Should we ever foster delusion?

[Catholic_Lady]

Sufficient evidence can be subjective depending on the person though. Personally I feel like I have sufficient evidence for my faith, but that doesn't mean I believe in everything I hear. So I don't see how an outsider could conclude that I'm delusional.

The same way that a psychologist deems someone, who has subjective evidence for his faith in killing other people, as delusional.

Subjective, personal faith is not a safeguard against delusion.

I didn't say it was a safeguard against delusion. I said i cant see how you can consider it an automatic indicator of a delusional person, when most of you admit that it is *possible* that there may be a god(s), there just hasn't been sufficient evidence to convince you. Obviously someone who kills people is not right in the head to begin with. But i dont see how it makes sense for you to say that being a theist, in and of itself, is an indicator of a delusional person when you admit there is possibility they could be right.

[Brian37]

The same way that a psychologist deems someone, who has subjective evidence for his faith in killing other people, as delusional.

Subjective, personal faith is not a safeguard against delusion.

I didn't say it was a safeguard against delusion. I said i cant see how you can consider it an automatic indicator of a delusional person, when most of you admit that it is *possible* that there may be a god(s), there just hasn't been sufficient evidence to convince you. Obviously someone who kills people is not right in the head to begin with. But i dont see how it makes sense for you to say that being a theist, in and of itself, is an indicator of a delusional person when you admit there is possibility they could be right.

I really do wish my fellow atheists would make the distinction of past present and future when talking about possibilities. 

It is most certainly true that nobody in the world has lived the entire future currently. In that context regarding the future sure, "nobody knows".

But there are tons we do know, and there are most certainly things humans can scrap as far as claims without sacrificing any possible future discoveries. 

I am only "agnostic" about the future, but even then that really is just semantics on many claims.

I currently reject all past and present claims of unicorns, so I am an atheist on unicorns. But "technically" sure, I don't know the future, so I am agnostic on unicorns. But even then, the possibility of unicorns being real is so fleetingly remote it isn't worthy of consideration.

We do have evolutionary and even neurological explanations as to why humans have false perceptions. God claims are mere reflections of humans qualities in concepts of aspirations, desires, fear and narcissism. We are not a reflection of a real God, or any god or any deity. Those things are a human projection of us.

A super natural cognition is not required to explain how life formed or how the universe happened. For the same reason one does not need Poseidon to explain how hurricanes form, nor do we need the gap answer of Thor to explain why thunder and lightening happen.

We don't know what the future holds and "I don't know" is fine to say in that context. But it also does not require clinging to the past, in fact, it requires letting go of the past when better data comes in.

[Seraphina]

OP: you can acknowledge the delusion but never foster or indulge it. 

You might need to fake it if your well being is being threatened.

A subway platform surrounded by hostile people is probably not the best place to be. That guy  meant for those people to turn on you. Read my signature.

In the op story, I think you might have come across as less of a bad guy if you had been kinder. Remember, retarded people are like children. You might have distracted him. "Prayer, oh yes, I saw a man at the employment agency the other day. He looked just like you. A fine looking chap. He got the job and I bet you could to..."

Unless you're an evangelist for atheism, you don't have to get in trouble telling people what they don't want to hear. Descrettion is the greater par of valor.

+1
When approached by a stranger saying odd things I normally ignore while keeping an eye on them to make sure they don't get too close to me. I've learned that after being approached many times by incoherent people or guys making sexually explicit remarks.
In the OP's situation, the guy could have been mentally ill; religious delusions are a symptom of some mental illnesses.
I probably would have mumbled something then pretended to be busy with my phone while walking a safe distance away.
Or maybe said something equally insane back to him.

-Teresa

[brewer]

There is value in thinking someone is praying for you.  There is value in praying for yourself.  As a coping mechanism.  As a social interaction.  

[edit]

Not always, you're only looking at the potential positive implications.

I'm praying for you to die and you know it. Is that helping you? 

I'm praying for my cancer to be magically healed. Is that helping me?

There is a white guy praying for all people of color to contract HIV. Is that helping any of them?

Prayer needs to be considered in context, set and setting.

[henryp]

There is value in thinking someone is praying for you.  There is value in praying for yourself.  As a coping mechanism.  As a social interaction.  

[edit]

Not always, you're only looking at the potential positive implications.

I'm praying for you to die and you know it. Is that helping you? 

I'm praying for my cancer to be magically healed. Is that helping me?

There is a white guy praying for all people of color to contract HIV. Is that helping any of them?

Prayer needs to be considered in context, set and setting.

I think the context of the conversation I was a part of already narrowed it down to not include 'praying for people to get aids' or 'praying cancer is healed as a substitute for getting treatment."

[Rhondazvous]

+1
When approached by a stranger saying odd things I normally ignore while keeping an eye on them to make sure they don't get too close to me. I've learned that after being approached many times by incoherent people or guys making sexually explicit remarks.
In the OP's situation, the guy could have been mentally ill; religious delusions are a symptom of some mental illnesses.
I probably would have mumbled something then pretended to be busy with my phone while walking a safe distance away.
Or maybe said something equally insane back to him.

-Teresa

Yes, he may very well have been mentally ill. There's a trend in Chicago, and perhaps in other big cities, to close mental hospitals and put the patients out on the streets.

I'm lucky. I can just say "I can't hear you," and not be pretending. Hopefully, the guy wouldn't decide to pray for me. Excuse me, but can you direct your prayers to the Flying spaghetti Monster? I have a coupon I can use.

[bennyboy]

The same way that a psychologist deems someone, who has subjective evidence for his faith in killing other people, as delusional.

Subjective, personal faith is not a safeguard against delusion.

I didn't say it was a safeguard against delusion. I said i cant see how you can consider it an automatic indicator of a delusional person, when most of you admit that it is *possible* that there may be a god(s), there just hasn't been sufficient evidence to convince you. Obviously someone who kills people is not right in the head to begin with. But i dont see how it makes sense for you to say that being a theist, in and of itself, is an indicator of a delusional person when you admit there is possibility they could be right.

There could be a swarm of magic monkeys living in the dark side of the moon.  It's possible in the sense that nobody can really discount it.

However, people who believe in the swarm of magic monkeys are delusional-- not because it's 100% impossible, but because I know they do not have access to any information that would lead them to that conclusion.

Delusion isn't about truth-- it's about how you arrive at a position that you think represents truth.  It's about a dysfunction in one's ability to rationalize.  And I'd argue that anyone with access to the internet and to modern science who still believes in a Biblical God definitely is not doing so on a rational basis.