Add new comment

if a person said unequivocally, "jeff francoeur is better than nick swisher" and you showed him evidence that suggests otherwise, strong compelling evidence, and he still maintained that jeff is better, would you not consider that to be a delusional stance? im not trying to dance around the word. he would be in error, and his belief would be delusional. right?? if not, then what does it take for something to be delusional?
to give the obvious and overused example, in 1200 AD, 99.99% of the people on this planet believed that the earth was flat and that one would simply fall off the edge if he or she went far enough. we now know that to be incorrect. overwhelming mainstream belief doesnt automatically grant that belief validity.
when copernicus tried to explain that the sun was the center of the cosmos, 99.99% of people thought that was absurd, and he even had to hide his identity when proposing such a heretical claim. now these people didnt have scientific evidence to tell them that they were wrong, so they were not delusional. they werent ignoring obvious facts. they just didnt have them yet. im just trying to set a precedent for the 90% arguement.
im not saying that the evidence of some kind of creator is completely meritless, and that people are delusional for believing some of it. there are some good points to be made on both sides of the aisle. but people often go to delusional lengths to ignore or deface those counter arguements that have merit. that sir, is where the delusion comes in.
if you dont believe me, read the figures. 40% of americans reject evolution. and that is almost solely because of religios belief. a new poll just came out, stating something like 73% of us pastors reject evolution, and they are roughly split on the age of the earth, either being 6000 years old, or 4.6 billion years old. not too trivial a gap. if that is not the exact definition of delusion, then what is? we can debate what we consider to be compelling pieces of evidence, and we should do so respectfully. but when nearly half of my country figuratively and sometimes literally plugs its ears to scientific facts, what other conclusion am i to draw?
where does this come from that i am trying to position myself to laugh at others? or trying to talk down to people? im certainly not doing it to you, and i didnt do it to mojician. i enjoy a healthy debate, not trashing people or laughing at them. that serves no purpose. im sorry if trying to be literal about the definition of delusion has offended you in any way, im just trying to speak directly.
and yes, i do think that people who, for motives of fear and rejection and just sometimes flatout stupidity, reject undisputable scientific claims are in some ways inferior, but not because i think im the greatest thing since sliced bread. should we as a nation, and to a larger extent planet, tolerate those that want to think and believe things that we KNOW to be false. sure, tolerance of people that are different than yourself is necessary. but education and discussion are far more important and worthwhile endeavors than just simple tolerance. but tolerating a belief only because we dont want to be disrespectful isnt serving the greater good of our civilization. thats why these atheist types come off as inferior know it alls.
bottom line is this: if someone holds a belief, and does so because of evidence, not in spite of it, then they should have respect for such belief from everyone, including me, whether we agree with that belief or not. but when people hold beliefs in spite of evidence, they are opening themselves and their ideology up to scrutiny, as well should be the case.