Question For Fellow Atheists...

[Neo-Scholastic]

Seems like a lot of people feel comfortable comparing belief in fairies with the faith of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. How many of you would publicly call Dr
King delusional?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Neo
I'm comfortable comparing one fairy to another fairy regardless of who it is that holds belief in either.  What's the problem?

@Jorg
IDK if we all do that.  The mind I have in mind when I look at other people isn't invisible, it's just that their thick damned skulls are blocking my view. 

[Minimalist]

Seems like a lot of people feel comfortable comparing belief in fairies with the faith of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. How many of you would publicly call Dr
King delusional?

He was a great civil rights leader who sure as shit didn't wait for fucking jesus to get anything done.

[Mr Greene]

Seems like a lot of people feel comfortable comparing belief in fairies with the faith of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. How many of you would publicly call Dr
King delusional?

Are you suggesting that political leaders cannot be mentally ill?

[Whateverist]

I don't view them as messed up.

I see that there are quite a few here who feel the same way.  If you don't see belief in non-existing critters being 'messed-up' then what then?  Can you give me an example of what you would consider to be a delusional belief???

More to the point, why is it so important to you to assign things to a "messed up" category?  What's the worry?

[Catholic_Lady]

I see that there are quite a few here who feel the same way.  If you don't see belief in non-existing critters being 'messed-up' then what then?  Can you give me an example of what you would consider to be a delusional belief???

More to the point, why is it so important to you to assign things to a "messed up" category?  What's the worry?

My guess is it makes him feel superior.

---

Seems like a lot of people feel comfortable comparing belief in fairies with the faith of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. How many of you would publicly call Dr
King delusional?

Are you suggesting that political leaders cannot be mentally ill?

No. He's suggesting that mlk definitely wasnt.

[Whateverist]

http://medical-dictionary.thefreediction.../Delusions

Right, "Delusions are distinct from culturally or religiously based beliefs that may be seen as untrue by outsiders."

...Just as you wrote above. So, why are posting this?

He's concerned that there are messed up people in the world.  He needs to put that spot light on you.  I'm not sure why either.

---

The purpose of psychiatric diagnoses is to group people who may respond to the same medical treatment together because it has been found that people with similar symptoms respond similarly to treatment.  Your use of the term delusional has nothing in common with these aims.  Yours is an exercise in pure labeling, an attempt to invoke the stigma of mental illness against those who have religious beliefs.  Your labeling is basically a claim that the religious are broken and have defective brains.  I don't think this usage is supported by anything we know about the religious.  The religious seem just as healthy as non-religious people do concerning non-religious matters.  And I would dispute your claim that religious belief is "irrational" (lacking reasons for belief) or unsubstantiated (without justification).  Their reasons may not be your reasons, but they are reasons all the same.  So what this comes down to is little more than a slur aiming to stigmatize religious belief.

I must also note as a person with schizoaffective disorder who has suffered from delusions the bulk of my adult life, there is a qualitative difference between a bona fide delusion and something that is merely an irrational and false belief.  To compare the two as if they were similar only highlights the weakness in relying upon a pat "definition" of what a delusion is, and a distinction between the thinking of an armchair doctor and someone with actual clinical experience.

I would also point out that the belief in invisible sentient beings is not as far fetched as you make it seem.  We all seamlessly infer the presence of an invisible mind inhabiting the bodies of other humans we interact with.  We even infer a mind behind the eyes of a dog or cat, without the additional component of speech.  This "instinct" to infer the presence of non-visible minds is very powerful and operates non-consciously; we do it automatically.  It's not that strange that this instinct might misapply itself and infer the presence of invisible minds where they don't exist.  This would not be a malfunction of the brain, an unhealthy degenerate condition, but a mere side effect of the brain functioning in its normal manner.  If nothing else, this theory of mine points out how intimately intertwined our views of religious behavior are with our theories about why they've adopted this behavior.  If you just view religious behavior as a symptom of ordinary belief, you may be missing the true nature of it.

I believe Jormungandr may be a goddess.  Does that make me delusional?  Oh dear, have I messed up?

[ignoramus]

What's she offering Mark? I may be interested too....

I'm thinking of starting an online store selling afterlives at heavily discounted prices?
Who's interested?

I will honour my word.
I will guarantee it!
If you die and don't get your afterlife, you are entitled to a full refund...

[robvalue]

The purpose of psychiatric diagnoses is to group people who may respond to the same medical treatment together because it has been found that people with similar symptoms respond similarly to treatment.  Your use of the term delusional has nothing in common with these aims.  Yours is an exercise in pure labeling, an attempt to invoke the stigma of mental illness against those who have religious beliefs.  Your labeling is basically a claim that the religious are broken and have defective brains.  I don't think this usage is supported by anything we know about the religious.  The religious seem just as healthy as non-religious people do concerning non-religious matters.  And I would dispute your claim that religious belief is "irrational" (lacking reasons for belief) or unsubstantiated (without justification).  Their reasons may not be your reasons, but they are reasons all the same.  So what this comes down to is little more than a slur aiming to stigmatize religious belief.

I must also note as a person with schizoaffective disorder who has suffered from delusions the bulk of my adult life, there is a qualitative difference between a bona fide delusion and something that is merely an irrational and false belief.  To compare the two as if they were similar only highlights the weakness in relying upon a pat "definition" of what a delusion is, and a distinction between the thinking of an armchair doctor and someone with actual clinical experience.

I would also point out that the belief in invisible sentient beings is not as far fetched as you make it seem.  We all seamlessly infer the presence of an invisible mind inhabiting the bodies of other humans we interact with.  We even infer a mind behind the eyes of a dog or cat, without the additional component of speech.  This "instinct" to infer the presence of non-visible minds is very powerful and operates non-consciously; we do it automatically.  It's not that strange that this instinct might misapply itself and infer the presence of invisible minds where they don't exist.  This would not be a malfunction of the brain, an unhealthy degenerate condition, but a mere side effect of the brain functioning in its normal manner.  If nothing else, this theory of mine points out how intimately intertwined our views of religious behavior are with our theories about why they've adopted this behavior.  If you just view religious behavior as a symptom of ordinary belief, you may be missing the true nature of it.

Excellent post!

This reminds me also that the method through which the delusion occurs in the religious is usually very different. For example, they mistake their own internal voice for an external one. They will place extra significance on events, and interpret them as God communicating with them. It's basically confirmation bias going into overdrive. This is very different from someone actually experiencing things other people can't see/hear, as if they were real.

I'm inclined to agree that it's insulting to compare god to the tooth fairy.  When I was a kid I would put the tooth I had lost that day under my pillow, and there would be money in its place when I woke up.  That's more evidence than anyone's ever been able to muster for god.

Me too! I also received that evidence. It was a falsifiable proposition as well. So yes, I've also received more evidence for the tooth fairy.

What's the difference between the two? Adults stop reinforcing the belief in the tooth fairy when the kid reaches a certain age, instead of elaborating on the story to hide it from investigation.

[Jesster]

Seems like a lot of people feel comfortable comparing belief in fairies with the faith of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. How many of you would publicly call Dr
King delusional?

Delusional? Yeah, I can go with that under some definitions. I would not call him mentally ill, though. "Delusional" just means you have false or unrealistic beliefs. That can be attributed to mental illness, but not always, and I am definitely not one of the people here calling believers mentally ill.

As far as MLK Jr. goes, a person can have many things right in life and still be very much wrong about everything else. This is where I would maintain the comparison of God and the Tooth Fairy (or even other fairies).