Iggy

But they are. Shall we fix them? Although they do go on a lot about having personal experiences. I wonder if you've ever believed something only because someone told you.

And I agree that their rationality is flawed, but you were talking about mental illness. Everyone's rationality is flawed. Everyone fails critical thinking on some subject and in some way. If that makes a person mental and broken then mental and broken we all are. People with religious belief can, by and large, function in the real world on a daily basis. Belief in God doesn't stop Francis Collins from doing whatever it is he does, or great past presidents from doing whatever they did.. The types of examples you keep using represent people whom are so functionally impaired that they can't get things done in the real world on a daily basis. They have to be locked up and cared for. You accused me of conflating, but I'm pretty sure I'm the one who is not. and you might get a warm and fuzzy feeling every time you use it. Such cognitive biases mean that we aren't perfectly rational creatures. I'm ok with that, even if the subject is religion.

Because knowledge is not the only thing informing belief. People have wishes, dreams, feelings, and a load of cognitive biases a yard deep. All of those things inform belief even in the healthy mind. A person simply has to use some kind of decision making process in forming belief.

We are certainly talking about two different things, yes. The discussion starts here: Yes, but it's usually a sign of mental illness when that happens. If you were referring *only* to delusions such as believing that ones baby is a dragon then I agree with you. I, on the other hand, believe that most people do decide to believe much less delusional things even when they perfectly rationally know that they are untrue. I am not conflating. I am denying your premise that the word "decide" excludes all but the most severe delusions.

I said earlier that the first is mere wishful thinking and the latter is a delusion. Most religious beliefs fall somewhere between as an illusion. Clearly I see a difference. Not sure why you're asking.

The CMB (and everything we've predicted and subsequently measured about it) means very conclusively that the observable universe started as a very small, dense, and hot place. Black holes can also be thought of as small, dense, and hot in their own way, so I see where you're coming from. The distinction, however, is quite clear. Black holes want to collapse and eventually will, and the universe doesn't seem to want to, and it never seems it will. Cosmologists think that in the waning moments of our beginning everything may have collapsed in on itself if the density were a little higher, but that assuredly didn't happen, otherwise there would be no us.

I guess I fail to see the difference between deciding to fool someone, then doing it, and 'fooling someone'. Likewise with oneself. It seems at least like a distinction without a difference. Unless people who decide to believe things which they know are wrong are mental, while people who do it unwittingly are sane then I still fail to see how it matters. On some level, I think we all decide to believe the strange things we believe. We like them so we foster them.

Are you aware that an internally inconsistent and self-contradicting anthology written back in the iron age is not sufficient proof in favor of the existence of a god or gods? When a person claims that god(s) exists, that is an extraordinary claim, and such claims require extraordinary evidence in support of them before they deserve to be taken seriously or treated as credible by anyone with a rational, reasonable, (mostly) unbroken mind. A verse from the bible simply does not surpass that hurdle... it does not even come close to meeting the inherent evidence-based requirement set by these claims. That is why discussions of belief in god(s) always revert back to basic faith... Faith being perhaps one of the single worst possible reasons to accept something as true. It has no value, as your "faith" in Yahweh is in no way functionally different from someone else's faith that the Smurfs actually exist outside of fiction and cartoons. I have suggested here and elsewhere that to accept such self-evidently ludicrous claims based on such vacuous and hollow and effectively nonexistent evidence is broken... and broken in a way that is significantly and meaningfully different from the various other ways humans are broken. You have suggested the contrary. You have suggested that people who accept such self-evidently ludicrous claims based on such vacuous and hollow and effectively nonexistent evidence are somehow LESS broken than those who dismiss such claims as nonsense. Can you elaborate on why that is, and perhaps defend your position in a way that might make someone like me question my own? The popularity of a belief is in no way relevant to whether or not that belief can accurately be described as broken. I could be mistaken, but I believe you thought you were responding to the gentleman whom created the thread when you wrote this. The quote you attribute me from Job, for example, comes from post 11 which I don't think I quoted or repeated. I can agree with you to an extraordinary extent as far as God being illogical, unreasonable, and even childlike and ridiculous. I just mean that those are attributes of humanity as well. They aren't good attributes. A belief in god is always something I would try to persuade someone against, but I wouldn't call them broken for it. Broken things need fixed or trashed, and I firmly believe that most people aren't that.

I didn't decide it. More than half of a thing produced can't be broken. That's just the way it works. It's a numbers thing. More than half of the persons on the planet believe in God. It, therefore, can't be broken. What road do you mean?

Okay, but why? By sheer numbers you [profanity removed] Yes, kids who believe in the tooth fairy aren't broken, [profanity removed] Yes, people who believed in Zeus weren't broken. You know this! If you stopped yourself for half a second and asked yourself... you know this!

I'm sorry, Tar. I'm sure you have many interesting things to say, but I just can't read your posts. The few sentences above is all I got through. You don't believe in God, but you do. I understand. It just isn't interesting.

no, I don't think so. I honestly don't know what that means. No.. no, no... you misread that. I was honestly complimenting your use of that apostrophe. I visit youtube and reddit, and you can spot the kids by their insistence on mistaking its for it's. You didn't do that. I really only meant to say that you didn't do that... a sign of respect. I meant only to say that you clearly aren't a noob. I didn't mean what you took from that at all. No, I think you can't and I welcome the challenge. Indeed they do. You just contradicted the post you made that started all this. We do. Because unknown things are unknown. Catch up already! You can rationalize anything you like. The *fact* is that your daughter isn't the prettiest at the prom. If you don't think my convincing myself that she is, is some kind of "wishful thinking" then... yikes... I'm trying to be on the same page here...

Ok. Let's you and I get on the same page. This discussion started around post 1387 where someone asked the innocent question "can one decide to believe in something one knows is not true?" and you replied "yes, but it's usually a sign of mental illness when that happens". Now... Inow... I appreciate the apostrophe you put in "it's" because that's spot on and kids today can't seem to manage that, but the rest of the words you strung together were exactly wrong. I'm trying to say that people can, and do, *decide* (free will and all) to believe that which they know is not true. Two things being mutually exclusive is never reason enough to keep ideas out of a person's head. Now we've moved past this. I'm saying that all people do, in fact, decide to believe in crazy things like fate and destiny and god while they very practically dig their foxhole (which is their only real protection). Ok.

Because I'm willing to look past the distinction you just made and John isn't? Yes... it may never end. I'm willing to dismiss and move past the pointless roadblock you mention. Is this a problem?

Like I just said, I don't care if it is deliberate or not. This discussion didn't start on that caveat. Also, there is absolutely no difference. "To fool" is an active verb.

I don't care if it is deliberate or not. I'm not sure how that got introduced into the conversation. It isn't just a majority... it is everyone. Every non-mentally ill person on the planet fools themselves about something or another. There is an irony here too. John is so wanting to consider religious people broken that he has convinced himself that people don't fool themselves. You see... he probably knows that people do, but he is willing to believe otherwise.

And Tar (Tar2?) is the perfect example. This is a person who calls himself an atheist yet professes and argues for a belief in god. A more perfect depth of a human fooling themselves couldn't be given. It isn't an isolated incident. Knowing one thing and believing another is a very human thing to do.

It isn't broken. Something like 90% of your fellow species have religious belief. If you think that the vast majority of your species is broken then you either need a dictionary, or a short bus to drive you away from this discussion. More likely you're just fooling yourself. Speaking of which... Choosing to believe something which one knows is false is called, in the common human vernacular, fooling oneself. People do fool themselves all the time. 90% of our species does it on the topic of religion, and everyone does it on some topic or another. Your inability to relate to that condition of humanity is a reflection upon you! Earlier I called it autistic. If you don't know what it means for a fact and a belief to contradict each other in your own head then you are at least... ehh... censoring myself... If you didn't learn that people fool themselves in grade school then there is no way I can explain it in a way you'll understand.

I'd be happy to answer any of that in another thread if you'd care to make one and PM me its locale, but we are detracting from this topic, so let's move on here. Sorry, everyone.

The previous post 769 was deleted (as, it seems, Iota made reference to). I knew it would be deleted which is why I linked to it rather than quoting it. I didn't want to repeat the garbage it contained. I can only suggest that when someone in the future seems to respond to a non-existent post you consider that posts are not permanent before jumping to derision and time travel.

Post 769 means, 'Hey, I was trying to obnoxiously start a flame war, didn't anybody notice?' Reminds me... this was in the news today: Good story.

The edited portion of my last post is my response to the thing I just quoted.

This forum is full of people saying exactly what you just said and the next post belongs to a moderator telling them that they have to prove that the "road is stationary" or they need booted. Please provide evidence that "the road is stationary" (which is only true if there is an absolute frame of reference), otherwise please admit that you are neither fit to be a member, nor less a moderator, of these forums and boot yourself immediately. Good Bye. EDIT: By the way, I already know what you're going to say so let me head that off to keep this less boring. My original scenario (the thing that I introduced) involves one person saying that the street is stationary and the other person saying that it is only relatively stationary. Any piddling explanation meant to equivocate or ignore is just a strawman. You can introduce contradictions to imaginary things elsewhere. I'll be dealing with the scenario I gave.

That makes sense. It is an interesting question. Clearly, it was mistaken to have the criteria saying that the belief is either impossible or the content of the belief is false, because that couldn't be scientifically demonstrated for a lot of delusions just by way of not being able to prove a negative. They can't prove that the neighbor's cat didn't telepathically warn me about a gang of ninja mice (or... "ninj-ice" as the cats call them) . On the other hand, it is very difficult to deny that delusions are at least partly identified by their confrontation with reality. I believe that part of the meaning of a delusion involves the content of the belief being mistaken or untrue, or impossible. The manner of the belief -- things like certainty and incorrigibility -- can be good qualities when the belief is true. So the definition should have some reference to the untrue nature of a delusional belief. The DSM-5 appears to find the middle ground by including, "conviction... despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity". I like that balance. We don't have to prove that black belt Ninj-ice don't exist, however it is characteristic of delusions that we have 'reasonable' evidence contradicting the veracity of the belief.

You have me at a loss -- I don't remember giving a definition or using a definition to support a position. I got the distinction between an illusion and a delusion from a paper Freud wrote (The Future of an Illusion). I'd guess you've read it, but I'll quote a very small portion to be sure you see where I was coming from. I don't think it contradicts your DSM-5 quote. I don't recall John using the word, but I'm positive that the meaning he gives it when he does use it is consistent with what you quoted. What you quoted is quite agreeable, and I don't imagine anyone using the word to mean anything very different from that definition.