(November 10, 2017 at 3:02 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(November 10, 2017 at 2:40 pm)emjay Wrote: As I just said, some people display delusional traits regarding their beliefs. Belief in god itself cannot be said to be delusional because it's not proven that god doesn't exist. The only people that might say that are gnostic atheists but even then it's still subjective opinion. So as I said, no conclusions can be drawn from it, but nonetheless it's hard to ignore.

-that's not at all why it isn't delusional.  Supposing god did exist and did talk to people, that doesn't mean that's he's talking to Joe T Crackpot, specifically.

If an entire community believed in a literal santa clause but not jesus, and a person in that community believed that santa clause was watching him...and knew when he was sleeping, and knew when he was awake......and knew if he'd been bad or good, r was somehow speaking to him.....

...that wouldn't be delusional either.  However, believing that jesus was or knew any of the above, would be.

It's just an issue of deference to what otherwise delusional beliefs can be expected.  The people who classify these things weren;t looking to write a treatise on the nature of the beliefs themselves, or whether or not there was a god or a santa clause, they were looking for a way to spot patterns of behavior or thought that might cause dysfunction, disorder.  In a santa clause or god believing community, god and santa delusions are neither.

So, consider what a believer is retreating into...when they retreat into the classification of a delusion.  They can only be saying that their delusions are common and expected.  Yeah....no shit.

On further reflection on this... if the technical definition of a delusion is relative to cultural/group norms, what would you call, if not a delusion, a belief system that displays, when viewed independently of any of that relativity, all the hallmarks (ie 'symptoms' as it were) of a belief system that is irrationally protected, maintained, and argued? Ie when regardless of how normal that belief is relative to whatever culture/group they come from, their individual behaviour nonetheless indicates that it is emotional need rather than logic that is driving their individual belief in whatever it is, regardless of whether others may hold the same belief but for different reasons... when for instance, at the extreme, the confirmation bias is so strong that people cannot literally get a word in edgeways without it being ignored or misrepresented. What would you call that, if not a delusion?

I smoke and I'm aware that it's what I call a delusion that 'protects, maintains, and argues' me continuing to smoke despite the overwhelming evidence that it's incredibly bad for me, and will most likely kill me in one way or another. But being aware it's a delusion is only the first step towards being free of it, and ultimately it requires the will to examine it, which I have to greater or lesser degrees at different times, and going against strong emotional bias to overcome it, as with any addiction. As far as I see it, the only difference with theists that display these 'desperate' behaviours (ie confirmation bias, brick walling, and special pleading) to a greater or lesser extent, is that the emotional need is for something else; 'meaning', 'purpose', or most obviously, eternal life, but the sort of behaviour surrounding those beliefs... at least on certain issues... is still the same, and therefore indicates emotionally driven delusion to me.

I do think though that Christian indoctrination is specifically infantilising. God is almost always portrayed as a father figure. Sometimes as a shepherd of a flock but that's hardly any better. The Lord's prayer is not 'Our God/Creator/Supreme Being/Ultimate Power who art in Heaven ...'

Christian indoctrination pushes its god character as an ersatz father, with Jesus being the older brother that leads by example. Fellowship then becomes an extended family, or in severe cases of cult conditioning, the new family. I'm seeing questions from  my brother on his facebook feed for example to his cult leader about how to push the idea of their fellow adherents as their new family. You can see this with worshippers often referring to each other as brother and sister.

A god cannot literally be a father though without also being human and breeding (which would at least explain why God cannot be referred to as Goddess, an idea that christians seem to loathe). Being a creator is not enough to be referred to as a Father. He is referred to as that because of how he is portrayed. Just type "god is your father" into google to see the hits that come back.

There are many analogies made during indoctrination about how God is your father. The famous one being about two footprints in the sand and when there is only one set of footprints during troubled times then it's when God carries you. How can that not put anyone in mind of being on a long walk as a young child and being picked up by your dad because you became tired?

This does then explain why family values are so important to abrahamic faiths, particularly with christianity.  By pushing these values christians are also promoting the importance of accepting a position of personal subservience to an authority figure who will take responsibility for them.

But the whole idea behind having children is that you will raise them to eventually live independently in the real world. Christian indoctrination never talks of their adherents eventually becoming independent, except perhaps Mormonism where everyone gets their own planet in the end, a claim which has since been retracted by the Mormon church.

Christian indoctrination is regressive and hence infantilising, conditioning followers to become more dependent over time. This means that it then becomes harder to leave as your whole life becomes built up around your church. In the same way that narcotic drugs manipulate receptors in the brain to produce highs on demand, christian worship manipulates biological instincts that we have evolved to function as pack animals to produce a sense of subservience to a non-existent family.

(November 10, 2017 at 5:42 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I will take a finite amount of gifts in life as it is, to a promise of eternal life. heh:

False dichotomy.

---

(November 11, 2017 at 6:13 am)Mathilda Wrote: But that's because children get told the truth by adults when they are still impressionable. Imagine a world wide virus wiped out everyone over 8 years old, the Santa Claus myth would then

... die out on the next Dec. 25th.

---

(November 11, 2017 at 11:01 am)emjay Wrote: On further reflection on this... if the technical definition of a delusion is relative to cultural/group norms, what would you call, if not a delusion, a belief system that displays, when viewed independently of any of that relativity, all the hallmarks (ie 'symptoms' as it were) of a belief system that is irrationally protected, maintained, and argued?

Then the belief that life can spontaneously arise from inanimate matter is a delusion. Every day there are billions of experiments on this, and it has never once happened - even with much better building blocks as starters than were presumably available in the past.

---

(November 11, 2017 at 12:32 pm)Mathilda Wrote: A god cannot literally be a father though without also being human and breeding (which would at least explain why God cannot be referred to as Goddess, an idea that christians seem to loathe). Being a creator is not enough to be referred to as a Father. He is referred to as that because of how he is portrayed. Just type "god is your father" into google to see the hits that come back.

You've never heard of adoption?

You know that the bible specifically says that god is our father through adoption, right?

(November 11, 2017 at 1:34 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(November 11, 2017 at 6:13 am)Mathilda Wrote: But that's because children get told the truth by adults when they are still impressionable. Imagine a world wide virus wiped out everyone over 8 years old, the Santa Claus myth would then

... die out on the next Dec. 25th.

The lack of presents could easily be explained away.

(November 11, 2017 at 1:34 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(November 11, 2017 at 12:32 pm)Mathilda Wrote: A god cannot literally be a father though without also being human and breeding (which would at least explain why God cannot be referred to as Goddess, an idea that christians seem to loathe). Being a creator is not enough to be referred to as a Father. He is referred to as that because of how he is portrayed. Just type "god is your father" into google to see the hits that come back.

You've never heard of adoption?

You know that the bible specifically says that god is our father through adoption, right?

I didn't know that and would be interested to see where it says that.

Adopted fathers are generally expected to be human.

(November 11, 2017 at 1:34 pm)alpha male Wrote: Then the belief that life can spontaneously arise from inanimate matter is a delusion.

It is a typical theist trick to try and limit how the other person can reply. In this case by assuming that life has to spontaneously arise and only from inanimate matter.

(November 11, 2017 at 1:34 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(November 11, 2017 at 11:01 am)emjay Wrote: On further reflection on this... if the technical definition of a delusion is relative to cultural/group norms, what would you call, if not a delusion, a belief system that displays, when viewed independently of any of that relativity, all the hallmarks (ie 'symptoms' as it were) of a belief system that is irrationally protected, maintained, and argued?

Then the belief that life can spontaneously arise from inanimate matter is a delusion. Every day there are billions of experiments on this, and it has never once happened - even with much better building blocks as starters than were presumably available in the past.

Chemicals react, that's one thing they do, they also bond and form more complex structures (molecules etc), so it's not that much of a leap to think that given those two things, with enough time and the right conditions, self-supporting structures could be formed... in other words, little steps, which eventually amount to something much bigger. I'm no expert on all that but that's enough for me; it's perfectly plausible to me based on how systems evolve in other respects. It's certainly more plausible to me than the earth only being six thousand years old despite all the geological evidence that suggest that can't be the case. But if I'm wrong, so what? ...if it's proven to be impossible, then I'll just wait for the next theory to be put forward, which will again likely be more plausible than a six thousand year old earth and a magical being creating life, despite all the evidence of evolution. And more to the point, the truth, or not, of that, has no bearing on the existence of God or which specific God out of the many that are posited, it would be if there was; so there's no way I could use that theory being falsified to promote a belief in God, even if I wanted to, because one does not speak to the other.

(November 11, 2017 at 1:49 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 11, 2017 at 1:34 pm)alpha male Wrote: ... die out on the next Dec. 25th.

The lack of presents could easily be explained away.

(November 11, 2017 at 1:34 pm)alpha male Wrote: You've never heard of adoption?

You know that the bible specifically says that god is our father through adoption, right?

I didn't know that and would be interested to see where it says that.

Adopted fathers are generally expected to be human.

(November 11, 2017 at 1:34 pm)alpha male Wrote: Then the belief that life can spontaneously arise from inanimate matter is a delusion.

It is a typical theist trick to try and limit how the other person can reply. In this case by assuming that life has to spontaneously arise and only from inanimate matter.

Alpha doesn't seem to understand, atoms as single atoms are not alive, but in certain arrangements those atoms can form amino acids which make up DNA, WHICH DO make up living things. His problem is that he cant wrap his head around the concept that going from a single atom to many atoms to a molecule then to an acid does not require a cosmic factory boss.

Much like an individual snowflake does not need Frosty The Snowman to take non snowflake single molecules of H20 to build up to a complex snowflake. 

Otherwise Pele exists because volcanos exist.

(November 11, 2017 at 2:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(November 11, 2017 at 1:49 pm)Mathilda Wrote: The lack of presents could easily be explained away.



I didn't know that and would be interested to see where it says that.

Adopted fathers are generally expected to be human.



It is a typical theist trick to try and limit how the other person can reply. In this case by assuming that life has to spontaneously arise and only from inanimate matter.

Alpha doesn't seem to understand, atoms as single atoms are not alive, but in certain arrangements those atoms can form amino acids which make up DNA, WHICH DO make up living things. His problem is that he cant wrap his head around the concept that going from a single atom to many atoms to a molecule then to an acid does not require a cosmic factory boss.

Much like an individual snowflake does not need Frosty The Snowman to take non snowflake single molecules of H20 to build up to a complex snowflake. 

Otherwise Pele exists because volcanos exist.

Yep, indeed. I think that's (possibly) a fundamental difference in how I (or we) view life compared to some theists; as an evolved system comprised of many small and (relatively) simple units, each performing a very small and specific 'task' locally based on physics and chemistry, but which when taken as a whole, can be considered the whole organism.

(November 10, 2017 at 11:36 am)alpha male Wrote:

Quote:Porn and masturbation aren't bad,

Sex with a real person is better.

Sometimes for some people.

(November 11, 2017 at 11:01 am)emjay Wrote:  what would you call, 

I call it a delusion...not because I'm interested in diagnosing someone or isolating abberrent patterns of thought or behavior...but because it's delusional.

Only offered the exposition because I found it amusing that someone was retreating into the clinical disgnosis...and that does more to harm their objection than it does to support it. That and to help you understand that the status of gods as proven or unproven is irrelevant. God beliefs could be delusional even if there were a god. Two people claim that god speaks to them in mutually excluive ways..they can;t both be right, at least one of them is delusional...as expressed in the example of christians and hindus...however...the third possibility, that they're both delusional...infinitely more likely.

God isn't watching anyone pee. There..I said it. I think everyone knows that. It's unlikely that a god botherer is sitting on the john squeezing out a turd and thinks "I wonder what this looks like from GOD's POV!?!?!" The people who express a belief in some sort of omnipresent deity are describing a delusional belief, but I doubt they actually believe what they describe in the first place. It's pious theater. The belief that others won;t recognize pious theater for what it is...similarly, delusional.

Well, I guess if I believed in the kind of God the atheists are describing then I suppose that might count as delusional. Personally, I don't believe in that God nor do I know any Christians that do.