Theism is literally childish

[emjay]

Well from my perspective it's hard not to see it as a delusion when many... not all but many... of its adherent's display all the hallmarks of delusion in their treatment of their beliefs;

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-j-ro...11148.html

Calling religion delusional has become an increasingly popular strategy for its critics. To my ear, there’s more to this than just a benign slight — there’s at least the hint of the pathological. Religion can be delusional, but to think it inherently so is to misunderstand both religion and delusion...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brai...s-at-least

Religious beliefs are typically incompatible with scientific evidence and observable reality, but aren’t considered to be delusions. Why not? ...

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-j-ro...11148.html


https://www.theguardian.com/science/brai...s-at-least

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.

[Aroura]

...or comparing religion to delusion and psychosis which happens quite a bit.

Inconceivable.... I am told that atheists don't make claims or have beliefs.   So either one or the other is untrue, or those that claim both are deluded or dishonest.

Of course atheists make claims and have beliefs, we are human beings.

You are conflating atheists with atheism.  Atheism is not something that is making a claim or stating a belief.

[Cod]

As apposed to your crappy existence do you mean?

I have a very good existence - good job, wife and kids, great sex life.

Having to endlessly tickle Gods balls for him.

What, going to church once a week, where I see friends anyway?

I'm not interested in the church bit, tell me more about your sex life.

[John V]

I'm not interested in the church bit, tell me more about your sex life.

It's with a real woman, it's frequent, and it's varied.

Yet, atheist punks jacking off to internet porn would say that I'm sexually repressed because I'm a Christian.

Go figure.

[Cod]

I'm not interested in the church bit, tell me more about your sex life.

It's with a real woman, it's frequent, and it's varied.

Yet, athiest punks jacking off to internet porn would say that I'm sexually repressed because I'm a Christian.

Go figure.

I wouldn't say you are sexually repressed, what do you mean by varied?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sexual repression is common to abrahamic beliefs and the adherents thereof.  You may be the aberrant believer who does the dirty dirty in ways that atheist fapper can't even imagine...but that would make you an exception to the rule.  

You likely classify your repression as morality.  Theres a whole industry devoted to extolling the virtues of sexual repression, it's a predictably christian industry. Powerful government lobby, too.

[RoadRunner79]

Inconceivable.... I am told that atheists don't make claims or have beliefs.   So either one or the other is untrue, or those that claim both are deluded or dishonest.

Of course atheists make claims and have beliefs, we are human beings.

You are conflating atheists with atheism.  Atheism is not something that is making a claim or stating a belief.

So you are saying it is bullshit when atheists try to use this excuse to get out of having to explain their claims?

And I'm not talking about atheism as a description.

[emjay]

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.

Okay... fair enough. But what I basically mean is as soon as confirmation bias... banging the same drum regardless of what anybody says etc... and, la la la-ing, and special pleading come into play, then those are behaviours associated with delusional thinking... ie clinging to a belief despite overwhelming and clear evidence to the contrary - and as such are plenty enough to make me realise that it is utterly pointless to even engage in debate with some theists who come here, on those grounds because whatever is said, will simply not be heard. That's why there's no point to me in arguing with Little Rik or MK... and even a few atheists.

[Aroura]

Of course atheists make claims and have beliefs, we are human beings.

You are conflating atheists with atheism.  Atheism is not something that is making a claim or stating a belief.

So you are saying it is bullshit when atheists try to use this excuse to get out of having to explain their claims?

And I'm not talking about atheism as a description.

If someone says "atheists don't have beliefs", yah, they mean the atheism part of an atheist, not the whole person.  There is literally no one in the entire world who would say any adult person doesn't make claims or have beliefs.  Everyone does.  You are intentionally misunderstanding the meaning, are clearly talking about this one aspect.  I would call it poorly worded, not bullshit.  And I would call you disingenuous for going after semantics over the obvious implied meaning.