Since everyone has *some* delusion, how can you justify passing along faith based convictions?

The side that sets the terms of the arguments wins the argument. You don't have a question, per se, but an argument you're looking for someone to dispute.

Having said that, I'll take the challenge.

I had to retype your question/argument adding in grammar and punctuation as necessary to understand and discuss it.

I'll quote from the edited version.

"Everyone in the world, with no exception, has some delusion or misconception of how the world operates."

That's an interesting way of stating: "No one is infallible."

"Some misconceptions are more common than others; a good example of this is the 10% brain usage fallacy. Therefore, how could anyone, under any circumstances justify spreading beliefs that are entirely based upon 'faith'?"

Unfortunately, you have a logical disconnect in your reasoning. Actually, you don't have any reasoning yet. I'll continue with more editing before I respond.

"The belief in incorrect information is the undeniable cause of the World's current chaos. Therefore, each person has a moral responsibility to verify the accuracy of the information he or she spreads as 'The Truth'. "

Didn't you just state that everyone is fallible and no one is infallible? If so, then no one can know with complete certainty the validity of any claims beyond simple observable evidence. This is reminiscent of Existentialism (and more accurately Nietzsche's Perspectivism): the only thing that exists for certain is me and what I can see. And yet, you claim that each person is charged with obtaining omniscient clarity on the matter of Truth before spreading this "truth"? That's a bit unfair to everyone, isn't it?

"A person always believes that he or she is right: even when admitting an error, a person believes that he or she is right about being wrong. This is the essence of delusion: no one is capable of judging for themselves the accuracy of any judgment they make."

That's a cunning little logic trap that you hid in there, my friend. Let's disassemble it to discover the treachery of that sentence:

Part (A): A person always assumes that his or her judgment is accurate in assessing the veracity of a subject.

Part (B): When a person has detected an error or flaw in a previous assessment of the truth, that person assumes that his or her new assessment is more accurate than the prior assessment.

(At this point, I'd like to point out that this is called "learning". When someone discovers a mistake and corrects it, or attempts to correct it and fails, they are going through an adaptive process of discovering the truth of a situation or pattern. Again, this is the most basic form of learning: trial and error.)

Part (C): A person is not capable of knowing for certain that he or she hasn't made another error in knowledge or judgment.

And now the logic trap is sprung. (C) is covered above with the idea of lack of infallibility. However, (A) and (B) do a fine job of not only attacking infallibility but, combined, attack the very notion of "knowledge".

My dear friend, at this point I have to ask you, are you arguing against "Faith"? Or are you arguing against "Reason"? Your argument at this point does little to discredit the notion of faith but does seem to attempt to destroy the notion of "knowledge" as a meaningful idea.

"Therefore, there is a moral imperative against perpetrating uncertainties of Metaphysics and Epistemology (those are the two branches of philosophy that most relate to the notion of "The Great Mystery Of It All) when no one is capable of justifying those uncertainties as certainties through PERSONAL FAITH."

I tried 4 times to make that sentence easier to read. Skip what's in parenthesis if necessary. That seems to help. I also turned the rhetorical question into a declarative statement. It lacks sarcasm that way, but it allows me to address the issues a little more easily. My friend, you started by saying that no one is infallible. You even implied that knowledge is unknowable, because we can never know if our knowledge is accurate. If we don't have knowledge, logic, and reason, then what do we have besides unconscious Archetypal recognition and "faith"?

I'll abstain from addressing the last 2 lines of the question/argument. They are simply the logical consequences of the argument put forth:

1. No one knows what's coming next, or what came before.

2. No one really knows what's even happening now.

3. All this hoopla to figure it all out and believe in something outside ourselves just disguises that we don't know if anything is outside ourselves.

4. Therefore, we have a moral responsibility to shut up and quit talking about things we know nothing about.

That's your argument in a nutshell. I'll add some repercussions that I hinted at above as I dissected your question.

5. Since we know nothing about what's going on right now, and we are not supposed to discuss what we don't know, we all need to be quiet and quit thinking we know what we're thinking.

6. If I don't know, with any certainty, any facts of existence, then ghosts may inhabit the White House, telling President Bush to go to war. Or, if I don't eat, I don't know that I'll starve to death... I just think that I might. Or, the government will take care of us all and nobody but the rich will have to pay the bill.

7. How do I know that pain is caused by injury? Maybe injury is caused by pain...this gun won't necessarily kill me, its just those pesky soldiers who keep telling me it will if I don't do what I'm told. What do they know? No one knows anything. If everyone would quit clamoring about faith in God and get down to the business of shutting up, this world would be a much better place.

I can keep going but I'll stop. You've destroyed the basic tenet of logic: X = X, and this is an identifiable property of X.

With that gone, you've reversed the law of cause and effect.

If you're going to attack faith, you need to use reason.

Reason is the antithesis of "faith".

Absolutely! I agree 100%. Anyone can think they have the truth, and they can believe it, too. But what happens when that belief is false? My favorite example is, what if their belief is that carrying a bowling ball helps you fly? No matter how strong their conviction is, all that faith doesn't make it true.

Thankfully, almost all belief systems out there are almost as easy to prove false, objectively. If people choose to remain in denial, that's their choice. Personally, if my faith doesn't fit the facts, it seems hypocritical and irresponsible not to adjust my faith to fit the facts - those we all agree on!

Saying certain things like religious beliefs are real when if you were honest you would have to say you really didn't know if they were real or not is just plain dishonest really.

By all means say this is what I prefer to believe if you must push it but don't present it as fact...I think that is what causes a lot of non-believers to baulk at religion...that people can claim so arrogantly and insistently that they have some special and "real" knowledge you lack, when it is quite untrue.

You are wrong. Everyone in the world does not have a delusion about how the world operates. I do not any delusions. A delusion is a belief that is fixed or firm and does not allow for change. There are many open minded people out there who can change thier opinions about any subject when presented with correct information.

You said

"Every one in the world, with no exception,has some delusion about how the world operates."

Please supply proof of this observation.

It is a general statment but you do not prove it. You base your argument on it, but you supply no proof.

Since you claim to believe it, but can not prove it, apparently you are just taking this on faith.

Why are you attempting to pass on an assumption that you can not prove, and take on faith?

Aren't you worried about hurting others by passing on bad data just to satisfy your ego?

I find this most troubling in right to die cases. Why should someone have to live out the rest of their terminal condition in agony, for other peoples morals. Who are these people who say a person can't chose the way they want to die.

i like vivid Eyes, i've got been listening to them lots those days. I had "Lifted or the story is interior the Soil, save You Ear to the floor" on repeat this afternoon. i'm no longer likely partial to MGMT, yet I unquestionably have enjoyed the few songs Tilly and the Wall that I unquestionably have heard. i like David Bowie besides, besides the indisputable fact that i do no longer pay attention to him too lots.

I don't "pass on my convictions", by that meaning you are bound by what I say. I will let you know where I stand, but it is up to you to make the decision that you also believe what I am saying, or do not believe what I am saying. God gave us free will to decide for ourselves what we believe.

I don't have any delusions, that 's why I serve God , the All-knowing One. He is the only one that is always right, never us. You, after all is said, definitely need to see a psychiatrist or something.

Please do it quickly before you lose your mind, darling.......

You have a point. I think its better to tell people about what you think rather than trying to get them to think it also.