Questions on Delusional Thinking
If I claim I can shoot fire balls out of my hand, most people would say impossible.
If I claim a person in the past could shoot fire balls out of their hand, most people would say impossible.
If I claim I can walk on water, most people would say impossible.
If I claim a person was able to water on water a long time ago, suddenly I can be taken seriously.
Why do so many people not see the logical inconsistency here? Why do people not see that believing certain religious thoughts are a delusion? We don't want religious flamewar here, so please don't post religious flamebait to HN. It wasn't about religion, it was about delusional thinking. If you keep posting like this, we will have to ban you again. This is not what HN is for. Artificially downvote me all you want. All you are doing is proving how Hacker News is a highly curated and biased website towards a particular viewpoint. You deceive yourself every day. You and your “facts” cannot actually account for that which you lack empirical validation. That you’re certain all circumstance are as you conjecture them to be is an irony of your position. Is that the only part of the story that disturbs you? If this one part was stretched (easiest way to early assimilation is fake news) what of all the rest of human account? Resist your false certainty. Take the account of ledgend, history, third hand account, etc on their own terms. You don’t really solve anything with your nihilistic incredulity. You’re not even on to something as far as ironies are concerned. Have you ever played the game of telephone? Is it not more likely people lied and repeated lies that got so completely changed from reality than to believe some person actually flew to space on a winged donkey? Well, the Hindu speak of things similar to winged donkeys, and of Hanuman’s army building the adam bridge. And there is an Adam bridge. If a hundred thousand talking monkeys and a ragtag band of humans didn’t build that land bridge between India and Sri Lanka 10,000 years ago, then who did smart guy? I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not lol. So many cultures speak of ghosts as well. Doesn't mean they existed. I mean, if they did, I'll be sure to bring that up in court next time I need to blame something breaking on them. As for the Adam Bridge, geological processes are amazing, are they not? Faith is belief in the absence of fact. Religion requires faith. That's all there is to it. Isn't it delusional thinking if you ignore facts about reality? If you want. It's up to you. You could also think that by definition, some parts of religion are impossible to prove / disprove, and different strokes for different folks, and then go have some tea. :) What's your sample size for believing that people can't shoot fireballs out of their hands or walk on water? (Where I’m going with that question is: “Well your sample size isn’t large enough.” See? There’s no way to argue against faith.) I can't believe in 2022, on a website dedicated to tech and other interesting things, I'm having a conversation with some one ardently defending whether humans can shoot fireballs out of their hands and walk on water or not. > I'm having a conversation with some one ardently defending whether humans can shoot fireballs out of their hands and walk on water or not. You aren't. You're having a conversation with someone trying to describe how other people look at the topic. (That's why, for example, I put quotes around “Well your sample size isn’t large enough.”) But since you're not interested in that, I'll stop. I understand very well how other people look at it. They ignore logic when it is convenient. They say, "Yeah, look at those flat earthers, bunch of silly idiots", then turn around and swear they hear god speak to them at the same time. It's delusional. Arguing by the year is a fallacy. It's a logic smell. ("I can't believe that in 2022, people still argue that way." See how that doesn't actually say anything that anyone ought to take seriously? It just uses the assumption of rightness to pressure anyone who disagrees.)