Wow.....just wow. I mean this is really high-quality stupid that you've produced. I think what amazes me most is that for as much as you have accused me of being a broken record, after all of this repetition you still can't respond to a simple question properly. It has to be intentional, even I don't think that you can be this intensely moronic by accident.
I think the best way that I can describe your posting style is "anti-thought". You seem to respond badly to actual sentience. But nevermind that, let's get to work on this latest batch of absolute fail.
1. an insane person.
- I'm in no way insane. I'm very normal
You saying that you are normal does not mean that you are. Furthermore it's not really relevant as it does not answer the question. The question being how does one tell your beliefs apart from the beliefs of someone who is insane.
I did not at any point say that you yourself were insane (no matter how many times you try to make it look otherwise). I merely pointed out that since you have put your beliefs outside of any ability to be proven or supported by evidence, and that you have formed your beliefs without said evidence, your beliefs are indistinguishable from those of someone who is
I have very appropriate values. I've never been arrested. I have normal beliefs. My beliefs are with the majority in terms of being a theist. My attitudes and behaviors are fine. I am well liked. I have almost 1000 friends on facebook
Still does not actually respond to the question. Also is still entirely irrelevant and another baseless assertion on top of that. So you've hit a veritable Tri-Fecta with this one. Congratulations.
Saying that you have "very appropriate values" is entirely subjective. As for having normal beliefs how do you justify that you actually have these? Again, your defense is just because you "say so". You have already admitted that you hold beliefs for which you have absolutely no evidence for, nor any ability to acquire evidence for. How is this an example of "normal" beliefs? While there is no evidence for a god, most theists at least try to pretend that they have it, because they know that they look nuts if they don't have evidence. Your admittance to an inability to provide evidence is actually rather unusual for a theist.
Furthermore, as we've already established, you have changed the use of words in order to support your beliefs. If you have to redefine the english language to make your beliefs palatable to even yourself, then you can't really call your beliefs "normal", can you?
Also, being "normal" really has nothing to do with anything, as conforming to societal norms (which is completely subjective at the best of times) does not reflect how one forms their beliefs. It merely reflects the type of beliefs that they are likely to have. Your definition of normal simply means that a person is normal if they follow the rules of their society. It has nothing to do with what they actually believe, or how they reach their beliefs.
As for conforming to norms and standards, as a theist are your beliefs really in line with the majority of them? What exactly is
the majority of theistic beliefs? As we've gone over before, almost every theist interprets their beliefs entirely different. Jamiehliers identifies himself as a theist, but I seriously doubt he would agree with just about anything you have to say on the subject. The same likely holds for Truth OT, I doubt your beliefs match up very well with his either (probably because he and Jamie can actually form a rational thought, but I digress). We've had mountains of theists come through here that would disagree with you on your beliefs. We're they all "abnormal" theists? What makes you the "normal" one then? What about the billions of theists who all share different religious faiths, which emphasize different values and hold entirely different ideas. What is the "normal" beliefs that you all share? And what of the beliefs that you don't have in common with them? How many beliefs that are not in line with this mysterious "majority" must one have to be considered "normal"?
Again, it's a base assertion. My beliefs are normal because...........ummm.........uhhhh....... because I said so. It's everyone who doesn't conform to my beliefs that is wrong. Not uncoincidentally, this is a similiar manner in which a delusional person defends their beliefs when called on them.
However, this really does not matter because this response has nothing to do with the point you should be responding to. There is no reason that a person who is mentally ill cannot still have good values, or share much of the same beliefs as the majority of humanity. Insanity is more a matter of how
one comes to their conclusions, rather than the conclusions themselves.
My older cousin is schizophrenic, but he still is one of the nicest and most moral people I have ever met. However much of his preceptions of reality come about because of the voices that he hears in his head.
You've still failed to differentiate your beliefs from his. You've simply assserted that you're a nice guy (without any evidence to support such a thing, might I add). And somehow, in some manner that you have not seen fit to describe, this separates your beliefs from being comparable to a mental illness.
2. a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness.
- I am not reckless. I drive safely, getting a moving violation maybe once every 5 years. I don't hold my son over the edges of balconies. I've broken one bone in my body about 20 years ago. I don't injure others. Pretty standard stuff.
Again, redefining the english language to suit your needs is something I would rank as being pretty eccentric. Which I notice that you didn't bother to try and pretend that you weren't. I could go on to tear this apart, but since it's so completely irrelevant and stupid why bother.
I will simply point out, yet again, that none of this relates to your beliefs in anyway. Nor does it do anything to separate them the beliefs of a person who is mentally ill.
3. Law . a person legally declared to be of unsound mind and who therefore is not held capable or responsible before the law.
- Again, never been arrested. Noone in my family has been in jail. I'm pretty sure none of them have been arrested either, but you never know.
Again, pointless and actually has nothing to do with the topic.
1. not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.
- My beliefs are quite sane. I have a full time job with a large corporation and have been employed since I graduated from college. I have no signs of mental derangement. I don't get depressed. I don't hear voices in my head. I know right from wrong.
Again, base assertion.How are your beliefs sane?
You admit to having no evidence to support them, you have altered the english language so that you can justify them even to yourself. You have no means of determining whether they are correct or not. Again, the question is not what makes you not a lunatic. The question is what separates your beliefs
from those that could be held by a lunatic.
You have to justify why
your beliefs are sane, when you have specifically tailored them to not be subject to any sort of reality check.
As for having no signs of mental derangement, you actually have several that you've demonstrated so far. The most obvious one being a belief in that which has no evidence (ie. a delusion).
As for knowing right from wrong, of course you do. Everyone knows right from wrong, that's because right and wrong are completely subjective. Even if you were a serial killer you would know right from wrong. But do you know reality from fantasy? That's the question. More importantly, how do you know?
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.
- I've never been in an insane asylum. I've never been accused of making insane actions.
Again, has no point.
3. utterly senseless: an insane plan.
- I have my senses about me. I don't have insane plans. My beliefs are doing just fine.
Again, base......oh forget it, we all know the tune by now. It's not like you have any other notes to play.
I'll simply point out again that this is no different that what any insane person would say if asked. Many people who are insane don't actually think of themselves as such.
So again it's "because I say so".
So, to sum it up I'm not a lunatic and my actions indicate that my beliefs are not those of a lunatic. [/color]
Actually to sum it up, you claim
to not be a lunatic, but all you can offer is multiple instances of "because I say so" as evidence. I'll also point out once more that whether you are a lunatic or not was not the issue.
Allow me to borrow a page from Sam Harris.
If I were to sit here eating pancakes, and I told you that saying a few words of latin over my pancakes would turn it into the body of Elvis. You would think that I was insane.
However if I were to say the same about a cracker, and the body of Christ, I would simply be a Catholic.
You have claimed that god is everything.
I can claim that Michael J. Fox is everything.
If I claim that I have a relationship with Jimmi Hendrix, wherein he talks to me in my thoughts, gives me advice and support in my times of troubles, I'm a nutcase.
If I claim that I have a relationship with Jesus, wherein he talks to me in my thoughts, gives me advice and support in my times of troubles, I'm a Christian.
What makes one idea stupid/crazy and the other not? They all have the same evidence (or rather lack thereof) behind them. They are all equally proveable and are equally based on ignoring observable reality.
So what makes your claims any different from the claims that an insane person would make? You can't point to evidence to separate the two (without redefining the word of course), and you can't point to observable reality, you certainly can't use intelligent/rational thought. So what does
make the two different?
Besides, you know, "because I say so".
Perhaps you should actually stop and think about why you have to redefine words just to make your beliefs work. Maybe you should consider why you can not only not provide evidence that your beliefs are true, you consistently fail to even provide an argument for why they aren't some made up fantasy that exists only in your head.
Just once, YY, perhaps you should try to actually respond to what is being said. Instead of making up Strawmen and arguing against those. Not that I'm not receiving a rather perverse amusement from reading your inane responses while picturing you with a finger stuck up your nose and drooling onto the keyboard as you type out your responses while staring vacantly at a fly buzzing about your room in the midst of your latest drug-induced trance (ok, that's probably not what's really going on, but it's the most likely scenario I could think of that would produce posts like yours). However since I'm putting in the effort of actually thinking about your responses (and then spending the next half hour with a pencil lodged up my nose as I desperately try to fish out the piece of my brain that died the instant I tried to have it think about this nonsense) you could at least make the same effort.
After all of this time you still have not actually responded to one question asked without a Strawman or some other form of logical fallacy. Is it actually that hard for you to have an honest conversation?