Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Whether or not that exact scenario would happen is irrelevant to the fact that we're having a very similar conversation right now.

I was explaining why the question is so bizarre to most people. Context man.

You and I both recognize that it is bizarre. The question is that why is it bizarre? The reason why it is bizarre is analogous to what I’m saying about the position you are defending.

Neither you, Stat, nor I are concerned about whether or not we're actually having a conversation, otherwise, why have we been responding?

Because 1) I make the assumption that reality is probably like what I perceive and 2) Even if it isn't, I find doing something better than doing nothing at all.

I agree. We share the mutual assumption that drives our passion for understanding things that we pile on top of that. Our assumption gives us a bubble. Within that bubble exists reality as we experience it. The experience of this shared reality rests within the bubble.

Within this mutually shared assumption of the bubble that we call “our experience of reality “ exists beliefs. The beliefs exist within the bubble, and they either accurately represent our assumption, or they do not.
I am on board with changing the assumption should we find reason to do so. But that’s not what we’re talking about. What it seems like you’re saying is that while the bubble certainly seems to be the best explanation we have, we should not try to understand things within it, since we cannot be sure that the bubble is accurate. Then why discuss anything?
Gravity is an assumption that drives our science. If a claim is made that defies gravity that cannot be tested, do we entertain it as an equal representation of reality since the assumption of gravity cannot be proven to be absolute?
If not, why?

We've all conceded that our experience of reality exists.

Well, at least mine does, because it's an incorrigible proposition. I only assume everyone else does too.

And I agree. This mutual assumption is what gives way to our discussion. Within this assumption, there are things that either represent our understanding that drives our assumption, or they do not.
Like gravity, do we abandon the assumption in the face of a contradicting claim, or do we evaluate the conflicting claim on the merit of its worth? We have good reasons to assume that gravity is reliable, if a claim that is made that does not fit in the reality built upon our assumption, by what standard do we determine whether or not it is a delusion, or otherwise?
Gravity is an assumption. What standard of claims warrants credence with regards to gravity? All are equally plausible, or are some more so than others? Why?

We conceded that this experience is governed upon a set of principles.

Where did we agree to that?

My mistake, I apologize. I don’t know why I thought that we’d discussed that. At any rate, would you agree that if I extracted a few crucial parts of your brain, your experience of reality would become skewed? One principle that your experience of reality is contingent upon is that you have a functional brain, no?
Principle-an important underlying law or assumption required in a system of thought.

We've conceded that these principles are nothing without our faculties for perception that make us aware of them.

And where did we agree to that?

Keeping in line with the same definition of principle above:

Because 1) I make the assumption that reality is probably like what I perceive and 2) Even if it isn't, I find doing something better than doing nothing at all.

Since I didn’t present the previous contention for your approval, I will wait. It seems that the latter would be of very little value without a functional brain, but none the less, I want to hear your opinion.

No, we assume that. The reason no one would bring that up in the football game scenario is because everyone tacitly assumes all sorts of things about reality, even if we can't actually prove it (uniformity of nature, realism, etc.)

BINGO! That is my point. Now shift things to our present conversation. We are mutually assuming the same things. We are assuming that our experience of reality is congruent with one another. That being established, just like in the football game, we can discuss things that either accurately represent our mutual assumption and things that do not. In football, there are governing principles that define the events.
I’ll await your response, but in my opinion, our experience of reality is governed by different principles (functioning brain, the assumption that we would not deceive ourselves, that we trust our senses..etc.)
Things either fall in line with this, or they do not. By what standard are things determined as rational or otherwise with regards to things we believe, but cannot prove?

Well, you're right that they're assumptions. If we could prove them, we wouldn't need the assumptions.

We can’t prove gravity in the sense you are describing either, but nonetheless, someone attempting to defy it at the expense of their life carries with it the recognition that their assumption is not an accurate representation of reality, and is something else. Why do we mutually recognize this to be true?

But if I were to be convinced that I could fly, would I be delusional? If so, by measure of what other standard than the mutual assumption that is shared by all of us within the paradigm of human experience?

Nothing. It's just the *necessary* assumption that you aren't delusional.

My assuming that I’m not delusional, necessary or not, does not make it accurate.
What makes some assumptions delusional, while others are not?
Can someone assume that are not delusional, and in fact be delusional? Did you see the video? Mothers poisoning their babies and watching foam come from their mouths as they die? You and I both recognize that there is something inherently wrong about the state in which one does something like that, and yet, they assume they are not delusional.

I’ll ask again. What standard do we determine that they are not delusional, and if there is none, how do we justify our reaction to it?

If you are delusional, do you have to know it in order for it to be true? If yes, then how can you trust the reasoning that led you to conclude you're delusional? If no, then you cannot rule it out other than by assumption.

No. That’s my point. People that we deem as delusional do not know they are. Nonetheless, a third party such as ourselves are able to recognize that there is something inherently wrong with their assumption. Why is this? What standard gives rise to our ability to recognize the accuracy of some assumptions and the blatant lack of correlation to reality that is inherent to others?
Either all assumptions are equally valid, or they are not.
If they are not, by what means do we determine their accuracy?

---

All I am saying is that delusions are a sign of series mental illness. The symptoms of insanity are not limited to only one narrow set of beliefs.

That seems too broad of a statement, and changes the word "delusional" for "insanity".

What line distinguishes the insane from the sane?

By what standard do we determine the acts of a man that are considered to be sane?

What makes something a serious mental illness from a minor mental illness?

Can a physically healthy brain be influenced by ideas alone that are not accurate representations of reality?

If so, by what standard do we determine that they have misconstrued reality?

If there is no standard then how do you reconcile your position against poisoning babies as seen in the video?

If there is no distinguishable standard, then all must be allowed.

You are wandering into Euthyphro's dilemma if you say God is the standard, and are walking into a world of more questions you don't have answers to.