Just Wondering.

[Antlerman]

I am staying silent more on the particulars of my beliefs. It does seem like sharing them just gives certain small individuals a handle to beat me with. :\

And Im staying quiet about many things I believe as well, because I have bad experiences too.

That's a shame. It takes people not cowering in the corner with their beliefs because of those that wish to control the conversation, calling those with any religious beliefs "delusional". Not cowering in the face of all that is needed in order to encourage others who also can't quite swallow that over-sized Atheist pill, IMHO.

 

I am not delusional. I am fully aware of how I believe and the rational basis for those beliefs. I believe it is in fact irrational to be reactionary against any sort of religious faith and demean it with such clearly derogatory language as calling it delusional. I think any rationalization to justify its use is sadly misplaced and illogical. It presumes atheism the sane position that stands as the measure of truth, whereas frankly at this point I now see that as equally 'delusional' as the fundamentalists who deny science. They deny the humanities. They deny psychology. They deny human spirituality, all of which are fundamental facts of human truth and evolution - not as anomalies, but integral aspects of our whole being. It is equally as bad as those who pull a bag of religion over their heads in looking at life. The only difference is that bag is so-called rationality.

 

I just reread this article from many years ago and smile much more knowingly now than I did then. It's called The Atheist Delusion. Enjoy.

 

All I'm saying is that I don't feel people who have religious beliefs need to feel afraid of those who think they have the upper hand in reason. They don't. These are all approaches to life and living, not delusions, including atheism that doesn't feel the need to call others delusional. They are ways of looking at the world, each with their own benefits.

[asanerman]

Seems to me that, a good chunk of the time, threads on "spirituality" just degenerate into an argument between a supposed "materialist" or "reductionist" side and a "spiritual" side. Both forgetting that the entire point of either exercise is to take this fucked up fancy mess that we call existence and make some kind of bloody sense out of it.

 

The poison of the bloodgod makes everyone highly defensive of their own mind. Can anyone truly consider themselves free if at any time they revert to the conditioning of "x thought is deeply flawed and is not a proper view of reality"?

 

Welcome to the "World Of the Terribly Obvious!"

 

Most discussions concerning spirituality never get very far-- too many hidden variables in what spirituality is?--I guess.

 

So we go "slip-sliding-away!"

[blackpudd1n]

I'm just going to throw another two cents in, and suggest that perhaps a thread on effective communication would be prudent?

 

I never used to be very good at communicating, and I still have my days sometimes. I, too, used to get easily upset and take offense, and really I just needed to learn the art of clarifying what I thought was said was what was actually meant, and learn to understand that by listening to opinions I didn't necessarily agree with, I could learn a lot. And I have learned a lot, by listening with an open mind, asking questions, and clarifying what was said. Some people simply have what I call "foot-in-mouth" disease. They try to say one thing, but another one entirely comes out. They unintentionally cause offense, where no offense was ever meant.

 

I'm sure there are some people on this forum who have done actual training in effective communication; how about it?

[Ouroboros]

But I don't consider praying to your cat for guidance to be natural, nor praying to a rock or a pice of wood for healing, but if you put two planks together in a cross and pray to it because it symbolizes a dead human, then we're supposed to accept it as normal. I don't. Do you see where I'm going with this and the difference I make?

I'm trying to get caught up on this thread I didn't see at all today. Just one thought to offer you to what you said here to challenge you to a new perspective, if I may? Taking your examples above, to someone who doesn't share such a belief it may seem like madness or irrational, that it is contrary to evidence, etc. But if those actions are in their essence symbolic acts, then in fact belief that a rock or piece of wood can heal aides that person in an act of self-healing, it's really no different than belief in gods.

 

They are real, in the sense that they allow the believer to tap into that power in themselves through that object of faith. Even though they may externalize it, imbue that object with magical power, the magic is in fact real, even if it really comes from within. Belief, or faith, is a way to get past the barriers of the "not-possible" views we wall around ourselves. Obviously reason has to balance out faith. Your belief in an eagle-god will not in fact grow you wings where you step off the ledge of a building into open air. Yet to believe and reach for something beyond what you feel is possible for you through focus in an object of faith, is in fact - rational.

Having a delusion doesn't mean that it is internally rational. Even further than that, a delusion could actually be a belief in something that later proves to be true. A delusion is just having a belief contrary to the evidence, like praying to the cat for healing, but not get the healing, yet continue to believe it. It's more like the phrase "if you repeat on doing the exact same thing but expect different results, it's a sign of insanity." But take a guy who has a delusion of being followed, but he didn't have any evidence for it, it was just a "feeling." He complains to his psychiatrist and is declared delusional. But later it proves that FBI actually were having eyes on him for something. Now, was he delusional? At the time he was "feeling" it without evidence, yes, I think he was delusional because he believed it without proof, and he modified his living according to his belief, but in the end, it so happened that he was right and there were evidence. Then it's not a delusion anymore, by my definition. I know, I probably totally unique to use the word this way (except for a bunch of other people with some articles with similar views), but that's how I see it. The thing is, I don't consider a delusion to be that extreme mental crazy illness that is presented by others, yes, it can be, but there are different levels and forms of delusion, just like there are different levels of personality disorder, ADD, and such.

[Ouroboros]

I am staying silent more on the particulars of my beliefs. It does seem like sharing them just gives certain small individuals a handle to beat me with. :\

And Im staying quiet about many things I believe as well, because I have bad experiences too.

That's a shame. It takes people not cowering in the corner with their beliefs because of those that wish to control the conversation, calling those with any religious beliefs "delusional". Not cowering in the face of all that is needed in order to encourage others who also can't quite swallow that over-sized Atheist pill, IMHO.

 

I am not delusional. I am fully aware of how I believe and the rational basis for those beliefs. I believe it is in fact irrational to be reactionary against any sort of religious faith and demean it with such clearly derogatory language as calling it delusional. I think any rationalization to justify its use is sadly misplaced and illogical. It presumes atheism the sane position that stands as the measure of truth, whereas frankly at this point I now see that as equally 'delusional' as the fundamentalists who deny science. They deny the humanities. They deny psychology. They deny human spirituality, all of which are fundamental facts of human truth and evolution - not as anomalies, but integral aspects of our whole being. It is equally as bad as those who pull a bag of religion over their heads in looking at life. The only difference is that bag is so-called rationality.

 

I just reread this article from many years ago and smile much more knowingly now than I did then. It's called The Atheist Delusion. Enjoy.

 

All I'm saying is that I don't feel people who have religious beliefs need to feel afraid of those who think they have the upper hand in reason. They don't. These are all approaches to life and living, not delusions, including atheism that doesn't feel the need to call others delusional. They are ways of looking at the world, each with their own benefits.

One thing I have mentioned before and is worth mentioning again is that I'm not claiming that I believe ALL and EVERY belief and religion is delusional. But I think that is a lot of delusional ideas and thoughts inside many of religions and believes. I'm trying to cut a line between delusional belief and non-delusional belief. And I know that psychiatry already does make a cut when it comes to extreme religious belief and place it in the "delusional" category, but I'm just cutting a bit further than they do, but not cutting it so EVERY belief is included.

 

In other words, "religions is a delusion" is not my phrase. I don't' support that phrase. "Spirituality is a delusion" is not my phrase either, I don't think that.

 

However listening to a supernatural beings magical voice in your head to interpret the Bible correctly, is delusional in my opinion.

 

Declaring that the world is only 6,000 years old because the Bible says so and not caring about the amassed amount of evidence disproving it, is delusional in my opinion.

 

I hope you can see and understand that I'm making a difference between different things here and not going for the hasty generalized labeling.

 

I'm hoping that you at least are able to see the finer subtleties in what I'm trying to explain here.

 

So again, I don't consider your spirituality a delusion. But if you start casting spells to heal people by calling some generic ancient name from Judea, then, sorry, I will think you're delusional.

 

Maybe you will enjoy this list blog article: Free Will Delusion.

 

The article you send looks like a very good one. But I suspect he's making the same mistake of generalization like all atheists do. All religion is delusional, and all atheists are delusional. And the explanation it is because we all are homogenous and all ideas are exactly the same, there are no nuances or gray areas. All thoughts and labels must and always be black and white, and since black is wrong, they all must be bleaching white.

 

(sarc)

So perhaps the simple answer then is to say, there are NO delusional people of any kind. The definition is false and misleading, because ALL belief, at ALL times, are ALWAYS correct, accurate, and according to nature, evidence, and rationality. Okay? So let's go with that from now on. And let's shut down a few mental hospitals since this invalid definition has been lingering around way too much and caused a lot of people to be treated for it. They should't. They are all correct in their beliefs. Delusion does not exist. Or perhaps the idea that delusion does exist is the only delusion in society? We also need to boycott research like these: http://www.sanp.ch/p...2000-01-058.PDF since religious delusion does not exist.

(/sarc)

 

Someone suggested that I wouldn't admit to have been delusional when I was Christian myself, because it would indicate that I had a mental defect back then, but sorry to say, I do feel I was delusional back then. I do think my belief system was contrary to evidence. I was a delusional Christian, but I got better. I managed to lay off the "bug" in my meme-software and clean house a bit. And I also do know that I have delusions of other kinds still in my life. But I'm a lot better in recognizing them and finding them by discussing with people and when they're identified, I can do something about them and search myself why the heck I believed that way or not. I'm not excluding myself from having deluded ideas. I'm certain I do. The question is how to find them and what to do about them, and the answer is not to be hurt, be defensive, and stay in denial.

[Legion]

Hans I'm a compatibilist. I believe in free will and I believe that all phenomena arise in a causally related way. I think free will is something which arises in degree among various animals for instance. I think humans have a high degree of free will because they are highly imaginative (this brings forth choice) and capable (this enables choice to be realized). But an animal like an amoeba has little free will.

 

That's the short of it. Does it make sense to you?

[Ouroboros]

Hans I'm a compatibilist. I believe in free will and I believe that all phenomena arise in a causally related way. I think free will is something which arises in degree among various animals for instance. I think humans have a high degree of free will because they are highly imaginative (this brings forth choice) and capable (this enables choice to be realized). But an animal like an amoeba has little free will.

 

That's the short of it. Does it make sense to you?

Maybe. I can't explain my view and shouldn't. And I don't want to hurt anyone.

[Legion]

Maybe. I can't explain my view and shouldn't. And I don't want to hurt anyone.

Hans, no offense. Okay? I think you're a great guy. And I'd even shine your boots. However, I think you are delusional.

 

You basically say to yourself, "Hans you are capable of doing great damage to other people's pyches. That's how powerful you are. You should refrain from doing this because it's good to avoid harming people. You are both powerful and good."

 

 

You can't hurt me Hans.

 

And you're deluded.

 

max

 

no offense

[Ouroboros]

Maybe. I can't explain my view and shouldn't. And I don't want to hurt anyone.

Hans, no offense. Okay? I think you're a great guy. And I'd even shine your boots. However, I think you are delusional.

Of course I am. I'm certain I am. The problem is just to figure out what delusions I have so i can either take care of them or just accept them.

 

 

You basically say to yourself, "Hans you are capable of doing great damage to other people's pyches. That's how powerful you are. You should refrain from doing this because it's good to avoid harming people. You are both powerful and good."

 

Yeah. I think I'm a good person... but the truth is...

 

You can't hurt me Hans.

I know that.

 

Maybe it's more now that I'm being hurt to continue driving the issue of free will? So, for the purpose of not hurting anyone, not even myself, I must refrain. (But I'm okay calling myself deluded. I got a thick skin in that department.)

 

And you're deluded.

Yes. I proudly wear my atheist delusion.

 

no offense

Bah. I'm certain that you did it on purpose...

[Ouroboros]

In my early career, a friend said to me: "Often the flaws we see in others mirror our own."

Oh. I feel offended. "Flaw" is a very derogatory word. It means something is wrong with us. We can't say that...

[Legion]

Uh... Hans, no amount or kind of argument will remove the reality of choice from me.

 

As for being an atheist... That's cool. I think I have some idea of the kind of atheist you are. You're kind of casual about it.

[Ouroboros]

Uh... Hans, no amount or kind of argument will remove the reality of choice from me.

Then I think we already know where the impasse would be. It's nice to find the end-point before we even start.

 

As for being an atheist... That's cool. I think I have some idea of the kind of atheist you are. You're kind of casual about it.

Correct.

 

But sometimes I'm pushing it hard for the purpose of testing and checking what-is-what. Being evil--like you. hehe.

[Antlerman]

I am staying silent more on the particulars of my beliefs. It does seem like sharing them just gives certain small individuals a handle to beat me with. :\

And Im staying quiet about many things I believe as well, because I have bad experiences too.

That's a shame. It takes people not cowering in the corner with their beliefs because of those that wish to control the conversation, calling those with any religious beliefs "delusional". Not cowering in the face of all that is needed in order to encourage others who also can't quite swallow that over-sized Atheist pill, IMHO.

 

I am not delusional. I am fully aware of how I believe and the rational basis for those beliefs. I believe it is in fact irrational to be reactionary against any sort of religious faith and demean it with such clearly derogatory language as calling it delusional. I think any rationalization to justify its use is sadly misplaced and illogical. It presumes atheism the sane position that stands as the measure of truth, whereas frankly at this point I now see that as equally 'delusional' as the fundamentalists who deny science. They deny the humanities. They deny psychology. They deny human spirituality, all of which are fundamental facts of human truth and evolution - not as anomalies, but integral aspects of our whole being. It is equally as bad as those who pull a bag of religion over their heads in looking at life. The only difference is that bag is so-called rationality.

 

I just reread this article from many years ago and smile much more knowingly now than I did then. It's called The Atheist Delusion. Enjoy.

 

All I'm saying is that I don't feel people who have religious beliefs need to feel afraid of those who think they have the upper hand in reason. They don't. These are all approaches to life and living, not delusions, including atheism that doesn't feel the need to call others delusional. They are ways of looking at the world, each with their own benefits.

One thing I have mentioned before and is worth mentioning again is that I'm not claiming that I believe ALL and EVERY belief and religion is delusional. But I think that is a lot of delusional ideas and thoughts inside many of religions and believes. I'm trying to cut a line between delusional belief and non-delusional belief. And I know that psychiatry already does make a cut when it comes to extreme religious belief and place it in the "delusional" category, but I'm just cutting a bit further than they do, but not cutting it so EVERY belief is included.

 

In other words, "religions is a delusion" is not my phrase. I don't' support that phrase. "Spirituality is a delusion" is not my phrase either, I don't think that.

 

However listening to a supernatural beings magical voice in your head to interpret the Bible correctly, is delusional in my opinion.

 

Declaring that the world is only 6,000 years old because the Bible says so and not caring about the amassed amount of evidence disproving it, is delusional in my opinion.

 

I hope you can see and understand that I'm making a difference between different things here and not going for the hasty generalized labeling.

 

I'm hoping that you at least are able to see the finer subtleties in what I'm trying to explain here.

 

So again, I don't consider your spirituality a delusion. But if you start casting spells to heal people by calling some generic ancient name from Judea, then, sorry, I will think you're delusional.

 

Maybe you will enjoy this list blog article: Free Will Delusion.

 

The article you send looks like a very good one. But I suspect he's making the same mistake of generalization like all atheists do. All religion is delusional, and all atheists are delusional. And the explanation it is because we all are homogenous and all ideas are exactly the same, there are no nuances or gray areas. All thoughts and labels must and always be black and white, and since black is wrong, they all must be bleaching white.

 

(sarc)

So perhaps the simple answer then is to say, there are NO delusional people of any kind. The definition is false and misleading, because ALL belief, at ALL times, are ALWAYS correct, accurate, and according to nature, evidence, and rationality. Okay? So let's go with that from now on. And let's shut down a few mental hospitals since this invalid definition has been lingering around way too much and caused a lot of people to be treated for it. They should't. They are all correct in their beliefs. Delusion does not exist. Or perhaps the idea that delusion does exist is the only delusion in society? We also need to boycott research like these: http://www.sanp.ch/p...2000-01-058.PDF since religious delusion does not exist.

(/sarc)

 

Someone suggested that I wouldn't admit to have been delusional when I was Christian myself, because it would indicate that I had a mental defect back then, but sorry to say, I do feel I was delusional back then. I do think my belief system was contrary to evidence. I was a delusional Christian, but I got better. I managed to lay off the "bug" in my meme-software and clean house a bit. And I also do know that I have delusions of other kinds still in my life. But I'm a lot better in recognizing them and finding them by discussing with people and when they're identified, I can do something about them and search myself why the heck I believed that way or not. I'm not excluding myself from having deluded ideas. I'm certain I do. The question is how to find them and what to do about them, and the answer is not to be hurt, be defensive, and stay in denial.

I think you missed my first main point about not feeling intimidated by those who like to use the word delusion and irrationality to describe anything that causes them reactionary knee-jerk responses. The use of the word delusion in fact was and is an attack word. And all the rest of this is just rationalizations to make it OK somehow. When have you ever heard the militant uses in as a proper assessment of a belief? I haven't. It's always used (stupidly) as a dismissive term, and all the rest is rationalizations to justify them using it as a pejorative. Dawkins is full of shit.

 

As far as saying some religious belief is delusion and some non-relgious beliefs are delusion is true, but then why in the hell use it to describe systems of belief, which is in fact exactly how it is being used. It's not about individual delusional people. It's used to describe systems of belief, and anyone in them get swept away with that. That is in my humble opinion, equally as religiously irrational as Christian fundamentalists. It has no place in discussions about religion, but individual cases only. If someone wishes to talk about delusional thinking within religion, then fine. But that is never how that term is used by the majority of atheists. It is inflammatory, and I cannot believe after all these years of that poison that Dawkins spewed, that this debate is still happening. I would that word be stricken from these discussions, or that those who care to flaunt it about arrogantly be prepared to be taken to task and shown the fool. Once again, the proof is in the pudding. Why was this topic started?? It inflames. it does not inform and the rest is excuses for prejudicial ignorance.

 

That said, I do appreciate you're trying to find the middle ground for both sides of the dissussion. I just find it misplaced and flawed. The fact is, it inflames negative responses.

 

As far as the article I linked to, that title was the person on Salon who named it that. The person interviewed is vastly more rational that Dawkins and company in their God Delusion crap. He is anything but black and white in his thinking. It was a funny play on words in a humorous turn-about by the Salon author.

 

Still my real point was this. If you have views that you are afraid to share because of the backlash of evangelical atheists unwilling to see beyond their reactionary responses to spirituality, I think that's unfortunate. You and I are both very rational people, yet seem to not find it contradictory or at odds with that. I think it's a positive thing for rational minds to counter what posits itself as the only legitimate conclusion of rational thought. It is hardly that!

[Legion]

Dawkins is full of shit.

Hey! You can't say that!

 

I think he should have stuck with studying and elucidating the evolutionary process on Earth. I liked the Blind Watchmaker and the Selfish Gene when I read them many years ago. I'm sure if I read them now though that I would see all kinds of flaws in them. I am certain that Dawkins (as everyone does) has a lot to learn about biology.

[Ouroboros]

I think you missed my first main point about not feeling intimidated by those who like to use the word delusion and irrationality to describe anything that causes them reactionary knee-jerk responses. The use of the word delusion in fact was and is an attack word. And all the rest of this is just rationalizations to make it OK somehow. When have you ever heard the militant uses in as a proper assessment of a belief? I haven't. It's always used (stupidly) as a dismissive term, and all the rest is rationalizations to justify them using it as a pejorative. Dawkins is full of shit.

That's pejorative and hurtful. I just learned that it's not kosher to do that to people with other beliefs.

 

As far as saying some religious belief is delusion and some non-relgious beliefs are delusion is true, but then why in the hell use it to describe systems of belief, which is in fact exactly how it is being used. It's not about individual delusional people. It's used to describe systems of belief, and anyone in them get swept away with that. That is in my humble opinion, equally as religiously irrational as Christian fundamentalists.

And now you're placing me with others. This or that is how those are doing and that's why I'm also wrong. When I call someone delusional, I'm wrong, because other's say that religion is delusional in general. So all atheists are wrong because they all must be wrong when one is wrong, and one is wrong when all others are wrong.

 

It has no place in discussions about religion, but individual cases only. If someone wishes to talk about delusional thinking within religion, then fine. But that is never how that term is used by the majority of atheists.

I'm talking from my perspective, but still compared to the collective. Right? That's reasonable? I'm wrong because all atheists are wrong? It's easy to generalize, but if all atheist keep on generalizing religious people, that's wrong, because only non-atheists should be allowed to generalize?

 

Don't you see it? You are generalizing the atheists above, and have no problem with it. You're groping me with them and making arguments about what I'm saying based on what they do.

 

It is inflammatory, and I cannot believe after all these years of that poison that Dawkins spewed, that this debate is still happening. I would that word be stricken from these discussions, or that those who care to flaunt it about arrogantly be prepared to be taken to task and shown the fool.

"Fool" is very pejorative and hurtful. We shouldn't use that word either.

 

Once again, the proof is in the pudding. Why was this topic started?? It inflames. it does not inform and the rest is excuses for prejudicial ignorance.

 

That said, I do appreciate you're trying to find the middle ground for both sides of the dissussion. I just find it misplaced and flawed. The fact is, it inflames negative responses.

So does generalizations about all atheists based on some atheists behavior and views. If generalizing is wrong, and if inflammatory language should be banned, then it should be on all levels. Not all atheists are equal. Not all language is used in the same way. To make sweeping decisions based on group belongings is wrong in either camp.

 

As far as the article I linked to, that title was the person on Salon who named it that. The person interviewed is vastly more rational that Dawkins and company in their God Delusion crap. He is anything but black and white in his thinking. It was a funny play on words in a humorous turn-about by the Salon author.

And the conclusion he made is also funny, considering that he admits that his belief is without support or evidence, and that he would maintain it even if the evidence disproved it. Call it whatever you want, but it's intentional cognitive dissonance with reality. (I hope no one is hurt by me saying that this is my opinion about that author!?)

 

 

Still my real point was this. If you have views that you are afraid to share because of the backlash of evangelical atheists unwilling to see beyond their reactionary responses to spirituality, I think that's unfortunate.

Actually, it's more of backlash from people who are not atheists at all, but in the middle ground of spiritual, non-belief, some-belief, kind-a persons. So no, my problem was not with the "hardcore evangelical fundamentalist atheists." (Isn't fundamentalist also derogatory?)

 

You and I are both very rational people, yet seem to not find it contradictory or at odds with that. I think it's a positive thing for rational minds to counter what posits itself as the only legitimate conclusion of rational thought. It is hardly that!

The world is most definitely not rational, and I suspect as humans, we're fooling ourselves (is that better than deluding ourselves?) to think that we're more rational than we really are.

[Ouroboros]

Dawkins is full of shit.

Hey! You can't say that!

Correct. That's hurtful.

 

I think he should have stuck with studying and elucidating the evolutionary process on Earth. I liked the Blind Watchmaker and the Selfish Gene when I read them many years ago. I'm sure if I read them now though that I would see all kinds of flaws in them. I am certain that Dawkins (as everyone does) has a lot to learn about biology.

Nah. All evolution, geology, biolog, chemistry, astronomy, and math are just foolish exercises in futility. We're all fooling ourselves and being idiots that we know things about the world, but we're most definitely not deluded. (I'm feeling evil... )

 

At least I have not been called neo-fascist or deluded of übermench mentality yet... perhaps someone will pick up the slack soon. I'm going to leave this thread and not contribute until someone can come up with some really derogatory label on me. M'kay. I can't accept not being offended yet.

[Legion]

not rational?

 

What is the question you're reading right now asking you?

 

Ya! The world is full of paradox and humanity has a strange imagination.

 

(in my opinion)

[mymistake]

I think you missed my first main point about not feeling intimidated by those who like to use the word delusion and irrationality to describe anything that causes them reactionary knee-jerk responses. The use of the word delusion in fact was and is an attack word. And all the rest of this is just rationalizations to make it OK somehow. When have you ever heard the militant uses in as a proper assessment of a belief? I haven't. It's always used (stupidly) as a dismissive term, and all the rest is rationalizations to justify them using it as a pejorative. Dawkins is full of shit.

 

As far as saying some religious belief is delusion and some non-relgious beliefs are delusion is true, but then why in the hell use it to describe systems of belief, which is in fact exactly how it is being used. It's not about individual delusional people. It's used to describe systems of belief, and anyone in them get swept away with that. That is in my humble opinion, equally as religiously irrational as Christian fundamentalists. It has no place in discussions about religion, but individual cases only. If someone wishes to talk about delusional thinking within religion, then fine. But that is never how that term is used by the majority of atheists. It is inflammatory, and I cannot believe after all these years of that poison that Dawkins spewed, that this debate is still happening. I would that word be stricken from these discussions, or that those who care to flaunt it about arrogantly be prepared to be taken to task and shown the fool. Once again, the proof is in the pudding. Why was this topic started?? It inflames. it does not inform and the rest is excuses for prejudicial ignorance.

 

With all due respect I strongly disagree. You have just as many delusions as other humans. I have delusions. We all have delusions. The word describes how well a belief is grounded in evidence. I'm so sorry if society has hold-over connotations from when mental illness was considered an insult but that isn't my doing and we all need to put those prejudices behind us. We don't keep the negative connotations that existed in the 40's for race, gender or sexual orientation. It's time to shed this prejudice as well. Delusion is a word we need to use because it helps us evaluate how and why we hold a given idea.

 

I think it is extremely arrogant of someone to take offense of the idea that they might hold a delusion. What makes them so much better than the rest of us mere mortals? Who are they to believe that their ideas are so perfect and pristine? I find that the height of arrogance. The people who have the fewest delusions are those who look inward and put great effort into testing their own beliefs. However they will still hold many delusions because that is the nature of the human mind. We have to believe something in order to function. Let the irony of that sink in. Some of our delusions keep us sane.

 

This in no way should be confused for being delusional, insane or in other words somebody who has had one delusion render them non-functional in life. Such negative connotations are part of the prejudice of our past which we need to shed. Now if it will help to keep the peace I will use the word "illusion" instead. But sorry your beliefs do not get special status of "honorary grounded in evidence" if they are not actually grounded in evidence. Nobody else's do either. I'm not trying to insult anybody. I'm certainly not better than anybody else. However others need to get over themselves. Their beliefs are not special just because they have those beliefs.

 

That said, I do appreciate you're trying to find the middle ground for both sides of the dissussion. I just find it misplaced and flawed. The fact is, it inflames negative responses.

 

Sorry, but not all ideas are equal in legitimacy. People need to deal with this rather than be offended by reality.

[Ouroboros]

not rational?

 

What is the question you're reading right now asking you?

What is a question?

 

What is what?

 

Ya! The world is full of paradox and humanity has a strange imagination.

Damn right.

 

(in my opinion)

Sharing that opinion.

[Ouroboros]

With all due respect I strongly disagree. You have just as many delusions as other humans. I have delusions. We all have delusions. The word describes how well a belief is grounded in evidence.

The problem we're facing here is that the word "delusion" has different meaning to all of us here.

 

To me, and it looks like you share that with me, it's not a word that means "totally insane, crazy, idiot, mentally deficient" etc, but more of a state of mind that we all can have and we all can modify and change.

 

The other group consider the word to only mean "fucking crazy and mentally disturbed to the point of going violent and pressing the red button to start nuclear war".

 

To me, "deluded" is more similar to the word "ignorant" (which I've used a lot in the past as well). To most people, ignorant means "fucking stupid and mentally retarded", but not to me. To me it means "unlearned" or "lacking information or education."

 

So it all comes down to that I don't see those two words as extreme and derogatory as they do. But I've learned that "stupid", "crazy", "batshit", "insane" and many other words are still okay and should used instead of "ignorant" and "deluded." I'll guess that's what I'll do from now on. I'll just change my vernacular to more appropriate level.

 

(Sorry. Shouldn't have posted this. I promised to leave until someone calls me batshit crazy...)

[Legion]

Sorry, but not all ideas are equal in legitimacy. People need to deal with this rather than be offended by reality.

MM, I think I understand what you're trying to imply. Something like... we must test our ideas against nature to check them for validity. Is that about right? If so, I think that's called Logical Positivism. Or maybe something close to it.

 

Anyway, I blieve it all adds up to some sort of judgement (and that's okay) but I also think there's a time to suspend judgement and just listen to ideas. For instance...

 

I was once sitting in the book store reading. I overheard two women speaking. And one of the women said something and something happened. It seemed like the walls of the store expanded outwards and became paper thin. And the roof seemed insubstantial. And I felt naked under the sky.

 

Now when I tell you that... what's the point of asking if the walls really actually truly moved outwards and I became naked under the sky?

[mymistake]

With all due respect I strongly disagree. You have just as many delusions as other humans. I have delusions. We all have delusions. The word describes how well a belief is grounded in evidence.

The problem we're facing here is that the word "delusion" has different meaning to all of us here.

 

To me, and it looks like you share that with me, it's not a word that means "totally insane, crazy, idiot, mentally deficient" etc, but more of a state of mind that we all can have and we all can modify and change.

 

The other group consider the word to only mean "fucking crazy and mentally disturbed to the point of going violent and pressing the red button to start nuclear war".

 

To me, "deluded" is more similar to the word "ignorant" (which I've used a lot in the past as well). To most people, ignorant means "fucking stupid and mentally retarded", but not to me. To me it means "unlearned" or "lacking information or education."

 

So it all comes down to that I don't see those two words as extreme and derogatory as they do. But I've learned that "stupid", "crazy", "batshit", "insane" and many other words are still okay and should used instead of "ignorant" and "deluded." I'll guess that's what I'll do from now on. I'll just change my vernacular to more appropriate level.

 

(Sorry. Shouldn't have posted this. I promised to leave until someone calls me batshit crazy...)

 

Ignorance and delusion are words I use to describe my own thinking. I am constantly bumping into my own delusions (beliefs I held without good evidence or in spite of evidence) and my own ignorance (areas I thought I knew something when really I didn't know - what I thought was knowledge was actually false). Finding delusion and ignorance helps me learn and grow.

[mymistake]

Sorry, but not all ideas are equal in legitimacy. People need to deal with this rather than be offended by reality.

MM, I think I understand what you're trying to imply. Something like... we must test our ideas against nature to check them for validity. Is that about right?

 

You don't have to do that. But you shouldn't get suicidal if you decide to not test your ideas and somebody else suggests that they don't want you as a soul mate because they are afraid of how your beliefs might mess up their life. You can keep you beliefs no matter what you want to do with them. You have every right to construct whatever you want with your beliefs as long as you don't hurt anybody else. And having untested beliefs doesn't stop most people from being functional.

 

Being insane isn't a state of having delusions. Being insane means one delusion got so bad that it stops you from functioning.

 

If so, I think that's called Logical Positivism. Or maybe something close to it.

 

Not only do I not expect people to test all their ideas but I think that is not possible. I say it is not possible to dispel all of our delusions. Personally I find it useful to examine some of my own ideas and test them. But there is no way I could do that to all of them. If you don't find it useful then do whatever works for you.

 

 

And the roof seemed insubstantial. And I felt naked under the sky. Now when I tell you that... what's the point of asking if the walls really actually truly moved outwards and I became naked under the sky?

 

That reminds me of experiences I have felt while meditating. I find them useful because they help me relax.

[Legion]

That reminds me of experiences I have felt while meditating. I find them useful because they help me relax.

What if I told you that some people's idea of meditation was a friendly exchange of sweet nothings? I'm suggesting the idea here of community as meditation.

[Legion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP2S0cPNd6c