i see that after rereading. my appologies.

JR, I'm assuming you are being completely serious here.... at first I thought you were saying that such a person must have a 'delusional disorder' as recognized by psych-doctors. Then I realized the very first definition given in this thread was closest to what you meant... but do you really think that this kind of delusion is 'psychotic' in nature?

I believe that the bacteria we eat has a strong influence on the bacteria in our large intestines, which in turn can have a strong influence on our overall health...while many doctors have told me that the pH in the stomach makes this basically impossible. AFAIK, there has been no study or test done to prove my beliefs. Am I psychotic?

True enough, which is why I favor an interpretation of 'delusional' which focuses on willingness to reexamine, rather than a presumed 'objective' standard of 'what is true'. (Which may or may not be consistent with how others use the word.... )




I'm confident you don't really believe this to always be true.

It has become all to obvious that the Subject of this thread was meant to do nothing more than enflame and antagonize both sides into a debate as old as cain and able, when neither side can offer any proof other than faith in there beliefs. Can you hear the wheels spining???? and no miles comming off??? Wasted time!!!!

hypothetical. we've been round and round before about what constitutes a theory. i consider only the scientific definition which is a hypothosis supported by evidence that has been tested and produces predictable and repeatable results. if a theory of that fashion does exist with evidence that has been tested with scientific methodology then i am unaware of it. but in such a case science would not "believe" in intelligent design. it would simply be another theory to continue testing. if one did consider the theory to be fact, he would be delusional.

I suspect you might be right - except for the part I put in bold. I would agree that neither side can provide an evidence based 'proof' of their position - but that doesn't leave us with faith alone.

Not always, but it's all a matter of perception, right? Yr brain manufactures a reality...be it rational or not. Once you act on it it becomes very real, cuz' you responded to it.

don't know. as i'm not a psychiatrist i would never render a diagnosis of delusional to anybody whether they believe in intelligent design or you believing what cuases your illness. all i've ever done is express what i understand psychiatry's definition of "delusional" to be. i've never called any individual delusional that i recall. if i did i was being delusional. lol.

hahaha. you're on a dating site and telling us we're wasting time????hahahaha. good one.

Maybe I've missed the importance of discriminating between a psychotic belief and a psychotic person who has a belief.... regardless, I was assuming that: when you keep saying things along the lines of 'delusional as psychiatrist use the word', that you were referring to:

.

I'm not saying this is a good definition - I just assumed this (above) is what you meant by the word.

yes, different wording but essentially the same definition i'm familliar with although i don't recall the use of the term "persistent false belief" being used. it simply refered to a belief in a concept inspite of evidence to support an alternate concept. both concepts could have evidence for support, but to believe in one inspite of the other evidence is a delusion. that is why i say that an atheist who believes it to be fact that god does not exist is every bit as delusional as a faithful who belives it to be fact that god does exist.

I don't think it's hypothetical at all.

I can personally imagine theories of intelligent design that would pass every test imaginable. It's really quite simple to devise such a theory.

And just like the Big Bang, all that can be shown is the resulting 'evidence'. You don't need to show evidence for the actual physical existence of the 'designer' itself.

It's no different from the Big Bang really. The theory of the Big Bang simply describes everything that has unfolded since the Big Bang yet it does not say anything about "what banged".

It's the same way with a theory of intelligent design. It's easy to devise a theory that suggests that the universe was intelligently designed and that theory would necessarily test true. All you need to do is make sure that it fits all of the observed data.

It's really not hard at all.

It wouldn't 'prove' that there is a designer of course. All it would 'prove' is that it is indeed theoretically possible that a designer could potentially exist.

But it wouldn't take much to design a theory that would be compatible with all known observations. And thus the theory would pass all 'tests'.

It's kind of like the approach to String Theory.

Just keep refining a theory that fits observational data and the theory can't be rejected. Everytime something doesn't fit just right, toss it out and create something new.

This is one problem with scientific "theory". For the most part they really aren't 'theories' at all.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity was forward-looking. He actaully predicted E=mc². He also predicted time dilation. He also predicted how gravity behaves differently from Newton's original theory.

However the Big Bang "theory" was actually more of a discovery than a theory. In fact, it was discovered by accident. Most people thought the universe was static in those days. It was quite profound to discover that the universe is expanding. And it was that observation that led to the recognition that the universe must have been all together at one point in some distance past. Thus the theory of the "Big Bang" came into play.

That's was a backward-looking theory that actually discovered the results first, and then extrapolated backward. It didn't make any 'predications'. In fact, the original Big Bang theory contained many unresolvable paradoxes. Those paradoxes were explained away by Alan Guth and "Inflation Theory".

Moreover, if spiritual "theories" are permitted the same liberty as scientific theories then, they too, should be permitted to be modified as needed in order to retain their original hypothesis.

So I don't see a theory of intelligent design as being hypothetical at all. I could write one up that cannot be falsified. That doesn't mean that it's true. But if it can't be falsified then it can't be rejected either.

NOR could anyone be called 'delusional' for considering that it may very well be true. After all, if it can't be falsified, then it may well be true.

You can't call someone 'delusional' for considing possibilities that can't be ruled out.

Well there is no proof in spirit I agree, but I disagree that it is not logical to believe.

If you are hiking in the wilderness from one destination to another. When you are around the halfway point you encounter a blizzard. Do you go back or go forward? In this situation either choice is logical.

You can not prove nor disprove the existence of a spirit or god. So either choice is equally logical.

If no god exists then we are all just destined to be worm food so choosing either choice has no effect, but If there is a god and if believing in him/her causes you to go to heaven instead of hell well there is an effect.

So by my standards it is logical to believe because if you are wrong it will not hurt you, but if you are right then you get to go to heaven.

The word 'logical' is much abused in these forums, so I'm not even going to go there. How about 'rational' ? Or sensible?

I strongly disagree with the idea that: if you can neither prove nor disprove something, believing and disbelieving in its existence is equally rational (or sensible).

How about a an invisible, insensible penguin that lives in your fridge, and become visible only when no one can see it?

How about an unknown intelligent species of monkey all of whom craftily, deliberately avoid human detection... while raiding our warehouses and occasionally breaking things in the night?

Can you prove that neither of those exist?





Again, I strongly disagree. You link ideas which are not inherantly linked, and discount so many hundreds of possibilities. For example, its possible that humans have immortal souls, and yet the universe has no creator.



All, the old 'hedging your bets' argument - I think anyone who would opt for 'belief' based solely or primarily on this kind of motivation is cowardly and dishonest. If you do believe (I'm not assuming), then I'm sure you have better reasons than this.

That's an interesting view.

I have personally rejected the dogmatic religions that claim to speak for a judgmental God who demands that we believe in him. So based on those religions I would have already committed the only unforgivable sin in the whole doctrine. So there would be no turning back for me anyway. Even the God of that Bible could not forgive me without going back on his own word.

So at this point you might thing it would be in my favor to support atheism where I won't have to face any judgment at all.

However, I reject both of the above scenarios as being highly unlikely.

I have my own reasons for believing in a spiritual essence of life without the need to also believe in any particular mythologies.

As far as I'm concerned the true essence of the universe must necessarily transcend logic as we know it. That's a given as far as I'm concerned. Because even logic demands that this universe must ultimately transcend logic.

So that opens the door wide for spiritual beliefs. Which in this context are indeed 'logical'. Because even logic demands that the universe must ultimately transcend logic.

I agree that such a tactic most likely wouldn't pan out anyway. It would ultimately be a 'false belief'. If we go by the actual doctrine a "true believer" must love God with all their heart and soul. To just believe it on a bet would be false love.

I cannot possible believe in the Bible. It's simply not a choice. I'd have to LIE to pretend to believe it. And that would include lying to God! (not to mention lying to myself)

What good would that do?

Even if the God turned out to be true and I found myself face-to-face with the God I would still need to be honest and tell the God that, as far as I can see the whole Bible is outrageously absurd and often times sadistically sick, IMHO.

That is the TRUTH. And to tell God anything else would be a LIE.

Also, in answer to the question, "Do I accept having God's son nailed to a pole to pay for my sins?"

Absolutely NOT!. No, I totally do not condone that.

And I would have be honest about that as well.

I'm not going to pretend to condone something I don't condone.

If there's a God, I'm going to be honest with God. And if that's not good enough, then all I can say is that it isn't much of a God, IMHO.

If honesty isn't good enough for God, then what does it even mean to call it "God".

Richard Dawkins a well known atheist wrote a theory called "the Selfish Gene", in it he explains "meme". The therory has to do with spirituality, even a well known atheist in his studies as a scientist did not deny spirit. He did however try to come up with an explanation of it's exsistance. Look it up, there are vidoes and text on the entire therory quite interesting. No matter your beleif there is one scientific fact that has yet to be hurdled by the scientific community. The evolution of nothing into something. Even light, gas, an atom of the simplest element or black space itself is something! But then again God is something as well right? Well I can only speak from my relgious beleif but the bible's explanation is man has not the capacity to understand God. But really if you think about it honestly and objectively it had to start somewhere and the thought that it just "poof" was there without a God is equally as hard to beleive. Then again i am no where near as smart as Richard dawkins or most scientists. But they do tend to be biased sometimes, i beleive its a reverse descrimination at this point!

Well, there is nothing in science that actually supports a non-spiritual universe either.

To pretend that science supports non-spiritual views any more than it supports spiritual views is truly a false claim in itself.



Well this is a belief that is held by almost all spiritual traditions. For example, Pantheism and Taoism both hold that spirit is unknowable in its essence. Just the same, it can be directly experienced by aligning with it in harmony.

To all involved...

I am taking a mental note of those who have expressed concern for what they think is the possibility of deliberately being made fun of in this thread, although I assure you that that was not the intent. On that note, I will also consciously refrain from calling anyone delusional, although in the OP, I actually was referring to what I would call myself should I build my world view upon attributes and properties of that which cannot be shown to exist. Massage has basically given the logical grounding which I hold for that idea, as well as allowing me to see how my words in the OP could have bee reasonably concluded as being purposefully demeaning.

The focus upon whether or not the idea of spirit is logical is interesting to me.

The focus upon whether or not it has been proven to exist is also interesting.

The focus upon what one can possibly know about spirit and why is interesting.

The focus upon my intent is over with, if anyone here chooses to continue with this line of thinking in spite of my words above and in the OP, then be my guest - just keep it to yourself, because it amounts to being about me personally and that is against the rules, and will add nothing but childish behavior to the thread.