Add new comment

ok, theres a lot to digest, so bear with me
first of all, your definition of delusion is untrue. you stated that "It carries the idea that a person will not give up an idea that 99.99% of people can see is incorrect." again, the % of people that agree with a conclusion has no effect whatsoever on delusional status. ive tried to give examples of this, and you have ignored them. i can go find 100 people that think im an alien, leaving you to be the 1 guy left in the room that thinks im a human. does that make you delusional? let me give you the dictionary definition of delusion again. this isnt mine, im copy/pasting it. "a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence." now using the definition of the word, lets try to figure this swisher/francouer example out.
 
if i asked you the question, "who throughout their career has been a better baseball player, (which is what im assuming you meant when you first used this example) nick swisher or jeff francouer" and you answered jeff francouer, i would say, "i respectfully disagree, i think you have come to a false conclusion."
i would ask you why you believed that to be true, and you rattled off a list of some observations you made from watching the two players play throughout their careers. you thought jeff had a better throwing arm, maybe was a better defender, just as much power, etc. then i would say, thats all very nice, but let me show you why i think swisher is better. i could show the gaps between the twos isop, their career walk rate, obp, slg, woba, uzr, you could throw in other fielding metrics, things of that nature. things that we can define. and i said, look here, per these calculations, which everyone in the world of baseball uses and trusts for the most part, swisher has about double the career WAR of jeff over almost the same amount of plate appearances. i would tell you, i can surely tell you who billy beane would rather have payed 400k or 3 million or 6 million per year for. i can tell you who jack z, or any competent gm or internet gm or anybody who knows how to analyze baseball players would rather have had for those 4k plate appearances.
now if you listened to all of that, and still came away thinking, i dont know, i still like jeff better, WOULD THAT NOT MAKE YOU DELUSIONAL? by the exact definition of the word? if not, what exactly is the definition of delusional? does one have to be delusional about everything to be delusional about one thing? if not, then why are we so careful with what kinds of thinking we call delusional?
 
and i never once used the word insanity. i said delusional, or superstitious. not the same thing. thats what i mean about the strawman. "you work diligently to classify 80-90% of the world as insane." i never once said that, if you would refer to my arguement and then argue against it, we can get this discussion back on track.
i referred to evolution as an example of delusion. thats it. and the figures i gave were 40% of americans, 75% or pastors. you either dont agree with those numbers, or you happen to be one of the 40% (which i highly doubt), or you simply ignored that section of my arguement.
i mean, if the byproduct of believing in scientific evidence and arguing on its side comes off as arrogance, i cant help that. im not coming in here to walk on egg shells, im giving my opinion. thats what discussion is about. i havent called you or any of your readers names, ive tried to be polite and state my case. and in return, you have mischaracterized my comments and railed against me and classified my stance as one of hatred. its ridiculous, really.
unless you can try to argue against or agree with the points as i have made them, i feel like this discussion is over. i understand you are a christian, which is fine. i know there are some very intelligent people that are theists, and many who are deists, and many who are atheists. if there were an obvious slam dunk answer, we wouldnt have such a divide. but you are confusing my arguements with hate speech apparently, and with ridicule. you completely skipped over the parts where i said things like...
"there are some good points to be made on both sides of the aisle", or
"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"
does that sound hateful? or like im characterizing 90% of people as insane?