due to a flame fest. That is not how to debate. It seems the word has been long lost in translation or has been since defined as a negative term. Let’s revive the word, shall we?


Debate_zpspzrzkk8d.jpg


Take a look at the word LISTEN


Learn from each other’s position
Interact with care
State your questions clearly and stay on topic
Time. Be patient with the opposing view
Emotion. Control yourself and be civil with one another
Not everyone thinks the same as you. Everyone is different with their thought processes.


And most of all – agree to disagree! Know when to drop out of the discussion instead of drilling one’s viewpoint through each others skull. That is not debating, but forcing your view on someone else.

This goes hand in hand with CF Rules:
Flaming and Goading
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
Do not personally attack other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

Thank you for reading and participating in this thread.

CHIBI+KOBATO.gif


MOD HAT OFF

 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,086
5,054
✟322,029.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Oh hi.

It's rather simple really, God had embedded eternity into our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11), which is why we tend to think we have a sense of a reality beyond our subjective experience. Human beings are theistic by default, not atheistic. The brain reacts to man-made creations the same way as to natural creations, in other words we exercise the abstract principle of probability way more than any animal ever could, with the properly basic assumption that immaterial minds dictate material objects.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...re-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

So it's not a call to blind leaps of faith. It's a call to very sensible and intelligible small steps which leads to faith. Faith can be strengthened the more we learn and experience, which most adhere to. You can't have true faith through a false ambition. That is indeed where blind faith leaps of blind faith comes from, where initially delusion receives it's roots.

Yes children are theists, but in that they think EVERYTHING is what we would call god, AKA"I know everything, and mom knows everything I know." they don't yet realize they know things mom doesn't and vice versa.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I thought of an analogy that should help explain what I am saying....

Looking at scripture to see what is claimed by the author about how we would know if God exists or not, is like a baker telling us what they put in the cake sitting in front of us. Testing the ingredients, or in the case of God the things that we are told should be there, does NOT say whether or not the one making the claims is or isn't, but it does tell us if the claims are true and if every claim that is made is true, it is LOGICAL not absolute, iow's we are not working in absolutes we are working in abstract, thus how do we know what be believe (abstract) is real or delusion....thus, the logical conclusion is that what I believe based on what the tests show to be 100% true 100% of the time is a natural logical conclusion since the source has never yet been known to lie, I would assume that His existence is not a lie either. See the logical connection. It is as previously stated several times over, not an absolute, but we are not working in an absolute...we are not testing to see if the baker is the one who put the egg in the cake, but rather if the baker is being truthful about what is in the cake.

Hope all that helps to clarify for those that were getting confused by all the false claims about what I said but I didn't really say.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It doesn't answer the questions about the tests you claim 100% success with.
what questions? The OP question was how to know if what we believe is real or a delusion. My answer, as I have repeatedly said, is that we test what is testable that the deity claims to be from them as to the truth of who He/she/it/they are. If everything claimed that is testable is 100% right 100% of the time, it testifies to truth in what is being claimed, right? testifies, not an absolute, when working with science of the scientific method, there is never an absolute truth, only viable conclusions. Thus, if the claims made by the deity are 100% right 100% of the time, we would viably conclude that the deity is speaking truth or if you want to be more politically correct, the claims that are made that are attributed to the deity are true. Now, if every claim a deity makes, or is attributed to a deity is always right, we would then logically assume that all claims are true, even one's we can't test for.

Here is an analogy...Joe has 3 kids. Every single time he tells the kids that he will do something, he does it, without fail. What would be the logical conclusion of the matter then if Joe tells his kids that he will take them to the park about 2 PM? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they can count on (they might be disappointed but not likely) that Joe will take them to the park about 2 PM? Of course. Like with God, we haven't yet tested whether or not Joe will indeed take them to the park, but we have tested the truthfulness of Joe's statements and have found no reason to doubt, right? Right. So, if we test all the claims God makes of Himself, or as I said, say thing only more politically correct terms, if we test all the claims that are attributed to God and every single one comes back as true, what would we logically conclude about the things we can't test? That logically, we can't know for absolute, but that we can also have no reason to doubt that it is true, right, just like Joe's promise....right! Thus, when He claims to be, we have no reason to doubt that He is....again, not sure how many times I can say it before you hear, but that is not an absolute, from the standpoint of belief, we cannot be 100% sure that any belief is real or delusion, but we can remove as much possibility for delusion as possible for any belief, by testing.

It's really not as hard a concept as you are trying to make it.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You haven't demonstrated that such is the case with Biblical narrative.
to do so would be off topic....the topic is how would we know if what we believe is real or delusional...I answered that very clearly and rationally. I know that atheists in general are not fond of believers/followers of Christ who actually think things through and use rational thought, but it does happen once in a while and I'm one who does.

Now, as to what we would test for, as per the claims I made, I went into a lot of detail to show you the things that can be measured and tested and the most...looking for a polite word...challenging argument was that we would need to test every single person in the world. To which I showed that was not necessary from a scientific or logical standpoint. From both scientific process and logical thought, it is not necessary to test every single person in the world, what is necessary is 1. that we test extensively, as in everyone we know or meet, (just and example) and 2. that none of those tests are falsified. You see, from both a scientific mindset and a logical one, there comes a point in which we say, the viable conclusion is X...just like Joe and the claim that he will take his kids to the park at 2 PM. It isn't necessary to wait till 2 PM to know that we have no reason to doubt, because all the times he has been tested for truth, have been evidence that he is true to his word. Thus, we logically conclude that he will in fact, take his kids to the park at 2. We don't need to test him till he dies in order to make a logical conclusion. Likewise, we don't need to test every single person in the world in order to make a viable conclusion. And that was the most challenging argument presented. If you want to challenge the concept, the idea, the claim as per the OP please do so with something challenging. If you want to change the topic, we can look at forum rules and see what it says about doing so.
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
to do so would be off topic....the topic is how would we know if what we believe is real or delusional...I answered that very clearly and rationally. I know that atheists in general are not fond of believers/followers of Christ who actually think things through and use rational thought, but it does happen once in a while and I'm one who does.

But the inability to test the 100% of the time claim is precisely what makes it irrational. Rationality doesn't merely rests with making hypothetical claims with attached syllogisms.

One can claim any consistency in any scope of belief. The question is about how to tell whether a belief is delusion or not.

You are not presentic a clear way to which we can reasonably test your 100% of the time claim, so how is it rational and reasonable?

It's sort of like a claim that the way to test that I can jump over a house is to check and see that I can actually do that... and it's a rational set up because I give you a way to test it. But it's not a rational claim unless I can demonstrate it.
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Likewise, we don't need to test every single person in the world in order to make a viable conclusion.

Likewise... let's say we test a person who claims to be a Christian... but the test fails. We don't find the joy you are talking about. What does that mean?
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But the inability to test the 100% of the time claim is precisely what makes it irrational. Rationality doesn't merely rests with making hypothetical claims with attached syllogisms.
huh? who said anything about testing 100% of the time? Your reinventing the argument again. What I said is that if 100% of the tests we do are right 100% of the time we have a logical reason for a viable conclusion....let's go back to Joe and the park, shall we? The argument is NOT let's test Joe 100% of the time, we already talked about that and I showed you why that was a misrepresentation of my argument. Meaning, this is the second time I have corrected you on this misrepresentation. At three times, I assume it's willful...Joe doesn't have to be tested his entire life before we are able to make a viable conclusion that there is no reason to doubt that he will take the kids to the park at 2 just like he said. That doesn't mean that we stop testing, everything he says is testable in regards to whether he has become a liar suddenly, however, until there is a falsifiable claim there is no reason to think that we are delusional to assume he will take the kids to the park at 2. See, the claim is NOT we will test 100% of the time and I have told you that 3 + times now even though I am only counting the latest two. Rather the claim is that if every time we test, the results are 100% true, 100% of the time, iow's no falsifications at all, then there is no logical reason given 50 years of testing, to think it is a delusion and someone else, someone who has not tested or has tested and been falsified could be believing truth.

Seriously, this isn't as hard as you are trying to make it. It may be uncomfortable to you, don't know if it is or not, but as an atheist I could see how it would be uncomfortable to you. It may fly in the face of what other believers have told you, someone mentioned that previously. It may even challenge you to depths of truth you have never been willing to explore, who knows, but to try and make the concept as hard as you pretend in your posts it is, is not only dishonest, but inflamatory with all the twisting you insist on doing in your posts. So, if you have a legit question, ask away...if you have a serious challenge, I'm excited cause I thrive on challenge of my ideas...but if all you want to do is try to twist things till you feel like you can take me out of context and thus prove me to be one of the drones that follow mindlessly as some of your posts seem to think you can do, then, we are done. I have been clear in my ideas and opinions. I welcome serious challenge and disagreement, but the stuff your posts have been filled with is ridiculous and not to be tolerated according to forum rules.
One can claim any consistency in any scope of belief. The question is about how to tell whether a belief is delusion or not.
and what was my response? By testing the belief as much as we can and if nothing in those extensive tests is falsified, you know 100% right 100% of the time...aka nothing falsified, (not sure any other way to say it but I can think of other ways...then there is no logical reason to suspect that what I believe is delusion. But notice a couple of important things that I have said and your past posts try to reinvent....1. I said extensive testing, that is not one or two people 2. a correction of your claim that we test 100% of the population of the world when in reality I said when the tests, you know the extensive tests we do come back 100% right 100% of the time, that is, without anything that would falsify them, then we have no logical reason to believe that we are believing a delusion but instead have viable reason to believe we have found truth. and 3. notice that once again I am correcting the slight of hand in your posts to show that we are NOT talking about absolutes but rather beliefs, thus not working with did the ball bounce that time, but rather dealing with the logical conclusions we can draw from the tests we run...
You are not presentic a clear way to which we can reasonably test your 100% of the time claim, so how is it rational and reasonable?
really? I gave several examples, showed that they were measurable, showed scripture that gave all those things listed, pointed out that some could even be refined down to make them even more testable...seems to me this is another false accusation of my character and posts....When you accuse me of not doing something I did several times over that is an attack of my character, just fyi.
It's sort of like a claim that the way to test that I can jump over a house is to check and see that I can actually do that... and it's a rational set up because I give you a way to test it. But it's not a rational claim unless I can demonstrate it.
huh? That is so circular I can't even follow it and it is nothing at all like what I showed was testable about the claims...so, I'm assuming you are back to not responding to my posts but pretending you are which is another forum violation...what is that, 3 in just this one post?
 
Upvote 0