How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

If Western methods of investigation were to reliably show that such practises resulted in outcomes that were identical to a placebo would you reconsider your position?Is your position one of evidence (anecdotal or whatever) or is it a more conventional pure faith based approach (as per the topic)?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But evidence is not a subjective judgement. That is the problem with your thinking.A form of evidence either demonstrably and reliably leads to conclusions that are superior to guessing or it doesn't.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Dude you never will see an answer. I have been asking these questions in one form or another for months. I am always "Off Topic" or "Irrelevant" or "Unimportant" or not worthy of an answer because I am a "liar". Whatever. Any excuse. No matter what it takes a way will always be found to avoid the questions. You have seen it in this thread but the reaction is the just the same in plenty of others. Is My Hypothesis Valid???Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argumentPercy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?I even specifically challenged those who advocate such things to defend the whole "subjective evidence" argument as applied to immaterial entities here Immaterial "Evidence". But none of the main proponents of that position will deign to take part. Why?It is evasion pure and simple.Those who advocate the idea that immaterial entities are subjectively evidenced would rather bathe in a pool of man eating slugs than actually define what forms of immaterial evidence they do and don't consider valid. Because ultimately all are identical in terms of reliablity to (biased) guessing.My Message 160 remains in place.

Of course. Which is why by "reliably" I meant extensive and numerous double blind trials with large numbers of patients in each trial.If such results were negative (or at least no more impressive than the placebo control groups) would you change your mind? Do you have evidence or "faith" in the purest sense of the word? Well faith is on topic even if the specifics of psychic healing or whatever are not.I am both intrigued and confused by, what seems, a conflation between evidence and faith in the non-atheist participants in this thread. When I talk to Bluejay or Percy (or a few others) they talk of faith as irrational and unevidenced but, whilst intellectually interested to a degree, they don't really care about any seeming contradictions. They and are happy to go (on a rational level at least) with most atheist conclusions regarding gods. They believe despite these contradictions. They believe anyway. In short they are incredibly rational about their irrationality. They recognise it, embrace it and deal with it in their own personal way. Which I kinda grudgingly respect.I think that we are all intellectually conflicted on one level or another (Yes - Even me) with regard to one (or more) subjects. So I accept their irrational faith and leave them to their own honest analysis of their own self recognised contradictions. I don't doubt that I have my own irrational and contradictory beliefs. Even if I don't think that mine are theistically related. But I do try to recognise them and either change them or accept that they are contradictory.But you guys seem intent on the idea that faith in immaterial beings is not irrational, is not illogical and that any comparison with "absurd" ideas like the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is insulting and unwarranted because there is in fact some form of "evidence" that I (and other atheists) just will not admit. BUT which justifies such faith and which I should recognise at least to the point of agnosticism but for my "world view" bias.I promise to not even reply to your answer to this post or even mention it again if you don't want me to. It is not a trick. I just want to understand how faith and evidence are related (or not) in your mind.I am honestly not the baby eating monster RAZD would have people believe of me ..........Edited by Straggler, : Spelling, wording and clarity.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The commonality of human psychology and the universal need for explanation, higher purpose etc. etc. is as objectively evidenced as is the fact that humans invent supernatural answers.In terms of pure evidence it comes down to this versus an undefined form of immaterial subjective evidence that requires both a sixth sense and that is no better than guessing as to what immaterial entities might exist. Well if gods (which is the topic of the OP here) are material they are presumably as detectable as any other material entity? In which case we have no argument at all specifically with regard to "immaterial" gods except the degree to which they are materially evidenced.I am interested in the faith/evidence thing and I will accept your answers on that as personal opinion unquestioningly as promised.BUT that does not mean I am going to start accepting forms of evidence that lead to conclusions that are no better than guessing just to be friendly. Such claims are unjustified. Period.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well I am. You don't see me arguing with Percy or Bluejay that they "should be atheists" as RAZD has accused me of attempting to do with him, do you?Do you really think that the questions in my Message 160 have been answered? Really? Honestly?Because in three previous threads and this one it feels to me as if every effort and every tactic in the book and beyond has been used to NOT explicitly answer these questions.Repeatedly being told I am too blind or stupid to see the answers doesn't really help. If I am blind and /or stupid it seems I am not alone. It also seems that the theists/deists involved are truly unable to cite the answers in any way that they can be quoted on or pinned down to.................?Feel free to prove me wrong.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Message 10Edited by Straggler, : I linked to a CFO post!!!! Link corrected.

I will. In the specific context of this thread I mean guessing as to whether the object(s) of religious faith actually exist or not.Whatever the context a claim of "evidence" requires that it can be demonstrated that conclusions that are superior to just guessing can be obtained.If you cannot then you are just deluding yourself that whatever ambiguous and undefined forms of non-empirical evidence we are talking about here are actually any form of evidence at all.Edited by Straggler, : SpellingEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Oh go on then. I'll answer your questions in the forlorn hope that you will explain to me how your "evidence" is not just a form of deluded and biased guessing as per Message 222. I still dispute that I am an "empiricist" in the sense that you are suggesting though. I guess we'll see.... Probably not. If you want a more detailed answer than that you will have to define "god" more thoroughly. That is up to you to decide for yourself. Some might argue that such things as reproduction etc. provide a "purpose" but I don't think that is what you meant and it is not what I would mean either. If you think your life has purpose then it does. This is not evidenced or even necessarily rational. It is an internal subjective judgement. That is a question worthy of much more time than this and much more expertise than I will ever have. It feels like I have a degree of free-will. But the honest answer is that I don't know and, except in an intellectually curious sort of way, I am not sure that I care. I have no idea what is meant by "Ultimate Truth". We can have a higher degree of confidence in of some conclusions, and some forms of evidence, than others. There are forms of evidence that reliably and demonstrably lead to conclusions that are superior to mere guesses. And there are some reasons for belief that are no better than random guesses in terms of reliability. But beyond that I am not sure what you are asking here. I don't claim that my internal emotional state is necessarily evidenced or even necessarily rational. Nor is it particularly any of anyone elses business unless I choose to make it so.So will you now tell me how your evidence is superior to guessing? Message 222Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you genuinely believe that you are in love then you are in love. Even if the girlfriend in question is a figment of your imagination. Your emotional state regarding her is internal and can be "true" independently of any external reality.However simply believing that trees are made of marzipan, or that gods exist or any other "truth" about shared objective external reality does not make it so.It's a shame I know. My imaginary girlfriend was hot. But such is life.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The first rule of deism is, you do not talk about deities.If you want to stay on speaking terms with deists I also suggest you avoid the term "immaterial".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am not sure that I do either. Evidence should be demonstrably detectable and demonstrably superior to guessing. That is about as much criteria as I have requested. Is that so unreasonable? Who is this other Straggler you keep referring to? He sounds like a right immovable zealout. I am glad I am not him. Again untrue. I have read them all. But if you feel I have not addressed any question you have asked then let me know and I will endevour to do so. I am not the evasive one here.You on the other hand still haven't stated which forms of non-empirical/immaterial evidence you include and disclude. A single specific example will suffice. One single example!!! New? If we are talking about "Guessing" Message 222 then let it be noted I first addressed this issue to RAZD back in April and have raised it numerous times in this same context!! However I look forward to your response.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In one corner we have the objectively evidenced and indisputable fact that humans are prone to inventing supernatural entities.In the other corner we have immaterial subjective "evidence". A form of evidence that requires that we have a non-material "sixth" sense in order that we can experience it at all. A form of evidence from which the conclusions derived are no more reliable than random (or biased) guesses.In terms of superiority of evidence there is absolutely no contest at all. Message 3Indeed. I could not agree more.

There is a difference in the reason. But not in terms of the reliability of the conclusion. It may be the case that reading tea leaves can provide us with essential information about immaterial gods. It may be the case that reading sheeps entrails can do the same? Those who find such things convincing would no doubt make the same arguments you are making about their preferred form of "evidence". I assume that you will be looking avidly at the bottom of your tea cup and taking an unhealthy interest in dead sheep from now on?Seriously - How are these things any less reliable as forms of evidence than the things you are actually proposing? Fine. No argument. Just don't expect me or anyone else making a rational assessment to treat your personally very convincing conclusion as any more reliable than a guess as to what might exist. No more convincing than you would rationally treat the reading of sheep entrails.That is all I ask. That is all I have ever asked.People may have all sorts of reasons for believing in gods. I accept their personal subjective reasons as reasons. But don't tell me gods are evidenced because they quite patently are not. No more so than the Immaterial Pink Unicorn. It is guessing, even if it doesn't feel that way.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What about dreams?Anyway thankyou CS. Thankyou for having the decency to answer directly. Why will RAZD and others not just say so? Why the evasion? I didn't say you were guessing. I said your conclusions were no more reliable than guesses. Thus calling such things "evidence" is an abuse of the term. The commonality of human psychology is a very very evidenced explanation for such things. Evidenced in such a way as to be far superior to guessing. Look let me make this clear. I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE RANDOMLY GUESSING. However you are indisputably treating subjective reasons for belief that are no more reliable than simply guessing as evidence.You are letting your personal conviction persuade you that you have evidence when in fact you have subjective reasons.If I am given a choice of 10 envelopes of which one contains a million pounds and I make my choice on the basis of a feeling then I have a subjective reason for choosing that envelope. But my reason still gives me no more than a 1 in 10 chance of being right. Reasons are not evidence. Reasons do not result in conclusions that are better than guesses. My feeling was not evidence.Whether you agree or not does that make sense? Well if you can show me another way we can detect reality external to ourselves I am open to hearing it. Specifically one that allows us to somehow detect immaterial gods.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.