This could had been written by The Onion. The fact that it wasn't is what is really frightening.

That's your standard, so you should stick to it. If you want to be taken seriously, that is.

even though it can't be disproven, while preaching that people who dismiss the existence of a god are wrong and misguided, because god's existence can't be disproven?

Got it!

Would it not be arrogant to say that we are right on a matter of doctrine and they are wrong?

that the anti-christ is about to arrive?

See, this is where I separate respect/tolerance of ideas from respect/tolerance of actions.

They can believe whatever they like, but when they base their actions on those beliefs, and those actions impinge on the rights of others, I have a problem.

I don't care whether they are right or not. Maybe the anti-christ is coming. I have no way of knowing and I frankly don't care.

But if they then want to dismantle Obamacare in order to stop that from happening, we are going to have a problem.

However, you routinely attack those who voice certain opinions about religious belief. They aren't necessarily acting on them, they're just posting on discussion board. Ideas, not actions. But you attack them anyway.

Some consistency would be awesome, cbayer.

Revealed truth is the most perfect truth of all, the truthiest truth you might say.

Do you not base your support or lack of support for certain governmental policies on your understanding of ethics?

This is an ethical matter for these people, they honestly believe they are saving souls by undermining Obamacare, they are genuinely terrified of the results of not acting.

How much more ethical can you get than trying to save your neighbor from eternal torment at the hands of evil incarnate?

And I would hope others would warn me.

But if their "revealed truth" flew in the face of the science behind predicting weather events, I would have reason to doubt it.

I understand that some truly believe it and are terrified. I also understand that some truly believe they have an ethical obligation to act on their beliefs.

But again I will say that if those beliefs impinge on the civil liberties of others, I will do what I can to stop them.

That's my ethical obligation.

It's not enough to have "reason to doubt." According to you, a person who disagrees with someone else can only be justified in doing so if they can *prove* the other person wrong. That's the standard you have set for others, why don't you think it applies to you?

Until you reconcile this blatant set of double standards, you will struggle to be taken seriously.

What if you knew a tornado was coming, but your next door neighbor, who believed his family to be protected by god, was letting his children play outside while he sat inside watching TV?

Would you basically kidnap his children and take them to your basement to try and protect them? I absolutely would, but in doing so, am I not asserting the superiority of my beliefs? I can't *prove* his are wrong. That would make me a "dogmatic" atheist, for sure.

And then what if the tornado ended up going around your neighborhood - would it be proof that his beliefs were right?

These are the tough questions, the ones that expose all the glaring shortcomings in reasoning like the kind cbayer employs. Great in the little self-constructed narrative she lives in, not so great when it comes to the real world - so naturally, they will be categorized as "gotcha" questions and ignored. So much for real discussion.

you have a decidedly fundamental approach to reasoning ...

FYI --- all of us live in our own self constructed narrative ...

your narrative seems to be a little narrower than others ...

and in "kidnapping" the children you raise many more questions about your thinking ...

Are so resistant to any intrusion from contradictory outside influences while claiming not to be, and at the same time making such efforts to influence others.

And judging truth by tone is not a hallmark of effective thought.

I know this for a fact.

How about you answer my questions instead of personally attacking me or my "narrow" narrative? Let's keep this discussion civil and respectful. Are you willing to try?

So what would you do in that situation? Would you move to protect those kids, or respect the parent's beliefs and do nothing?

you bastard!

you've ruined it for all atheists forever.

I certainly hope you are happy.

WE EAT THEM! MUAH HA HA HA!

Oh wait...

"" width="750" height="600" alt="strawman-argument"></a>

Thanks much for playing. My questions remain unanswered.

And if you deem my answer a personal attack, then so be it ... Mr. Trotsky the Defensive guy ...

Saying someone doesn't have a brain is. I haven't done anything like that to you - why did you feel the need to attack me personally like that?

You are trying to play defense with me and I will state again as clearly as possible, I will not play ...

How about you just remove the insulting image? That would certainly be a mature and respectful thing to do.

Then you can go about explaining just what makes my question a straw man. I'll gladly correct it if given the feedback, if you are interested in discussion and learning from each other and not just personal attacks.

Please let me know if you want to give it a try.

which you deem insulting ... Mr. Defense ...

In your world, "mistaken is a synonym for delusion" ...

In my world,

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary....and ...

the dictionary says

de·lu·sion noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\
: a belief that is not true : a false idea

: a false idea or belief that is caused by mental illness

Full Definition of DELUSION

1
: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2
a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
— de·lu·sion·al adjective
— de·lu·sion·ary adjective
See delusion defined for English-language learners »
See delusion defined for kids »
Examples of DELUSION

He has delusions about how much money he can make at that job.
He is living under the delusion that he is incapable of making mistakes.
She is under the delusion that we will finish on time.
As the illness progressed, his delusions took over and he had violent outbursts.
Origin of DELUSION

Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
First Known Use: 15th century
Related to DELUSION

Synonyms
chimera, conceit, daydream, fantasy, dream, fancy, figment, hallucination, illusion, nonentity, phantasm (also fantasm), pipe dream, unreality, vision
Antonyms
truth, verity
Related Words
ignis fatuus, mirage, will-o'-the-wisp; brainchild, idea; concoction, fable, fabrication, fiction, invention; envisaging, imaging, visualization; cloud-cuckoo-land, cloudland, Shangri-la, utopia; daymare, nightmare
Near Antonyms
actuality, fact, reality
more
Synonym Discussion of DELUSION

delusion, illusion, hallucination, mirage mean something that is believed to be true or real but that is actually false or unreal. delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind <delusions of persecution>. illusion implies a false ascribing of reality based on what one sees or imagines <an illusion of safety>. hallucination implies impressions that are the product of disordered senses, as because of mental illness or drugs <suffered from terrifying hallucinations>. mirage in its extended sense applies to an illusory vision, dream, hope, or aim <claimed a balanced budget is a mirage>.
Other Psychology Terms

fetish, hypochondria, intelligence, mania, narcissism, neurosis, pathological, psychosis, schadenfreude, subliminal
Rhymes with DELUSION

affusion, allusion, Carthusian, collusion, conclusion, confusion, contusion, diffusion, effusion, elusion, exclusion, extrusion, illusion,...
[+]more

But you are muddling two topics here. The discussion about what "delusion" means is down thread. Your personal attack image was posted in response to my question about what you would do if faced with the choice of protecting someone's children or telling them their religious beliefs are wrong (which you can't prove).

I was not aware that a personal attack was allowed if you merely assert some has used a straw man. Thanks for that information. You are truly teaching me things about what is acceptable behavior.

anywhere in the definition of delusion ...


And for what reason other than to be muddling would I want to prove anything other than you are wrong about being mistaken ...

Sorry I caused you to attack me as you did.

for delusion ....



and as soon as you take down your attack questions which are mostly strawman, then I will remove my strawman ....

You're just intent on attacking me. Go ahead and get any last pathetic jabs in, I've posted the evidence confirming I was correct and you were not. cbayer sure has great allies.

Your source said "mistake" not "mistaken." So there.

Yup, that must be it. If I only had a brain.

I have no clue who cbayer is but I will bet you intimately know goblinman ....

THAT'S the thread you're clinging to rather than admit you were wrong and I was right?

Look, a dictionary provides DEFINITIONS. From those definitions we can figure out synonyms from the other words we know. I took a dictionary definition for delusion, and claimed that it could be a synonym for mistake.

A thesaurus specifically lists synonyms of a given word, if you can't figure it out from a definition. A thesaurus is itself a type of dictionary, in that it provides meaning for words. It just doesn't typically include pronunciation info or etymology.

I provided a synonym using my interpretation of a dictionary definition. I used a thesaurus to prove that my synonym was accurate.

Do you know why you are the only one left denying the truth? Even your friend cbayer gave it up. Honestly, all you really proved was how low you would go just to avoid admitting error, and maliciously attacking someone for NO REASON AT ALL.

Congrats. You've really provided a stellar example of the type of person I'm proud to be attacked by.

and I will admit you have a point. When I read about Christ Scientist parents who don't allow their children to receive medication for life threatening illnesses, I really really really want to take that decision away from them.

So, that got me thinking... does that make me believe I'm morally superior? Maybe on one level. But in discourse, I don't know that I would disparage their beliefs to them. I might discuss or even argue, especially if I were in the middle of a life or death situation involving a child. I might even angrily disparage them if they wouldn't listen.

And on a message board, I might say something rude. Sure... I'm human and often a hypocrite.

But does my anger come from a place where I think my Catholic beliefs are superior to them? No... it comes from the fact that we are all human and my belief that we need to protect our children at all costs. (Which is why anti-vax people annoy me, too.)

My post specifically addresses a point cbayer loves to make, though. That by merely telling someone their beliefs are wrong, you are disparaging them. Your example is a fine one as well, and one that has legal precedent. Children have been taken away from faith-healing parents. Parents have been punished when their children die from a lack of medical care. We as a society are asserting the superiority of the evidence-based medical system over their faith.

According to cbayer, that type of behavior is ALWAYS unacceptable. She's set the bar unreasonably high - unless you can conclusively prove someone is wrong, you are being just as bad as a religious fundamentalist if you tell them they are. And in the case of the tornado, or faith healers, we have lots of evidence against the religious beliefs but we can't prove them wrong. As in my example, what if the tornado ends up passing harmlessly by? Or in your example, what if the children make a full recovery? Sometimes people do, without medical intervention. Does that prove faith healing works? Is it evidence that the opposite claim (faith healing is bunk) is false?

The issue, as you clearly realize, is far more complicated than some wish it to be.

Jesus said we do not know when the end cometh.

He is just making this up.

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” - Matthew 24:34

A lot of generations have passed.

He just meant the Cubs winning the World Series and the Lions winning the Super Bowl.

Oh...wait...

Jesus said he did not know when the end is coming but he thought it would be soon.

so how do you trust anything he said.
Not that I believe for one second that any of the so called quotes in the Bible can actually be attributed to whoever Jesus was.

Seems fine to me.

end times prophesy? This is such an affront to a rational world. Don't worry about the shit that is being done to you, just make yourself right with God, in the manner we tell you to so you will be okay when it all ends, which may or may not happen any time now.

I will tell you, the earth will end in five billion years when the sun grows to a red giant.

you have to accept absent any evidence.

But you do accept that this prophesy from 2000 years ago is true and the end times as describes in the NT is true?

What that looks like I do not know.

but will not destroy the solar system.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/31may_andromeda/

"The Milky Way is destined to get a major makeover during the encounter, which is predicted to happen four billion years from now. It is likely the sun will be flung into a new region of our galaxy, but our Earth and solar system are in no danger of being destroyed. "

though this would be more of a discussion on the Science thread.

You sound very certain about your interpretation of the bible. I thought only rigid fundamentalist literalists were absolutely sure.

So for this guy to claim different while using the NT is just bull!

What's the verse (and which version of the bible) you are using?

Because there are multiple verses that tell when the end times will be near, and that (from my experience) is generally all these nuts are going by. They interpret them to suit the events they don't like.

Doesn't contradict the pastor, because of what I pointed out. But at least you're absolutely positive that you and you alone have interpreted the bible correctly. That's a good thing, I guess.

All you have to do is point out how your interpretation is correct, and his is wrong. And since you're *sure* you are correct, it should be easy.

Good luck. Let us know how it goes!

Someone else attributed that statement to Jesus, and that someone was not present when he allegedly said it, so they might have gotten it wrong or just made it up because they thought it sounded good (as many things in the Bible have been made up). And even if Jesus actually said that, it still requires the assumption that he actually was the son of "god" and that he knew what "god" intended.

Yeah, yeah, we know..YOU believe it, so that settles everything.

the pastor referenced in the OP says the same thing. He believes it, that settles it.

is the core of all the problems manifested by religion. Belief and action based on belief justified by the absolute certainty that it comes straight from god.

by one fundie or another, about every Democratic President since Jimmy Carter. Probably it will be said of the next one and the one after that. It's boilerplate by now.

For another example. I will not use this instead of the creationist quotation by you when you talk about atheists mocking those that have firmly held beliefs. Some day you'll understand what you are doing (no, you won't, I know).

Bit of a demotion. He used to be the one. I guess Satan is shaking up the corporate hierarchy...

actual ONE.

So than others, W put this country through hell. Obama doesn't have the newness to be Anit-Christ.

Anyone who takes any of that gospel as literally true and not allegory is delusional.
I don't think we know enough about John to know if he believes any of this or was using these fantasies as parable.
If you thought it was true, he was delusional as well, and i mean that in the mentally ill sense.

It's in 1 John a letter attributed to John the Apostle.

I must have misread my half ass Google research. Still delusional.

Do you know what 1 John is about? Do you know how the word anti-Christ is used in this letter? Are you maybe making the same mistake by combining this term together with what is constantly 'revealed' to these end time 'prophets' in The Revelation.

and their revelations.

I hold what I said about the Gospel of John though.

the Gospel of John. I must say your statement is confusing.

but if you want to believe in Revelations, your choice.

What he meant if allegorical, might be interesting.

If he meant these things to be real and prophecy, delusional gobbedy gook I have no interest in.

The Gospel of John says nothing about either "the Antichrist" or the Beast of Revelation.

The first general letter of John refers to "many Antichrists," whom he identifies as former Christians who have abandoned their faith and deny the Messiahship of Jesus. Their apostasy is a sign that the "end of the age" is near. (2:18-22). That is all the NT has to say about any "Antichrist."

Revelation is an elaborate allegorical anti-Roman tract which fortells the defeat of the Empire and the triumph of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Beast can be read as any of the nastier Emperors from Vespasian onward, or as the Empire itself. The Beast has come and gone. Finis.

What this pastor is doing is conflating the figure of the Beast with the term "antichrist," an unfortunately common misreading of the texts. Tim LaHaye made a boodle off it, and no doubt this pastor hopes to go him and do likewise.

allegory and political commentary.
I have no problem with your reading of this.
And you see that others see it as some kind of prophetic revealed truth.
you seem to think they are delusional as well.
If they were right about what John was writing, wouldn't you call him delusional?

I think they're wrong.

As cbayer has repeatdly pointed out, "delusional" has a specific psychiatric meaning that implies illness and loss of functionality. It is not a synonym for "mistaken."

Now, if John thought he was writing about events in the far future, I think I'd call him a really bad science fiction writer.

...mistaken is NOT a synonym for delusion ...

Related to DELUSION

Synonyms
chimera, conceit, daydream, fantasy, dream, fancy, figment, hallucination, illusion, nonentity, phantasm (also fantasm), pipe dream, unreality, vision

Antonyms
truth, verity

Related Words
ignis fatuus, mirage, will-o'-the-wisp; brainchild, idea; concoction, fable, fabrication, fiction, invention; envisaging, imaging, visualization; cloud-cuckoo-land, cloudland, Shangri-la, utopia; daymare, nightmare

Near Antonyms
actuality, fact, reality

Those kind of cut against the point you are making.

in your world, you are correct even though you are wrong ... I completely understand .. now take this pill and call me tomorrow ...

A good definition is both inclusive and exclusive. Antonyms help you to understand very clearly what a word means by understanding the opposite of it.

How about you actually argue the point rather than smoke and mirrors. Though, one would actually have to have a point to argue it. Admitting you are wrong isn't that hard. But, hey, keep throwing the ad homs and see how that works for you, I guess.

I know the meaning of the word antonym and synonym .... and now you do ....

can we discuss how that impacts the definition or are you going to continue to make this a personal attack on your part?

Those two words listed as antonyms put a lot of tension on your claim of what the word means. How do you reconcile those (from a source you provided) in light of your purported definition of the word?

and you can take the personal attack part of it, out of this discussion ...

I am simply stating facts ... and you want to continue with your opinion ....

"That causes tension with your statement that mistaken does not mean delusion." .... IYOpinion ...

if you have a problem, take it up with Merriam-Webster.

Please refrain from making this so personal and vicious.

and playing defensive does not work with me ...

You are wrong in your saying that mistaken is a synonym of delusion ...

Just admit it and move on ...

You get them to admit their error, and so will I.

Or just get angrier and more vicious with me. Your choice, I guess.

Can you admit you were wrong, and move on? An apology, and removing that image with a personal attack would be the very least you could do.

What the hell do you mean by that? Your personal attacks are really tiresome.

But it's academic since we don't know if these things were visions that John or the present "prophets" saw and thought real, or were simply florid descriptions of what they thought.

Last edited Thu Jan 23, 2014, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

the end of religion, as john Lennon would have it. Good one. Not the end of man, but the end of God.

Reminds me of a Conan story where a God passes because there is no one left to believe in him.

when you attributed the antichrist references and Revelation's end of the world scenario to the Gospel of John? One of your buddies apparently thinks you were delusional. Me, I think you just made a mistake.

Last edited Wed Jan 22, 2014, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

attribution of the anti Christ fits the first definition of delusion?
well then you can think me deluded,but I am no longer once some one gave me the correct info. Of course your definition of deluded seems over reaching but I won't complain. My definition is probably more mainstream, if that helps you understand.