Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

[Soapy Sam]

In a universe lacking a real Interesting Ian, there could be no fake Interesting Ians.

But there are no fake Interesting Ians in this universe, therefor Interesting Ian is not a real Interesting Ian... but then, he can't be a fake either.

So I guess he must be a figment of our imagination.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So I guess he must be a figment of our imagination.

Thats a scary idea!

 

[Yeah_Right]

Ian, a dogmatic skeptic, as you call them, is more like a cynic.
Or it could be that the skeptics have seen the lack of evidence you have, and are awaiting proof. Yeah, yeah you'll think that this is a load of..... . But I really think that you, like a lot of other believers in the paranormal just want to be believed without question. You sort of remind me of fundamentist christians who think they have the only universal truth, and their only evidence is anecdotal. If you have some real scientific proof, I mean scientific, not philosophical, proof, then I am more than willing to change my mind about reincarnation. Or psychics for that matter. Oh and about the comment on my sig, get a sense of humour will ya?

 

[Bronze Dog]

Ian, a dogmatic skeptic, as you call them, is more like a cynic.

I call his straw men "negative advocate woos." I also find it curious that he can call us closeminded when he doesn't post evidence. Our minds are open to evidence. He just refuses to provide any... Just like all the believers I get in arguments with: They don't seem to be interested in intellectual discussion, just the sound of their typing.

 

[stup_id]

The psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers first defined the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

These criteria still live on in modern psychiatric diagnosis. In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith).

- [/B]

-I don't know what do u think about that definition of the DSMS but it sounds to me very suitable to religious belief, in fact, if you frop the sentence of: "despite what almost everybody else believes", and of course the last one: "The belief is not one ordinarily accepte by other members of the person's culture...".

I mean, it seems as if the psychiatrists who were defining delusion found out it would be appliable to religion and thus added the last sentence.. because for instance who can deny that the raelians, or the people who commited suicide after that comet passed by the earth were not delusional?

 

[tsg]

-I don't know what do u think about that definition of the DSMS but it sounds to me very suitable to religious belief, in fact, if you frop the sentence of: "despite what almost everybody else believes", and of course the last one: "The belief is not one ordinarily accepte by other members of the person's culture...".

I mean, it seems as if the psychiatrists who were defining delusion found out it would be appliable to religion and thus added the last sentence.. because for instance who can deny that the raelians, or the people who commited suicide after that comet passed by the earth were not delusional?

The omission of religion is probably because it isn't falsifiable. Religious beliefs do not fit the requirements of incorrigibility or impossibility by design. They are making a distinction between belief without any supporting evidence and belief despite contradictory evidence. It's an important distinction, I think.

 

[MoonDragn]

Lets suppose by some genetic accident sometimes in the future, everyone in the world is colorblind and cannot see the color red.

Now lets suppose a small percentage of the people is born normal. They are convinced that the color red exists. No matter what kind of arguement the color blind people give them, they are convinced of seeing red.

Are they delusional?

 

[Azrael 5]

Lets suppose by some genetic accident sometimes in the future, everyone in the world is colorblind and cannot see the color red.

Now lets suppose a small percentage of the people is born normal. They are convinced that the color red exists. No matter what kind of arguement the color blind people give them, they are convinced of seeing red.

Are they delusional?

No,proof exsists of the colour red and a easy test could be arranged to prove it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Are they delusional?

Let's suppose that there is a galaxy far, far away where people can manipulate such tiny organisms called "midichlorians". They call this the force. Only a small percentage can do it, though. Are they delusional?


Your hypothetical situation is ridiculous. However, it is still testable in your hypothetical universe to test those people.

 

[-42-]

Lets suppose by some genetic accident sometimes in the future, everyone in the world is colorblind and cannot see the color red.

Now lets suppose a small percentage of the people is born normal. They are convinced that the color red exists. No matter what kind of arguement the color blind people give them, they are convinced of seeing red.

Are they delusional?

Your scenerio would be better stated "that they can SEE the color red" and not "That the color red EXISTS". The latter can be demonstrated, or known, without the need of anyone claiming to see it.

I kind of assumed that's what you meant.... ;p Perhaps even further simplified without a futuristic example or using a primary color with 'They are convinced they can see infrared'.

Can they do what they claim to be able to do? (See the color red)
Yes or no?

Very easy to demonstrate and with a 100% accuracy rate even under satisfactory observing conditions to rule out cheating or fraud.

That's a good start.

1) If they get 100% for several trials, the color-blind people would have to conceede that something is going on and be able to advance from there, since there appears to be something there to study.

2) If they get near-chance odds at something they claim they can do at 100% accuracy, I'd say that they weren't able to detect the color red at that time and are probably deluding themselves, especially if they continue to fail.

And they'd say it was because a color-blind person was in the room and interfered with their light waves.......or because they tried a different brand of eye drops that day.

 

[stup_id]

The omission of religion is probably because it isn't falsifiable. Religious beliefs do not fit the requirements of incorrigibility or impossibility by design. They are making a distinction between belief without any supporting evidence and belief despite contradictory evidence. It's an important distinction, I think.

Yes of course, it's an important distintion I get your point.. but is a blurry one... for instance there's contradictory evidence about all the facts the creation states (which is a religious belief) and yet they remain convinced of its "reality".

Also there's contradictory evidence against most miracles, the sun not moving one day.. Noah's Arch... which of course do not constitute the main core of teological beliefs (are not an important part of cosmogony nor philosophy) but yet are religious beliefs, such as "being sure", that the Earth is just 10,000 years old, when there's contradictory evidence against that

Of course that when you invent an entity who can overpass any physical and/or logical law you can argue anything.. but yet again, won't delusional persons also be able of creating such entities to justify their delusions?

You make a very interesting point nevertheless...

 

[tsg]

Also there's contradictory evidence against most miracles, the sun not moving one day.. Noah's Arch... which of course do not constitute the main core of teological beliefs (are not an important part of cosmogony nor philosophy) but yet are religious beliefs, such as "being sure", that the Earth is just 10,000 years old, when there's contradictory evidence against that

I would say that YEC's border on delusional, but I think that is largely due to not understanding the evidence. Believing the evidence that geology, astronomy and biology give us for the age of the Earth requires a certain understanding of the principles involved that they simply don't have. It's very easy to dismiss the evidence when you don't undertand it, especially when you want so desperately for what it refutes to be true.