• 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.

What is the truth?

Galatea

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2016
2,258
1,891
45
Alabama
✟77,581.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And if someone declares something is true, they should be able to demonstrate this truth, objectively. If they cant, it is personal opinion.
I would say the Bible is objective truth, however, people believe it is subjective and not objective.

So, I could declare Christianity is objective truth and demonstate it by referencing the Bible. If a person is in a state of unreality and does not accept the Bible as objective and not a book cobbled together by a bunch of disparate Jews in ancient times, it doesn't much matter if I tell you the truth or not.

People who tried out for American Idol and sing atrociously can be told by four judges, laughed at by millions of viewers, and still believe they are good singers. Even though the consensus is that the person is not a good singer. I think even if their singing was analyzed note by note and the person was shown that they did not sing the correct notes, they are so invested in their unreality, it would not matter.

People very often question the objectivity of things. Which is good, it should be questioned- it should be tried.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I would say the Bible is objective truth, however, people believe it is subjective and not objective.

So, I could declare Christianity is objective truth and demonstate it by referencing the Bible. If a person is in a state of unreality and does not accept the Bible as objective and not a book cobbled together by a bunch of disparate Jews in ancient times, it doesn't much matter if I tell you the truth or not.

People who tried out for American Idol and sing atrociously can be told by four judges, laughed at by millions of viewers, and still believe they are good singers. Even though the consensus is that the person is not a good singer. I think even if their singing was analyzed note by note and the person was shown that they did not sing the correct notes, they are so invested in their unreality, it would not matter.

People very often question the objectivity of things. Which is good, it should be questioned- it should be tried.
Using this line of reasoning, all holy books could be considered objective truth. And, declarations are a dime a dozen. Demonstrating a declaration is accurate, is another story.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rebecca12
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Their concepts are not real, what is in their heads is false- they are in a state of unreality.
Their concepts are real. Their concepts are just not conforming to other concepts of other people. That's what I meant with "Truth is a human abstraction".

In other cases, their concepts might even misalign with reality. But even then, the concepts would be real. They exist, they are part of reality.

It is this tiny part of reality that humans call "truth" that they think is so important that it blots everything else out. Humans make an abstract statement like "I am a great singer" or "You are not a great singer"... and think that this "truth" is reality.

It is not. It is just a description, an abstraction made for human use and usefulness. But there is only one reality, of which the only "true" (if we need to use this word) description is the object itself.

I was being a little - just a little - facetious in my first post when I said "There is no truth". Truth exists, it is real, just like any other abstraction. But it is not equal to reality. Reality is all encompassing. Truth is limited. Truth is bound within its own system of abstractions, each with their own sets of rules.

None of that is saying that God does not exist, Jesus does not exist or is not the saviour who gives you eternal life if you believe in him. All this can very well be part of reality - even if I do not believe it is.

But none of it is reality, and none of it is "truth".

I do not know what the author of John wanted to express with this phrase, but if you want to use it in a way that excludes people who die from "reality"... you are doing it wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Galatea

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2016
2,258
1,891
45
Alabama
✟77,581.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Their concepts are real. Their concepts are just not conforming to other concepts of other people. That's what I meant with "Truth is a human abstraction".

In other cases, their concepts might even misalign with reality. But even then, the concepts would be real. They exist, they are part of reality.

It is this tiny part of reality that humans call "truth" that they think is so important that it blots everything else out. Humans make an abstract statement like "I am a great singer" or "You are not a great singer"... and think that this "truth" is reality.

It is not. It is just a description, an abstraction made for human use and usefulness. But there is only one reality, of which the only "true" (if we need to use this word) description is the object itself.

I was being a little - just a little - facetious in my first post when I said "There is no truth". Truth exists, it is real, just like any other abstraction. But it is not equal to reality. Reality is all encompassing. Truth is limited. Truth is bound within its own system of abstractions, each with their own sets of rules.

None of that is saying that God does not exist, Jesus does not exist or is not the saviour who gives you eternal life if you believe in him. All this can very well be part of reality - even if I do not believe it is.

But none of it is reality, and none of it is "truth".

I do not know what the author of John wanted to express with this phrase, but if you want to use it in a way that excludes people who die from "reality"... you are doing it wrong.
Their concepts exist, but it does not mean they are real.

I think we are not going to get anywhere, arguing about it.

I think we mean very different things about what is real.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Their concepts exist, but it does not mean they are real.

I think we are not going to get anywhere, arguing about it.

I think we mean very different things about what is real.
If someone of another religion told you their religious beliefs were real and yours were not, how would you ask them to demonstrate their claim?
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Their concepts exist, but it does not mean they are real.

I think we are not going to get anywhere, arguing about it.

I think we mean very different things about what is real.
I think it is quite easy. You seem to think that "real" means "conforming to reality". Am I right?
Someone thinks he is a great singer, but the reality is that he is not a great singer... so his idea is not "real".
This is what I would call "true" (or, in this case, "not true".) What makes a great singer is an abstraction. It is not reality itself.

So if I were to tell you that the reality is that he IS a great singer... and all these judges' and audiences' opinion that he isn't is what is not "real"? Does opinion now define reality? Does the amount of opinions?

No. these things are abstractions. In this case, it is not even a very strong system of abstractions - somewhat better than "chocolade ice cream is great", but way worse than "2+2=4".

All "truths" are such abstractions. Reality is something higher. A "truth" can or cannot conform to reality, some better, some worse. But reality doesn't conform to reality. It doesn't need to. It IS reality, the one and only.

And that is a lot more than a saviour can ever be.
 
Upvote 0

Galatea

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2016
2,258
1,891
45
Alabama
✟77,581.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If someone of another religion told you their religious beliefs were real and yours were not, how would you ask them to demonstrate their claim?
I would see if their religion conforms to the Bible. If it does not, then it is not true and also not real.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I would see if their religion conforms to the Bible. If it does not, then it is not true and also not real.
Just a tad bit of circular reasoning, but i understand your personal need to use that type of reasoning.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rebecca12
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,915
17,131
Canada
✟287,108.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I would see if their religion conforms to the Bible. If it does not, then it is not true and also not real.
The Lord Jesus said: "Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy Word is truth" (John 17.17).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Galatea
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Couple things. We dont know who wrote the gospels, they are considered anonymous writings by the vast majority of academic, Phd level NT historians, which the majority of are christians. Gospels were penned many decades after the proposed events and the names of the authors, were not attached to them until 100+ years after they were written. Second, humans are fully capable of fabricating stories to fullfill psychological needs. Also, people are willing to be martyrs for all kinds of causes, which has no relation to whether those causes are actually true.
Sorry to burst your bubble but PHD's are proven wrong with respect to history and science all the time. Would you like some examples? Two thousand years ago the Pharisees were the most highly respected educated class in all of Israel when Christ walked the earth. They claimed to know everything about God and the general populous followed along with them like puppies. Jesus showed the populous how their teachers and scribes were incorrect in their teaching about God. What could have been the motive for false Pharisetical teaching? We are told by Jesus in Matthew 6:5 that it was empowerment.
They were shown to be wrong by one of their own scholars Saul of Tarsus as well, especially about Jesus. He was a persecutor of Christians that became the apostle to the Gentiles.

For the same reason we cannot rule out modern hyperbole and skeptic book deals on anything controversial that sell like gossip magazines at the supermarket. That said it's pretty ignorant of them to ignore the witness of history, especially when so many independent extant witnesses are available to us that we can draw from. There is no reason to dismiss these ancient witnesses with skeptical theories much less weighty than the evidence on hand. Then there is the archeological evidence of the 20th century and 21st century that have debunked many of the PHD scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries.

The John Ryland's Papyrus has been dated anywhere between an early dating of AD110 to a late dating of AD150. It is not the earliest Gospel papyrus that we have but it is the earliest academically acclaimed. We have a mummy mask made from paper mache' for a 1st century Egyptian that has been identified as having the Gospel of Mark on it. That would bring the corpus of orthodox manuscripts within a few decades of the original autograph. Getting back to John that would also be true for P-52. Most agree the Gospel of John was written around AD90 and the early date of the fragment is about AD110. Not a single ancient document on the planet can attest to having a copy that close to the original autograph. Do you think AD 90, 60 years after the crucifixion and resurrection is too late for a bonafide apostle to have written it?

You would be wrong, since it was attested to by multiple witnesses that John returned to Ephesus after an exile on the Isle of Patmos after the death of Domitian. But let's really decide whether or not eye witness testimony 6 decades after the fact is plausible.

About 4 months ago, last December 7th 2016 several eye witnesses veterans of the attack on Pearl Harbor accounted their experiences they suffered during the surprise attack 75 years prior. Not only were these men accurate in their accounts but some literally had tears in their eyes during the recollections. You don't forget things that are that life changing. P-52 from Ephesus to Alexandria
within two or more decades is amazing attestation, especially since PHD scholars dated John in the latter half of the 2nd century less than a 100 years ago.

If we are honest we should also state that academia has both blessed us with good research as well as set us back with bad research as well. You might remember cold fusion from a few decades back. Academia are also just as likely to practice both biased and unbiased research. They compete for theories that will bring them acclaim and sometimes are ruled by their emotions. Academics also fabricate stories all the time, such as Piltdown man, the missing link, who was listed in academic journals for over 40 years and acclaimed by professors of anthropology only to be found a total fraud.
Regards, John 17:20
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Galatea
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
So, if Jesus is THE truth, "2+2=4" cannot be? Or Jesus equals "2+2=4"?

Truth is a human abstraction. In reality, there is no truth - there only is reality.

And that's the truth. ;)
Really there is no truth? Then why should we believe your statement that "in reality, there is no truth". Wouldn't that statement be a self-indicting false premise?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Willing-heart
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Yes they are agnostic on the issue, which means that they simply don't know, they have no case to prove either way, which is perhaps the most intellectually honest position to take.
Either way to say that John definitely wrote the gospel, simply is not true.
Well no one can state anything that has 100% confidence about an ancient author but we can say we are more confident about Biblical authorship than we are of Homer, Plato, Aristotle and other ancient figures. Yet we don't hear a big debate about dismissing their authorship. There are many integral reasons for ascribing authorship to John when standard tests are applied. The problem is there is a double standard when it comes to New Testament authorship and far more scrutiny given to its text than other ancient documents. There is also no reason to suppose our ancient witnesses were incorrect in ascribing the Gospels to John, especially when you bounce these off the paultry standards we use for other authors. I get it. It's the Bible and there has always been a parting of the seas when it comes to Jesus' words as well as the apostles.
In Christ, Patrick
John 17:20
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Galatea
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sorry to burst your bubble but PHD's are proven wrong with respect to history and science all the time. Would you like some examples? Two thousand years ago the Pharisees were the most highly respected educated class in all of Israel when Christ walked the earth. They claimed to know everything about God and the general populous followed along with them like puppies. Jesus showed the populous how their teachers and scribes were incorrect in their teaching about God. What could have been the motive for false Pharisetical teaching? We are told by Jesus in Matthew 6:5 that it was empowerment.
They were shown to be wrong by one of their own scholars Saul of Tarsus as well, especially about Jesus. He was a persecutor of Christians that became the apostle to the Gentiles.

For the same reason we cannot rule out modern hyperbole and skeptic book deals on anything controversial that sell like gossip magazines at the supermarket. That said it's pretty ignorant of them to ignore the witness of history, especially when so many independent extant witnesses are available to us that we can draw from. There is no reason to dismiss these ancient witnesses with skeptical theories much less weighty than the evidence on hand. Then there is the archeological evidence of the 20th century and 21st century that have debunked many of the PHD scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries.

The John Ryland's Papyrus has been dated anywhere between an early dating of AD110 to a late dating of AD150. It is not the earliest Gospel papyrus that we have but it is the earliest academically acclaimed. We have a mummy mask made from paper mache' for a 1st century Egyptian that has been identified as having the Gospel of Mark on it. That would bring the corpus of orthodox manuscripts within a few decades of the original autograph. Getting back to John that would also be true for P-52. Most agree the Gospel of John was written around AD90 and the early date of the fragment is about AD110. Not a single ancient document on the planet can attest to having a copy that close to the original autograph. Do you think AD 90, 60 years after the crucifixion and resurrection is too late for a bonafide apostle to have written it?

You would be wrong, since it was attested to by multiple witnesses that John returned to Ephesus after an exile on the Isle of Patmos after the death of Domitian. But let's really decide whether or not eye witness testimony 6 decades after the fact is plausible.

About 4 months ago, last December 7th 2016 several eye witnesses veterans of the attack on Pearl Harbor accounted their experiences they suffered during the surprise attack 75 years prior. Not only were these men accurate in their accounts but some literally had tears in their eyes during the recollections. You don't forget things that are that life changing. P-52 from Ephesus to Alexandria
within two or more decades is amazing attestation, especially since PHD scholars dated John in the latter half of the 2nd century less than a 100 years ago.

If we are honest we should also state that academia has both blessed us with good research as well as set us back with bad research as well. You might remember cold fusion from a few decades back. Academia are also just as likely to practice both biased and unbiased research. They compete for theories that will bring them acclaim and sometimes are ruled by their emotions. Academics also fabricate stories all the time, such as Piltdown man, the missing link, who was listed in academic journals for over 40 years and acclaimed by professors of anthropology only to be found a total fraud.
Regards, John 17:20

Listen, I fully understand your personal faith belief is not going to allow acceptance of what the consensus is with academic scholars and historians regarding the NT, that is no shocker.

From my perspective though, I have read the works of many of these academics; liberal, moderate and conservative. When you do that, it is not difficult to see who applies the historical method as it was intended to be implied and who is playing fast and loose with it.

The reality is; most NT scholars will state, the NT is more a work of theology, than it is a work of credible history. There is a reason they have reached this conclusion and I don't expect you to accept it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rebecca12
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Really there is no truth? Then why should we believe your statement that "in reality, there is no truth".
Why you should believe it?

Who said you should believe it? I don't care. I would be satisfied if you understood it... then you can accept or reject it on your gusto.

Wouldn't that statement be a self-indicting false premise?
No.
"There is no truth" and "In reality, there is no truth" are two different statements, which, with a little thought, you should be able to work out for yourself.
 
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Why you should believe it?

Who said you should believe it? I don't care. I would be satisfied if you understood it... then you can accept or reject it on your gusto.


No.
"There is no truth" and "In reality, there is no truth" are two different statements, which, with a little thought, you should be able to work out for yourself.
 
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Why you should believe it?

Who said you should believe it? I don't care. I would be satisfied if you understood it... then you can accept or reject it on your gusto.


No.
"There is no truth" and "In reality, there is no truth" are two different statements, which, with a little thought, you should be able to work out for yourself.

Hi Freodin
I don't think you caught the point.

What I was trying to point out to you was the the fact that your premise or postulate was logically self-contradictory and thus illogical.

"There is no truth" is a statement that presupposes you are telling us a truism we should believe (i.e there is no truth) but, since there is no truth, you cancel your own statement as being a false postulate or hypothesis and render it meaningless. In other words by your own admission you are lying since there is no truth. I'm not trying to pick on you but make you aware you made a self-contradictory statement. You are not alone, others have done the same, including some famous and intellectual people throughout history; so don't feel too bad about it.

George Bernard Shaw:
"We learn from history that we can never learn anything from history."
Isaac Singer
"We have no choice but to believe in free will."
Yogi Berra
"I never said most of the things I've told people"

Anthony Haden Guest
"Of course I can keep secrets. It's the people I tell them to that can't keep them."
"Thank God I'm an atheist."


That was my reason for writing what I did.
Really there is no truth? Then why should we believe your statement that "in reality, there is no truth". Wouldn't that statement be a self-indicting false premise?

Respectfully, Patrick
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hi Freodin
I don't think you caught the point.

What I was trying to point out to you was the the fact that your premise or postulate was logically self-contradictory and thus illogical.

"There is no truth" is a statement that presupposes you are telling us a truism we should believe (i.e there is no truth) but, since there is no truth, you cancel your own statement as being a false postulate or hypothesis and render it meaningless. In other words by your own admission you are lying since there is no truth. I'm not trying to pick on you but make you aware you made a self-contradictory statement. You are not alone, others have done the same, including some famous and intellectual people throughout history; so don't feel too bad about it.

George Bernard Shaw:
"We learn from history that we can never learn anything from history."
Isaac Singer
"We have no choice but to believe in free will."
Yogi Berra
"I never said most of the things I've told people"

Anthony Haden Guest
"Of course I can keep secrets. It's the people I tell them to that can't keep them."
"Thank God I'm an atheist."


That was my reason for writing what I did.
Really there is no truth? Then why should we believe your statement that "in reality, there is no truth". Wouldn't that statement be a self-indicting false premise?

Respectfully, Patrick
Simple question for you. Is there any chance your personal faith belief is wrong and is not the truth, or is that impossible?
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Hi Freodin
I don't think you caught the point.
Oh, I got your point quite well, thank you. But it seems you didn't get mine.

What I was trying to point out to you was the the fact that your premise or postulate was logically self-contradictory and thus illogical.

"There is no truth" is a statement that presupposes you are telling us a truism we should believe (i.e there is no truth) but, since there is no truth, you cancel your own statement as being a false postulate or hypothesis and render it meaningless. In other words by your own admission you are lying since there is no truth. I'm not trying to pick on you but make you aware you made a self-contradictory statement. You are not alone, others have done the same, including some famous and intellectual people throughout history; so don't feel too bad about it.
What I said in my first post was indeed a "truism". I did indeed present it in this form to make it paradoxical. The last line, combined with the "tongue in cheek" smiley should have made it clear that I was taking a humorous approach to this topic. Sorry if you didn't get that... humour is difficult to transport via written text, even with the adding of emoticons.

But the point I was trying to make in this way was very sincere, and, as I think, very valid. And you missed it. Even after I deliberately reminded you of it and asked you to think about it.

See, here you go again: "'There is no truth' is a statement that presupposes you are telling us a truism we should believe..."
But I didn't tell you "there is no truth". I told you "In reality, there is no truth".
Can you not see the difference? Are you not even bothering to ask why I make this difference? Do you take it just for a figure of speech, scrollwork without any meaning? Even after I ask you that this is an important difference that you should think about?

"Every truth is an abstraction", I said. Think about it. What does that mean?
"2+2=4" was given as an example of "truth"... and instantly put into the correct abstract system ("talking about rational, positive integers- here"). This is "true" in (a certain set of) mathematics. This is "true" in our normal lifes because we agree to use this certain set of mathematics. But it only works within these abstractions... because in reality, there is no "2" or "4".

Now I feel I have to explain my usage of "in reality", because I see it gets confused with this common figure of speech.
What we use, in our thoughts and in our language, are abstractions. We use images, representations, symbols... and this is good enough for us to work with. For about every human purpose, this is enough. But we should never fall into the trap to assume that the representation is equal to the real thing.
"An apple", we say, combine that with a mental image about form and colour and taste and smell... and we can go out an buy an apple.
But a real apple is a lot more complicated. We need to clarify. "A green apple" vs. "a red apple". "A green apple from the top of the shelf". "The green apple from the top of the shelf that has been sitting in my cupboard for two days now."
We can get closer and closer to the real thing... but we still would only use abstractions.

The only perfect representation of an object is the object itself. The sum of all these perfect representations, of the objects themselves: that is reality.

So when I said that "In reality, there is no truth", I didn't mean that truth isn't real. Truth exists, but it only refers to the system of abstraction it exists in. Truth exists "within reality"... as everything exists "within" reality.

But just as the word "an apple" is only a weak representation of real apples, limited to a certain system of abstraction, "truth" is only a weak representation of "reality".
There is truth that can represent "true" relations within its respective system. There is no truth that can represent the whole system.

So, if someone comes in and claims that a certain thing, person, system is "The Truth"... I will reply that this cannot be the whole truth.


Well, I hope that helped everyone a little to explain my thoughts in this regard. I also hope this wasn't a tl;dr. If the later... please don't engage in philosophical debates.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
People who tried out for American Idol and sing atrociously can be told by four judges, laughed at by millions of viewers, and still believe they are good singers. Even though the consensus is that the person is not a good singer. I think even if their singing was analyzed note by note and the person was shown that they did not sing the correct notes, they are so invested in their unreality, it would not matter.
Never watched AI but in the early seasons of So You Think You Can Dance (same producers as AI) there was a guy who kept coming back who called himself Sex. He was horrible. There was video proof to him that they showed him how unskilled he was and he STILL thought he was better than any other contestant. So did his mother who showed up a couple of times as well.
 
Upvote 0

Galatea

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2016
2,258
1,891
45
Alabama
✟77,581.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Never watched AI but in the early seasons of So You Think You Can Dance (same producers as AI) there was a guy who kept coming back who called himself Sex. He was horrible. There was video proof to him that they showed him how unskilled he was and he STILL thought he was better than any other contestant. So did his mother who showed up a couple of times as well.
I know some of the lousy contestants were faking just to get on air, get their fifteen minutes of fame, but it was amazing to see how many people (and their friends and family) thought they were good singers when obviously they were horrendous.

I think that was more fascinating for me, than anything else- to see the extent of delusion that a sane person can actually be under.
 
Upvote 0