What evidence is there that christians are all mass deluded?

[Heneni]

If you want to call somebody deluded because they believe in peter pan, then you cant say 'you are deluded because you believe in peter pan', you have to have scientific evidence that proves that there is something wrong with the person's mind to call them deluded. The burden of proof lies at the feet of the one that makes the claim. So if you claim that christians are deluded or crazy or nuts or...or...then the burden of proof is yours.

If somebody says, time travel is possible, then somebody else can say 'you are deluded because you can't time travel'. But that won't suffice, because time travel might be possible given enough scientific wisdom in the future.

As more information becomes available so what was once thought to be impossible becomes possible. And so christians believe in a god that others dont have the proof of yet, but there is absolutely no gaurentee that such evidence won't produce itself in the future. If this possibility is obsolete then there must be a way to scientifically determine that christians have something 'wrong' in their minds.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Heneni,

I guess I just disagree with your conception of what it means for a person to be 'deluded'. Typically, I don't think being deluded has anything to do with having something wrong with your mind, being crazy, nuts, etc. That is one thing, but a delusion is a bit different. A delusion is simply a belief that is resistant to reason and evidence. That is the standard mode of human beliefs, not the exception, perhaps especially among smart and educated people.

I think people who actually have something wrong with their brains provide only the most apparent cases of delusion. But the most common, and in fact the most *severe* cases of delusion, i.m.o., though not always easy to spot except from an outsider's perspective, occur on the scale of enormous groups of normal, sane, educated, basically good people.

To show someone is 'deluded' by my conception, you have to show that a belief they hold is resistant to reason and evidence. This is sort of possible to do. Your condition, on the other hand, that you have to prove there is not and can never be a Peter Pan, is impossible to satisfy and therefore by your conception there is no such thing as 'deluded' people, almost by definition. I think it's more constructive to choose useful definitions, which describe things that can actually exist.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Heneni,

I guess I just disagree with your conception of what it means for a person to be 'deluded'. Typically, I don't think being deluded has anything to do with having something wrong with your mind, being crazy, nuts, etc. That is one thing, but a delusion is a bit different. A delusion is simply a belief that is resistant to reason and evidence. That is the standard mode of human beliefs, not the exception, perhaps especially among smart and educated people.

I think people who actually have something wrong with their brains provide only the most apparent cases of delusion. But the most common, and in fact the most *severe* cases of delusion, i.m.o., though not always easy to spot except from an outsider's perspective, occur on the scale of enormous groups of normal, sane, educated, basically good people.

To show someone is 'deluded' by my conception, you have to show that a belief they hold is resistant to reason and evidence. This is sort of possible to do. Your condition, on the other hand, that you have to prove there is not and can never be a Peter Pan, is impossible to satisfy and therefore by your conception there is no such thing as 'deluded' people, almost by definition. I think it's more constructive to choose useful definitions, which describe things that can actually exist.

Guess who gets frubals ^_^

 

[Mister Emu]

But haven't you simply defined the word "delusion" away? Does ANYTHING qualify as delusion, by those criteria? Examples, please.

It isn't me who has defined the word, but psychiatry...

Yes, beliefs that are certain, impossible, and have proof/a preponderance of evidence against them that the person rejects... those are delusions...

Say someone is certain they are King of the United States of America. You could show them the President, you could show them the Constitution, show them that in the history of the U.S.A. there has never been a king, they could try to order people around, and no one listen... and they would still be 100% certain they were King of America, no doubts... if they were deluded...

 

[SHANMAC]

Heneni,

I guess I just disagree with your conception of what it means for a person to be 'deluded'. Typically, I don't think being deluded has anything to do with having something wrong with your mind, being crazy, nuts, etc. That is one thing, but a delusion is a bit different. A delusion is simply a belief that is resistant to reason and evidence. That is the standard mode of human beliefs, not the exception, perhaps especially among smart and educated people.

I think people who actually have something wrong with their brains provide only the most apparent cases of delusion. But the most common, and in fact the most *severe* cases of delusion, i.m.o., though not always easy to spot except from an outsider's perspective, occur on the scale of enormous groups of normal, sane, educated, basically good people.

To show someone is 'deluded' by my conception, you have to show that a belief they hold is resistant to reason and evidence. This is sort of possible to do. Your condition, on the other hand, that you have to prove there is not and can never be a Peter Pan, is impossible to satisfy and therefore by your conception there is no such thing as 'deluded' people, almost by definition. I think it's more constructive to choose useful definitions, which describe things that can actually exist.

So, what happens when you have identified someone as being "deluded" by your definition (resistant to reason and evidence) and that person is later determined to be correct by empirical evidence? I guess you then become the deluded one, right?

Case-in-point: the world is flat.

Really?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, what happens when you have identified someone as being "deluded" by your definition (resistant to reason and evidence) and that person is later determined to be correct by empirical evidence? I guess you then become the deluded one, right?

Case-in-point: the world is flat.

Really?

If a blind squirrel finds a nut, does that make him any less blind?

 

[SHANMAC]

The burden of proof lies at the feet of the one that makes the claim. So if you claim that christians are deluded or crazy or nuts or...or...then the burden of proof is yours.

I agree and would take this a step further. From my perspective, the Bible has been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again throughout history. Despite this fact, it seems like Christians continue to be on the defensive - the holders of the burden if you will. At some point in time, after the accuracy and trustworthiness has been upheld over and over again, the burden has to shift to the other side. Doesn't it? Where is the proof that the Bible is inaccurate and untrustworthy?

 

[SHANMAC]

If a blind squirrel finds a nut, does that make him any less blind?

Application?

 

[dogsgod]

I agree and would take this a step further. From my perspective, the Bible has been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again throughout history. Despite this fact, it seems like Christians continue to be on the defensive - the holders of the burden if you will. At some point in time, after the accuracy and trustworthiness has been upheld over and over again, the burden has to shift to the other side. Doesn't it? Where is the proof that the Bible is inaccurate and untrustworthy?

The Bible is accurate and trustworthy in what regard?

 

[SHANMAC]

Isn't this proving my point exactly? How isn't it accurate and trustworthy?

 

[dogsgod]

Isn't this proving my point exactly? How isn't it accurate and trustworthy?

In what way? That it was copied accurately? That it's translations are trustworthy? What point are you trying to prove?

 

[Autodidact]

I agree and would take this a step further. From my perspective, the Bible has been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again throughout history.

Really? What statement in the Bible has been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again throughout history?

 

[Autodidact]

Isn't this proving my point exactly? How isn't it accurate and trustworthy?

Hold up. You said that it has been proven to be a. and t. How? What statements in it have been shown to be a. and t.? Name them.

 

[Autodidact]

Isn't this proving my point exactly? How isn't it accurate and trustworthy?

Well, where do we begin? The earth is not 6-10,000 years old. There is no firmament, and heaven does not have windows. There was never a world-wide flood. Snakes don't talk. The various species on earth were not magically poofed into existence a few thousands of years; they evolved over millions of years...wait, I don't have time for all of it. Why don't you pick something in the Bible that has been shown accurate and trustworthy?

 

[SHANMAC]

Here's my point. I am not one of those people who can just believe in something without first having researched it thoroughly. I guess some would call it "blind faith." My journey to Christ was fairly long and full of questions/answers. Based on everything I had read and taking into consideration everything I had heard, it appreared clear to me that Christ walked this earth, performed amazing miracles, was crucified and later resurrected. Accounts set forth in the Gospel have been confirmed archaeologically; substantive tanslations of the Bible have held true; prophetic accounts in the OT have come true in the NT; etc. Moreover, no one has shown me anything that has even come close to poking a hole in the "Jesus story." So, getting to the main point, I'm wondering at what point (if any) is the "Jesus story" commonly accepted? Sure, there are going to be a number of people who refuse to believe "just because." However, I'm talking about the larger group - the group of open-minded people who are willing and able to take a hard look at the facts. If someone has empirical evidence showing that the "Jesus story" is untrue or is unworthy of credence, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's my point. I am not one of those people who can just believe in something without first having researched it thoroughly. I guess some would call it "blind faith." My journey to Christ was fairly long and full of questions/answers. Based on everything I had read and taking into consideration everything I had heard, it appreared clear to me that Christ walked this earth, performed amazing miracles, was crucified and later resurrected. Accounts set forth in the Gospel have been confirmed archaeologically; substantive tanslations of the Bible have held true; prophetic accounts in the OT have come true in the NT; etc. Moreover, no one has shown me anything that has even come close to poking a hole in the "Jesus story." So, getting to the main point, I'm wondering at what point (if any) is the "Jesus story" commonly accepted? Sure, there are going to be a number of people who refuse to believe "just because." However, I'm talking about the larger group - the group of open-minded people who are willing and able to take a hard look at the facts. If someone has empirical evidence showing that the "Jesus story" is untrue or is unworthy of credence, I'd love to hear it.

SHANMAC: YOU SAID:

the Bible has been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again throughout history.

O.K., now support what YOU SAID. What in the Bible has been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again, and how?

Because other than some geography, I really can't think of much of it that has.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Here's my point. I am not one of those people who can just believe in something without first having researched it thoroughly. I guess some would call it "blind faith." My journey to Christ was fairly long and full of questions/answers. Based on everything I had read and taking into consideration everything I had heard, it appreared clear to me that Christ walked this earth, performed amazing miracles, was crucified and later resurrected. Accounts set forth in the Gospel have been confirmed archaeologically; substantive tanslations of the Bible have held true; prophetic accounts in the OT have come true in the NT; etc. Moreover, no one has shown me anything that has even come close to poking a hole in the "Jesus story." So, getting to the main point, I'm wondering at what point (if any) is the "Jesus story" commonly accepted? Sure, there are going to be a number of people who refuse to believe "just because." However, I'm talking about the larger group - the group of open-minded people who are willing and able to take a hard look at the facts. If someone has empirical evidence showing that the "Jesus story" is untrue or is unworthy of credence, I'd love to hear it.

Way to prove a point.... Oh wait...

 

[SHANMAC]

ONCE AGAIN...your questions are proving my point. I ask for someone to offer some evidence disproving the Gospel and all I get are questions and snide comments. Nice.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Yeah, we didn't make the claim, you did, when has the bible been trustworthy and accurate consistently, provide some examples.

 

[SHANMAC]

First, I provided a couple examples above. Second, my full claim is that no one has been able to offer evidence to me that it is untrustworthy or unreliable. So far, this still holds true. Do you have anything of shall I keep waiting?