What evidence is there that christians are all mass deluded?

[DeepShadow]

Okay then, I personally have eyewitness accounts of Odin, Zeus, and Ra. That means they are all real.

Thank you! Finally someone illustrated the problem of this thread: objectively proving that someone is delusional. It cannot be done.

We can challenge a subjective belief insofar as the person tries to push it on us, but we can't push back. If someone insists that the fairies will curse me if I walk across X pasture, I can respond that I won't believe in fairies until I see them myself. This shifts the burden of proof onto the other person: if they want me to believe in fairies, they need to provide sufficient evidence.

But what if they don't care whether or not I believe? They've warned me using what they know; I've responded in a predictable fashion. If they don't want to press the issue, it remains unresolved: there is no sufficient proof either way.

That's how it is for me as a Christian. I've witnessed things that satisfied my burden of proof in the matter of God and Christ. Yet my experience was private and personal (subjective); I don't expect anyone to be convinced because of what I say. I have no more objective proof that God exists than I have objective proof I love my wife. I've got my witness--go get your own.

But if you want to say I'm insane, now the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove that my experiences are the result of hallucinations or delusions or whatnot.

And you can't.

 

[Smoke]

Curious. If eyewitness accounts of an event do not qualify as evidence, what does?

Technically, there are no eyewitness accounts of the resurrection in the Bible, or even accounts that purport to be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection.

If you believe that Paul encountered Jesus on the Damascus Road, you might infer that Jesus had been resurrected, or not. However, it would not by any stretch of the imagination be an eyewitness account of the resurrection itself.

As for the gospels, they are obviously not eyewitness accounts, and apart from John they don't claim to be.

 

[Azakel]

Thank you! Finally someone illustrated the problem of this thread: objectively proving that someone is delusional.

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make. But what ever.

 

[Willamena]

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

But it was a better one.

 

[Humanistheart]

But if you want to say I'm insane, now the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove that my experiences are the result of hallucinations or delusions or whatnot.

And you can't.

You beleive in a talking dead guy and call a god that kills billions in your bible to be loving... No, the burden of proof is still on you to show you're not dellusional. Prove that your experiences are not delusions? You need to prove they actually happend before counter-proof is needed.

 

[linwood]

I really think all you need to do to answer this OP is visit Msizers "Will you be happy in heaven while your child burns in hell ?" thread.

It`s positive evidence that alot of theists do live in a world of delusion.
Hell, the delusion is palpable in there.

The ability to continue to believe that black is white even after you`ve been shown the truth is delusion.

It`s either that or these people have a moral system I wouldn`t allow near my kids.

 

[Mister Emu]

No amount of facepalming will make the Bible being evidence of Jesus circular reasoning...

No, the burden of proof is still on you to show you're not dellusional.

My beliefs are not incorrigable - not delusion
My beliefs are neither impossible, nor are they demonstrably incorrect - not delusion

There you go...

 

[Madhuri]

Delusion is an interesting concept. The definition relies on the individual having a false belief. But nobody knows really, what is or isnt reality. In fact, you find many people who are convinced that they are not deluded because their beliefs are based on probability or likeliness. But even what seems highly probable can be wrong.

We're probably all deluded. In fact, I'd say we are definitely all delusional about -some- things in life.

 

[Storm]

No, the burden of proof is still on you to show you're not dellusional.

That's not how it works. If you made the claim, it's up to you to prove it.

 

[DeepShadow]

Technically, there are no eyewitness accounts of the resurrection in the Bible, or even accounts that purport to be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection.

True. That would actually be a step in forming the circularity that other people have already claimed. Too bad they aren't taking those steps.

If you believe that Paul encountered Jesus on the Damascus Road, you might infer that Jesus had been resurrected, or not. However, it would not by any stretch of the imagination be an eyewitness account of the resurrection itself.

Also true.

As for the gospels, they are obviously not eyewitness accounts, and apart from John they don't claim to be.

Ah, so I can infer that--according to you--John claims to be an eyewitness account, but is "obviously" not. That is a claim that can be supported!

Why do you think John is not an eyewitness account?

 

[DeepShadow]

You beleive in a talking dead guy and call a god that kills billions in your bible to be loving...

Whatever. This is only the latest instance of your demonstrations that you know nothing of what I or other LDS believe.

No, the burden of proof is still on you to show you're not dellusional.

Only if I want to convince others. Do you go around offering proof of your subjective experiences? I don't. For example: I love my wife. That's subjective, but true. Can I prove it? No.

Prove that your experiences are not delusions? You need to prove they actually happend before counter-proof is needed.

Prove that my experiences are NOT delusions? Pray tell, how do you go proving something to NOT be true? Prove there are no elephants in the room with you. Be careful, they may be very small, and they may be moving around behind your back as you search. Maybe they are

It's one of the basic rules of logic: burden of proof is on the affirmative. When I declare to the world that everyone must follow my God, that's the affirmative, and the burden of proof is on ME. When you say I'm delusional, that's also the affirmative, and the burden of proof is on YOU.

The former statement was never made--to wit, I never said people must follow my God. The latter one can be inferred from your post. Hence, burden of proof on you.

 

[DeepShadow]

My beliefs are not incorrigable - not delusion
My beliefs are neither impossible, nor are they demonstrably incorrect - not delusion

Finally someone gets into the DSM-style definitions of delusion. These are things that psychiatrists look for when making a diagnosis--incorrigable, impossible, demonstrably incorrect.

The classic example is of a schizophrenic who claimed to be dead. Psychiatrist talks with her, and asks, among other things, if dead people bleed. She says no. He shows her a pin and asks what will happen if she is pricked. She says there will be no blood, because dead people don't bleed. With her permission, he pricks her, and she gasps, "Wow, dead people DO bleed!"

This is an incorrigable belief. There was nothing that can convince the woman that she was alive. Likewise, it was impossible and demonstrably incorrect, on a reasonably OBJECTIVE level.

All your posturing and name-calling can't hide the fact that you have no such reasonable OBJECTIVE stance to prove Christian experience to be incorrigable, impossible or demonstrably incorrect. The vast numbers of converts into and out of Christianity testify against it being incorrigable. The subjective nature of their experience resists proving it to be impossible or demonstrably incorrect.

Funny thing is, this puts you in exactly the same position as the Christians who want you to accept their beliefs without question: each of you is trying to foist the burden of proof onto the other person.

 

[Mister Emu]

Finally someone gets into the DSM-style definitions of delusion.

I brought it up on page 7

edit:
For clarification the criteria for a delusional belief is:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

 

[Humanistheart]

Whatever. .

Whatever is a pathetic responce. Any post starting with this is assuradly empty of actual merrit, and yours was no exeption. You have belief without cause, this meets the definition of dillusional. The burden's on you.

 

[Smoke]

Ah, so I can infer that--according to you--John claims to be an eyewitness account, but is "obviously" not. That is a claim that can be supported!

Why do you think John is not an eyewitness account?

That takes us off-topic, but if you start a thread I'll join you there as soon as I can.

 

[Beaudreaux]

It would seem to me that it's best left to those who want to use that word to decide what is and is not a "Christian".

Well of course. You know, I'm a Christian because I believe the concept of God is antiquated and we should embrace naturalism. I'm also an animal rights activist because I love dogfighting and hunting. I think my liberterian views on why gay marriage should be illegal are well known here, but did you ALSO know that I'm a Parrot Head because I can't STAND Jimmy Buffet?

Hey, I LIKE deciding what a word means!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hey, I LIKE deciding what a word means!

Then you've found Xanadu, my friend.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Then you've found Xanadu, my friend.

So let's get physical! (I wonder if anyone will get this reference)

 

[Storm]

So let's get physical! (I wonder if anyone will get this reference)

*raises hand*

 

[Autodidact]

Curious. If eyewitness accounts of an event do not qualify as evidence, what does?

Curious. I thought an eyewitness account meant that the witness saw it with his own eyes.