Delusion?

[Violet]

L2 Trundle dog. Reach down, grab your grundle, and faceplant those nubs at mid. GG at 20 baddies.

[fr0d0]

Firstly I'd like to say that I agree with all the presented reasons against being a Christian or follower of any other religion.

I don't believe that I'll see my loved ones at the pearly gates. Death parts us I believe.

Wait. What is your belief in beyond your death [or an afterlife]? I'll spare some of mine- I don't have belief in ghost, soul and an afterlife of any sort. Although that I don't know your beliefs of afterlife.

1. It doesn't concern me much, but I realise it's part of my wider belief. Heaven and Hell are much more relevant to us now in how they affect our lives (if you go with the lingo)

2. The xtian marriage vow explicitly states 'until death do us part'. So your significant other is only so for your physical life. Same with everyone else you know (Is my understanding. I'm happy for someone to correct me on that)

I think atheists delude themselves when they obstinately ignore facts. Same with theists. I think we can all have sympathies with the desire to support your own position, even though it may be intellectually bankrupt.

Fr0d0.
Atheists/Theists obstinately delude themselves of what "facts"? I'd more than happy to learn of this "facts". So I'll research if there is scientifically explainable for phenomenon of souls or ghosts or an afterlife.

That would be a wasted search. No such proof is possible, as it falls outside the remit of science. The scientific endeavour for answers to metaphysical questions moves into philosophy and theology, which science by it's own laws prohibits.

This is an example of a statement that some atheists would deny. The plain logical fact to them is movable, and therefore they would delude themselves.

Thanks Blam.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, by "fact" you mean whatever nonsense can be asserted, such as the supernatural? Rgr that troll. There is no such "fact". Honestly, if you want to erect a wall between reality and whatever you believe, at least maintain the integrity of the wall. Drop any claim to interaction with the material because that would, by definition, fall under the remit of science. Can you do this? Can you maintain the integrity of the wall you've erected to protect your faith from demonstrable evidence, while still maintaining the integrity of the claims made by your faith?

[downbeatplumb]

Fr0d0.
Atheists/Theists obstinately delude themselves of what "facts"? I'd more than happy to learn of this "facts". So I'll research if there is scientifically explainable for phenomenon of souls or ghosts or an afterlife.

That would be a wasted search. No such proof is possible, as it falls outside the remit of science. The scientific endeavour for answers to metaphysical questions moves into philosophy and theology, which science by it's own laws prohibits.

This is an example of a statement that some atheists would deny. The plain logical fact to them is movable, and therefore they would delude themselves.

Thanks Blam.


[/quote]

Anything that exists can be tested for. If not now then we can at lesast work out some way to test for it. It was thought to be impossible to test neutrinos but people worked out how.

By saying it is untestable is an admission of failure.

For many many years people have tried to find traces of god in the physical world and when that didnt happen hey went, 'oh he must be seperate from this reality'

It is a piss poor excuse and I reject it.

[Angrboda]

Your poll includes the assumption that delusion is both a binary property, and a readily cognizable property. This depends critically on what is meant by "true" because without a firm concept here, it is impossible to delineate which "beliefs" are false. To cut to the chase, skipping a lot of intermediary material, I would say, a) theists aren't deluded in the sense that theistic beliefs are pathological -- in the medical sense, being an improper functioning of the relevant organ (we don't normally hold simple falsehood to be delusion; I may believe my car keys are in my coat, but if they aren't, I'm not delusional), and b) the notion that theist's reasonings are defective in a way that non-theist's reasonings aren't -- in my studies of the human animal, its psychology and so on, I have come to the conclusion that both are functioning according to the same set of rules -- or, perhaps it would be better put as "meta-rules"; they both value truth, when choosing pick what they view as "best", live socially, accept and reject beliefs on filters that were constructed the same way, and so on. The biases, capacities and limits of both have, ignoring phylogenetic variation, gotten them to where they are by the same road -- the human mind and its functioning in social and emotional environments.

So no, they aren't deluded -- pathological -- and since their reasoning is not qualitatively different from non-theists, there is no real meaning to calling one delusional and the other not -- except to comfort oneself that one's prejudices are acceptable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps you haven't seen some of our posters wax on about the physical reality of demonic armies Apo..lol.

[Angrboda]

This may end up being an ETA, but whatever.

There is an even more vicious problem with looking upon theism as delusional, and that is best illustrated by example.

The communist regimes of Lenin and Stalin were ruthlessly brutal, and many were killed for religious reasons (and many, for other reasons). The communism of post-revolution Russia was thoroughly atheistic. Generally, atheists like to hurry past this example, and blame the communist purges on politics or personality, but there is instruction to be had here if you linger. (Indeed, former Methodist bishop "Jack" Spong even claims that the authoritarian regimes of Stalin and Lenin served as de facto religions, and that, rather than being a crime of irreligion, was simply one more religious excess!)

For those unfamiliar, communism preached the overthrow of classed society, delivering all capital into the hands of the worker -- or, in its intermediary forms, the state. Thus, anything which impeded or blocked this goal was not simply acting against the interests of the state, they were acting against the interests of the common man, perpetuating their enslavement to capital, and ultimately their suffering. Quite rightly so, religion was seen as a major stumbling block and barrier on the road to a worker's paradise. (And think of Nazi Germany, particularly post-Weimar Republic Germany -- people didn't sign on "just to kill Jews" -- they were bringing about a New Jerusalem in modern Prussia; anything the ideology opposed, opposed goodness and prosperity.) True, it might be better to characterize this attitude as anti-religious, rather than atheistic, but then, where do we draw that line in our own thinking and behavior? I meet few atheists who aren't also anti-religion, or at least, anti this or that specific form or forms of theism.

Then the other shoe drops. If we embrace the idea that theism -- or religion in general -- is delusional, it's hard to avoid sliding headlong into the medical model, where religion is not just error or mistake, but pathological -- a disease, wherein the reasoning organ is not functioning correctly. Do we ask a tumor if it wants to be removed? Do we let the psychopathic killer go free because he doesn't understand right from wrong? Do we ask the schizophrenic who is going around hurting people if they want to be medicated?

No. No, no, and no. Once you embrace the medical model, you come to embrace the idea that the religious have no rights. Their religion is "a danger" to our paradise, well-being, or whatever. And the flip side of that is the arrogant notion that you alone have rights, are healthy, and in the human sense, acceptable.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Some" religious beliefs require delusional thinking. Others fuzzy thinking, others no thinking, and yet others a combination of all of the above or none of the above. The notion that all human beings are equal under the law, aside from requiring that one invoke a mythical law, is a wonderful notion. They arrived at a wonderful conclusion (if you ignore the rest of the dogma attached to it) through fuzzy thinking. Good for them. It's not always negative.

[Violet]

Perhaps you haven't seen some of our posters wax on about the physical reality of demonic armies Apo..lol.

Fucking hell.... how did I miss this?!

[Angrboda]

Perhaps you haven't seen some of our posters wax on about the physical reality of demonic armies Apo..lol.

Perhaps you haven't heard physicists who postulate a multi-verse without evidence, or infinite timelines co-existing simultaneously, or string theories which cannot be empirically tested. More to the point, try to imagine the she-demons postulated by multitudes of ex-husbands actually existing and you will see how far off the map you can get if you start in one direction and just.keep.going.

But all these are well within the sphere of a healthy mind functioning in its appropriate role. No special sauce required.