Jesus Lied . For The Bible Tells Me So .

@divegeester said
So when Suzianne claims to have been visited by angels who spoke to her words which profoundly impacted her life, you must concur that this possibly actually happened and with real angels, as you have no “concrete evidence” to the contrary.

Correct?

No. As previously stated, being an atheist (based on a concrete disbelief in God) I obviously think there was another explanation for what she experienced. I don't however think she was lying or delusional.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
No. As previously stated, being an atheist (based on a concrete disbelief in God) I obviously think there was another explanation for what she experienced. I don't however think she was lying or delusional.

“Other explanation” Such as?

She’s not lying, she’s not delusional and you’re a “concrete” atheist (whatever that is).

Gosh whatever could this “other explanation” be…

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I don't however think she was lying or delusional.

If she honestly believes that she saw something that does not exist ~ i.e. she's not lying about what she believes she saw ~ then doesn't that mean she was delusional in the everyday sense of the word?

@moonbus said
I take Jesus's statement to be prophecy, not prediction. That is a crucial difference.

"Prediction" is an empirical assertion about some fact in the future, which can be objectively verified by the occurrence or failure of said occurrence of the fact so asserted. For example, a comet will pass by Earth on such and such a date. This is an objective fact, come what ma ...[text shortened]... example before their eyes, it would be more difficult for succeeding generations to follow his path.

I just see the tactic often deployed by religious folk to say something cataclysmic is going to happen in the lifetime of the listener. We've seen it more recently with JWs and other cults/sects who give hard dates for the end of the world (which obviously come and go). This tactic is more effective at attracting followers than vague premonitions with no time stamp.

@divegeester said
“Other explanation” Such as?

She’s not lying, she’s not delusional and you’re a “concrete” atheist (whatever that is).

Gosh whatever could this “other explanation” be…

I've already said, at least twice. She probably misconstrued the situation. (Mistaking the actions of kind people). - It would be a different matter entirely if she had spoken of flying angels with wings etc.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
She probably misconstrued the situation. (Mistaking the actions of kind people).

If you think the explanation might have been X or Y but it can't possibly have been Z - but she truly believes it was Z - surely that was a delusion according to the very definition of the word in its everyday sense?

@fmf said
If she honestly believes that she saw something that does not exist ~ i.e. she's not lying about what she believes she saw ~ then doesn't that mean she was delusional in the everyday sense of the word?

Not if she simply misconstrued the actions of kind people who were in the right place at the right time. - I could see how that could happen for a theist who already believed in the existence of angels.

@fmf said
If you think the explanation might have been X or Y but it can't possibly have been Z - but she truly believes it was Z - surely that was a delusion according to the very definition of the word in its everyday sense?

Are you calling all theists who believe in angels delusional, in the everyday sense? (Bearing in mind Dive also believes in angels).

Edit: And I have clearly said that terms like 'delusion' have seeped into everyday use, and this is 'not' something I think is a good thing. Words like 'delusion' or 'schizophrenic' shouldn't have an every day use.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Not if she simply misconstrued the actions of kind people who were in the right place at the right time. - I could see how that could happen for a theist who already believed in the existence of angels.

The word "misconstrue" is not achieving what you think it is here, although you keep using it. If someone believes something is true when it isn't true, then that is what a delusion is.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Are you calling all theists who believe in angels delusional, in the everyday sense?

If they claim to have met them and spoken to them, yes.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Bearing in mind Dive also believes in angels.

If he one day tells me he has met one or more and spoken to them then I will perceive that as a delusion, yes.

@fmf said
The word "misconstrue" is not achieving what you think it is here, although you keep using it. If someone believes something is true when it isn't true, then that is what a delusion is.

So all people who believe in angels are delusional in your book?

And who gets to say, definitively, what is true and untrue?


Edit: I don't think you have thought this through.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
And I have clearly said that terms like 'delusion' have seeped into everyday use, and this is 'not' something I think is a good thing. Words like 'delusion' or 'schizophrenic' shouldn't have an every day use.

Your approval or disapproval does not have any bearing on the reality of what the definitions of everyday English words are.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
So all people who believe in angels are delusional in your book?

I suppose so. I don't see how it matters until they start claiming they have interacted and communicated with them.

@fmf said
If he one day tells me he has met one or more and spoken to them then I will perceive that as a delusion, yes.

So, he is not delusional to believe in angels but only becomes delusional if he says he has encountered one? Is that really your position?