Oldsoul,
>> That aside, LittleToe is correct that needlessly and improperly using charged language that carries widely understood negative connotations to the degree that "delusional" does is argumentative, disrespectful, and destructive to the acceptance of your arguments. If you want me to stick to facts as defined but refuse to do so yourself, we aren;t going to get very far and you are going to look silly.
I don't believe I'm improperly using charged language. I am merely being consistent.
Just as I believe George Bush is delusional (based on the colloquial use of the term) because of statements regarding the spirit realm that he has made, I believe others including yourself are delusional. The reason is because you have given me no better evidence for your perception than George Bush has. If there is a way to differentiate then I'm all ears... but then we get into the realm of testability.
I can't have it both ways and feel that George Bush is delusional but your relationship with god is valid unless you provide some evidence.
I know it's not a pretty word, but I'm trying to be as consistent as possible.
Again, if we take "delusional" to mean: "harboring explicitly false beliefs or almost certainly false beliefs that cannot be explicitly falsified" then George Bush is delusional for the following reasons:
1. He believes his perceptions are caused by an external dimension
2. There is no evidence of this external dimension
3. There are physical explanations for the phenomenon he is describing
4. This is not a falsifiable belief
If #3 did not obtain, then I would probably not use the word delusional because the claim would simply be non-falsifiable and Occham's Razor would not apply.
Cheers,
rem
Posts by rem
-
369Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
-
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Not to belabor the point, but this type of thing is what I'm referring to:
>> Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
I have no idea whether Bush said those things at all, but if he did then I believe he is delusional... or maybe just a liar.
To me it is scary that public policy is influenced by such delusions.
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Yes, I do understand that it has a derrogatory connotation. I have to agree with Bill Maher when he says "religion is a mental disorder." :)
Fortunately for the vast majority of humans it doesn't seem to be overly debilitating... in fact most seem to do quite well and many are far better off than I am.
Of course I have my own delusions... like I said before, I'm not immune. The thing about delusions, though, is that usually it's up to someone else to point them out to you.
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Hmm... maybe I've been mistaken all my life, but I was pretty sure that the word delusional had the connotation of being fooled by the brain. Thus, if I beleive their perceptions are merely their brain fooling them, then yes I can label them as delusional.
And no, I'm not changing the definition of the word... I'm using a fairly common interpretation of it. As I've said before, it is quite acceptable to use the word delusional in this sense:
"That person who believes that invisible fairies live in his knees is delusional"
That claim is not falsifiable, he is claiming that only he can perceive them but they are real, and there is no evidence for the claim. My default position for such a claim is that the person is delusional until evidence is forthcoming. Is that so ridiculous?
rem -
34
Chasing rainbows - how I got engaged in Paris
by Abaddon ini took kate, my girlfriend of between the last five and ten years (depending how you define girlfriend) to paris this weekend and proposed.
i had a couple of scenarios mapped out, but was playing it by ear as to the right moment.. on saturday night when we sat down to eat at a restaurant the waiter asked me if i "had got engaged to the lady yet", and then said "if not, i will".
i'm sure he does it to every foreign couple where the women isn't wearing a ring but i could not believe it that one .
-
-
rem
Congrats, man! Great story.
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Oldsoul,
I guess what it comes down to is that I don't accept the simple definition of "deluded". The English language is not a strict godel incomplete formal system, so when you insist on such a narrow definition of the word "deluded" it really starts to lose its meaning.
My preferred definition of "deluded" would be: having an explicity false belief or an almost certain false belief that cannot be explicitly falsified.
I'm happy with that since when I say you are deluded I'm using my own definition, not yours... so that doesn't make me deluded. If I were to use the word deluded in its strict sense, then yes, I would be deluded, but I'm not.
LT,
I'm sure I'm deluded about certain things that I don't even realize. I believe all sorts of crazy things: time slows down the faster you go, uncaused events are possible at the subatomic level, entangled particles can interact at faster than light speeds, etc. Perhaps some are wrong, but I'm just going off the best evidence I have today and I'm definitely not trusting my own perceptions. In fact, many of the things I believe are *counterintuitive*, but I believe them because they are backed by evidence.
I don't believe I'm deluded about the spirit realm because I simply do not believe in it. If there is evidence then I will believe.
So in a sense, we are all probably deluded in some area or another, but I'm specifically referring to encounters with the spirit realm when I say that I believe the majority of humans are deluded.
Again, that's deluded in my special definition just because I can't think of another word that offers the same connotation of being fooled by the brain.
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Oldsoul,
Perhaps there is a continuum from disagreeing to believing someone is deluded. I agree this is not in keeping with the strict use of the word "deluded", but using the word colloquially in absense of the perfect word with the same connotation of having a slight psychological issue.
"All people see the color green differently" - I disagree
"I believe there may be a spirit realm" - I disagree, but I could be wrong
"I have met Jesus and have a relationship with him" - I believe you are deluded
"I created the universe and all of your memories last Tuesday" - I believe you are deluded
There are probably many more levels of the continuum.
rem -
43
Tarot Cards
by free2beme ini own five tarot card decks, and use them often.
not so often that i live my life by them, but enough.
one deck is one i use more then others, as i feel more of a connection with the cards.
-
-
rem
If offered I'd accept. I'm a skeptic, though, so I wouldn't take it seriously - it's just entertainment.
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Oldsoul,
So basically what you are saying with your strict interpretation of the word deluded is that the following sentence is not valid:
"That person who believes he created the world and all of my memories last tuesday is probably deluded."
If you believe that is not a valid assertion, then perhaps we need another word that means almost the exact same thing as deluded, but not quite. You are the wordsmith... I'm just a normal guy.
If there is no appropriate word, then it's simply a limitation of the English language. At this point I feel like we are just quibbling over semantics.
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Oldsoul,
>> Inference of delusion is an ad hominem attack unless you can falsify my belief.
It's not meant as an attack, just an observation... if a person believes in the spiritual realm then he or she is probably deluded. (In my opinion he or she is deluded) I'm not using the observation against you as it relates to your argumentation in this thread, so I'm not sure how it's relevant. If I were to do that, it would be an ad hominem logical fallacy.
>> In my opinion, it is dismissive and extremely disrespectful language, not befitting the bulk of my posts in this thread. If you want to play word games, I am an adequate sparring partner, but mostly I would like some mutual respect clearly evidenced.
I understand that it is not a positive thing to have people believe you are deluded. That is why I do my best to not hold beliefs that are most probably false. The scientific method, logic, and Occham's Razor are useful tools in this endeavor.
That being said, I've never said that delusion has anything to do with intelligence and your above average intelligence is quite apparent. For that I do have respect.
rem