Since we seem to be discussing Cognitive Biases...

[NeoGreen]

...quite a bit lately, here is a handy reference of CB Names and Definitions:

[njhoneybadger]

2. Nice thx

[Cuthbert Allgood]

3. Do you want to start a side pool

on which one of those a certain person will latch onto next?

[NeoGreen]

5. I don't know what anyone else will pick...

...but I have my favorite alll...lined...up.


Plus, either way, at least we might have an agreed upon basis for names and definitions of CBs that come up in our elucidate and friendly discussions.

BTW, that's an example of my 4th most frequent bias: Optimism Bias

[Igel]

14. Optimism bias

is largely confirmation bias.

What you see confirms what you think, and if there's a proposal that is in line with your thinking you find arguments for it so much more persuasive.

[smirkymonkey]

4. Very handy! Thanks.

Bookmarked!

[guillaumeb]

6. And which of these are you immune to?

All of them?

Some of them?

[NeoGreen]

7. None.

Really had to ask, didn't you.

[guillaumeb]

8. Yes. But you did answer.

Now, explain the provable basis for a statement that theism is delusional.

[NeoGreen]

9. Define delusional...

...as you are using it.

[guillaumeb]

10. A belief that is contradicted by reality.

The earth is demonstrably and provably spherical. Any claim that the earth is flat is obviously delusional.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Your own faith has certain tenets about the nature of your god does it not?

Can you please list 5-10 bullet points about the nature of your god?

Because I guarantee your faith is in some way, mututally exclusive of the tenets of another faith. If they don't align, and both make truth claims about their god, (including mono vs. polytheism) one is factually wrong. If one has faith in a factually wrong tenet of their religion, would that not be defacto delusional? How would it be different from people who believe the earth is flat because certain text of the bible could be interpreted through a certain fundamentalist lens to claim it must be?

[guillaumeb]

20. My own faith, and any faith, does not rely on proof.

Faith implies belief without proof.

Delusion in faith would be stating that my personal belief is correct, and that all others are incorrect.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Again, your faith(TM) or religion makes truth claims about the nature of your god(s), correct?

One doesn't need proof. One can simply observe any two religions making mutually exclusive truth claims, for us to know ONE of these maybe un-testable claims is fat out untrue.

Continued belief in something that is factually untrue, is what? (I would strongly consider the adjective 'delusional' in that scenario.

[guillaumeb]

23. These claims are essentially hypotheses about the nature of the Creator.

And as such, they represent an attempt to understand the Creator.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. That is not how they are presented by the humans that advocate for them.

If they were presented as a hypothesis, the world would be much better for it.

[NeoGreen]

26. Wait a minute, how are we supposed to recify...

...the following 2 statements?

My own faith, and any faith, does not rely on proof.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218319094#post20

and

These claims are essentially hypotheses about the nature of the Creator.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218319094#post23


When a hypothesis is:

a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Underlines added.


These statements seem like nothing more than rhetorical circles.

Edit to add:

Maybe a little:

[NeoGreen]

13. How does one differentiate your definition of delusion from...

...someone who may hold an idea as true but is simply ignorant?

I.e., what is the difference between a point of view derived from delusion versus ignorance?

[uriel1972]

16. I guess a delusion would be...

something you believe when there is no evidence on hand to believe it or contrary evidence that exists against it.
Sorry, by that definition religion is delusional, can't help it.

[guillaumeb]

21. I answered. Now, you answer my question posed in reply #8.

And that is the beginning of dialogue.

[NeoGreen]

24. Dialog isn't a mere tit for tat...

...and it would be meaningless to respond to a thesis that isn't fully defined.

Your request for the a logical basis for the thesis you posted (i.e. the Original Question {OQ}):

i.e. Theism is delusional.

Is an interesting topic for discussion, but we need to agree on what is being discussed, in order to have meaningful dialog.

I asked for your definition of Delusional.

You replied with:

A belief that is contradicted by reality.
Example: The earth is demonstrably and provably spherical. Any claim that the earth is flat is obviously delusional.

Your definition largely comports with the Webster definition:

1a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

1b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

2 : the act of tricking or deceiving someone : the state of being deluded …

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion

I will slightly modify Webster's general definition, to avoid using the word or its root in the definition, to offer: A persistent belief that is falsely believed or propagated about one's self, other persons or objects outside the self.


Once we get these definitional questions/uncertainties cleared up, we can then systematically work our way to answering the OQ. Any demand that we jump ahead to a poorly evaluated response to the OQ before we clear up all definitional questions strongly suggests that that there is an agenda out there which is angling for a pre-planned or canned answer. I would like to avoid that if possible.

Let's work on an answer to your OQ together and reach an mutually agreeable conclusion, through honest dialog.

[guillaumeb]

28. So essentially, you refuse to answer.

And that is the antithesis of dialogue.

[NeoGreen]

29. Just the complete opposite...

...I am wholly prepared to fully engage in a discussion/dialog in regards to the thesis you posted.

It is a normal part if dialog to ask for clarification on various points and definitions along the way.

"What do you mean by..." is a very common phrase in honest discussion, it should be expected and it does not necessarily follow a tit-for-tat format.

However, attempts to circumvent the process and demand a premature jump to the conclusion/answer or shut-down and claim any reluctance to prematurely jump to a conclusion/answer is a failure to engage in honest dialog is disingenuous and an indication of insincerity in regards to the desire to fully engage and fully examine a thesis.

[guillaumeb]

30. I provided a definition.

And this is not a legal forum. It is a discussion board. So if you cannot, or will not, provide a rationale for the idea that theism is delusion, I understand.

If your thesis is that theism=delusion, it is your responsibility to support the thesis.

[NeoGreen]

31. You know, you really are tedious, you claim you want dialog...

...but then you sabotage any serious attempt to do so.

It's almost as if you are engaging in some grande piece of 'Performance Art', but it really only comes across as a series of minor tantrums.

I honestly wanted to discuss the thesis you posted in #8, but you seem unwilling or unable to work through it.

So, feel free to post another tantrum, I'm done trying to have an honest discussion with you, I'm not sure you know what one is anyway.

Apparently, your 'faith' trumps everything.

Peace, dude.

[trotsky]

18. Do you believe Jesus Christ literally existed, was literally dead for 3 days (ok, a day and a half)

...and was literally raised from the dead, and literally ascended to heaven?

You never state exactly what your beliefs are, g. How convenient.

[trotsky]

27. Wait, whose position is that?

"Theism is delusional and can be proven such"

Who said that? Why are you declaring that others must defend it?

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Think of it like an innoculation. It enables your immune system to recognize an invader.

That doesn't mean you're immune. You're never immune. Your immune system still needs to do the work of killing the invader, and it can be weakened by many factors, leaving you susceptible to the invader, despite the inoculation.


Similarly a "Wanted" poster doesn't catch an outlaw. It enables you to recognize the outlaw and attempt to catch them.
It is a non sequitur for you to assume/demand anyone explicitly claim to be immune to any of these.


Forewarned is Forearmed does not mean you don't have to fight. It just gives you a chance of having initiative.
In fact, your non-sequitur is quite the opposite of reality if you think carefully about D-K effect. The more we know about these fallacies, the more we know we are capable of committing them, and to be actively vigilant. It doesn't mean we're immune.

[guillaumeb]

19. An excellent answer.

And because none of us is immune, we should have care when making blanket statements.

[Igel]

15. Media hostility bias.

You can show the same article to both right and left, taking pains to make it neutral, and both will find that it's hostile.

It's sort of like a presumption that if it's not obviously for you (and feeding your confirmation bias) it must be against you.

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Whoa boy, here are my cardinal sins:

Pessimism, negativity bias, curse of knowledge, bystander effect, fundamental attribution error, framing effect, and confirmation bias.