How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

[qs]Well that's a caveat that didn't exist in the OP. As I recall, it was asking about how you tell the difference between faith and delusion.And his response was within that I believe. How do you tell the difference between the delusional KGB person and a christian in regards to faith versus delusion? How do you distinguish between the two? I believe distinguishing the two would be vitally important if someone plans on treating their beliefs as the truth.

No problem.And I agree with your fact, thanks for pointing it out, I havn't thought about it enough to make the connection yet.To rephrase: What I've been saying to describe the word "delusional" would certainly include many major religious beliefs... especially those that include preaching in the "witnessing" sense.This leads directly back to what Rahvin was saying. That the only difference between "delusion" and "faith" is the popularization within society to think of faith as normal and therefore creating a cognitive dissonance in connecting anything 'normal' to being 'negative' in the sense that comes with being delusional.However, when we get right down to it and go over the specific defintions, it's easy to see.

Hi Stile, In Message 32 I simply demonstrated how you will have the answer and know whether the claims are true. I stand corrected. You just don't believe in a Christian God.The rest of your rant has nothing to do with my post.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

And as ever, your posts consist of preaching,not a response to the topic. Nowhere do you discuss how we can differentiate faith from delusion, or whether there is any difference at all.Potential judgment after death has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread, as once we're dead, there seems to be no way to tell the living world whether given beliefs are true or false. Here in the world of the living, we have no objective way to differentiate between faith and delusion, because neither is based on evidence, and both ignore contradictory evidence. Both are recognized as an increased level of confidence that a given assertion is true with no objective reason to believe it is true. The only distinguishing factor seems to be one of popularity - those beliefs that are found to be at least "reasonable" by a sufficiently large population are regarded as "faith," while others are identified as "delusion." Aside from this blatant appeal to popularity, there seems to be no distinction between the two whatsoever.Your off topic preaching is a waste of posting space.

There are many refutations of Pascal's Wager. This is hardly a new thought or argument. I find it quite interesting that an argument from the mid 1600's still gets so much play.There have been many criticism's of Pascal's Wager since it was first introduced. Logical it fails at first blush. It allows 2 choices: belief in the christian god or not. These are not the only possibilities so at initial glance the wager fails.Maybe you mnight want to look at the wiki page to see how the argument fails. Pascal's Wager - Criticisms

quote:

---

Since there have been many religions throughout history, and therefore many potential gods, some assert that all of them need to be factored into the wager, in an argument known as the argument from inconsistent revelations. This would lead to a high probability of believing in the wrong god, which destroys the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed with his Wager. Denis Diderot, a contemporary of Voltaire, concisely expressed this opinion when asked about the wager, saying "an Imam could reason the same way".[13] J. L. Mackie notes that "the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not necessarily the Church of Rome, but perhaps that of the Anabaptists or the Mormons or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshipers of Kali or of Odin."

---

quote:

---

Pascal's Wager suffers from the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:

​

1. a benevolent god exists and punishes or rewards according to one's belief, or
2. a benevolent god does not exist.

​

God could either be malevolent or not reward belief. In this view, a benevolent god, by definition, would give priority to the belief of the individual in determining rewards or punishments, rather than basing rewards on the basis of the individual's actions, such as rewarding kindness, generosity, humility or sincerity. Perhaps instead god rewards honest attempted reasoning and indeed might punish blind or feigned faith.

---

quote:

---

The wager assumes that one can consciously decide. Critics argue that they cannot do this, and therefore Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God. In addition, an omniscient God would presumably see through the deception.

---

How about the Atheist Wager as an alternative?

quote:

---

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

---

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi Stile,So what you want us to talk about and what the OP said are slightly different things. I'm fine with that. The interesting part of the quote in question, IMO, was:

quote:

---

individuals who adamantly believe their faith is an accurate description of reality, and they attempt to force others into thinking the same

---

What people seem to be wanting here is a very definite distinction between verifiable and unverifiable reality. I think that can be a tricky line to draw. For example, some people believe that their faith is the only "true" faith. These people tend to be frightened and angry, and usually pretty ignorant of the ways of others as well. Should we equate closed-mindedness with delusion? Is it delusional to try to convert others to one's way of thinking? Actually that's what we all are doing in a way, by debating here (hopefully with some open-mindedness mixed in).

quote:

---

How do you tell the difference between the delusional KGB person and a christian in regards to faith versus delusion? How do you distinguish between the two? I believe distinguishing the two would be vitally important if someone plans on treating their beliefs as the truth.

---

Wisdom and discretion. If someone honestly had trouble distinguishing between those two examples then they, as well, would probably be considered deluded. Christianity is not a mental illness.

That would be a big no. There is no evidence for a god, so therefore I do not have a belief in a god. There is no evidence for a god, but those that have faith have faith that there is a god. One stance is based on the evidence, the other is based on faith. Big difference.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

There is no evidence for a god, so therefore I do not have a belief in a god. There is no evidence for a god, but those that have faith have faith that there is a god. One stance is based on the evidence, the other is based on faith. Big difference.

---

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I can see that you are getting overwhelmed with responses here so I will keep this brief. Do you see a difference between presenting evidence in order to convince others and simply trying to convince someone that if they believe in something that inherently cannot be evidenced it will be somehow beneficial?Doesn't faith based thinking necessarily require the latter approach? No. Simply an honest distinction between what it is possible to consider evidenced (or even experienced) and what it is not.We only have material methods of sensory perception (unless you are claiming otherwise?). If it is claimed that we are experiencing materially undetectable phenomenon then it is perfectly reasonable (necessary even) to ask "How"?

There is no such thing as a vacuum of evidence.There is a great deal of objective evidence that tells us as verified fact that humans have a strong disposition to invent gods.

Hi master, I may be wrong but I thought the specifics being discussed was there was no way to ever know if a certain Christian God existed.Did I explain a way that if a specific Christian God exists Stile will know he exists? yes/noThe rest of your post is just preaching your message.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Not really. Have you read the OP? This thread is about our ability (or otherwise) to distinguish between faith and delusion.The clue is in the title...........

So which god am I supposed to believe in? How many gods are you agnostic to? How many are you atheist to?Do you even see the point?Why is unsubstantiated belief in a god exempt from delusion? Why are some people that hear voices termed crazy? But if preachers or George Bush claim to be hearing voices they are exempt from any concerns that they may be delusional?Why does religion get a free pass?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi Theodoric, The only reason I hinted at Pascal's Wager is that I knew it would immediately be thrown into play.But I was not giving an either or situation, with punishment or rewards.I only stated that If the God I believe in exist Stile will know He exists.He had made the statement there was no way ever to know.So give me your best answer:If God exists and you stand before Him to be judged will you know that God exists?If so Stiles statement " but we have no way to ever know", is false.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."