When is a Religious Belief Delusional?

[The Grand Nudger]

On the other hand, a believer who recognizes they have insufficient means to convince an intelligent, fair minded third person but chooses to believe anyway for reasons they can articulate is certainly not delusional.

Mazactly.  I point out that my wife has alot of faith but no compelling argument, she points out that I'm never going to convince these cattle rearing necks to dam the hollars and turn kentucky into a semi-submerged aquacultural mecca.  Both of us, nevertheless, persist in our delusions knowingly.  It's good for laughs.  

Whenever I fuck something up I turn towards her and pull a Toro "Did you see what GOD made me do..man!"  -and in return, she's always telling me that I should start a fish cult.  We can both recognize the flaws in each others pet fantasies, and in our own..and it never leads to the silly ass shit (and interactions) we get from amateur apologists on this site.  She doesn't have to imagine that I have demon locks on my heart, or that I'm somehow hopelessly degenerate and that's the origin of my disgust for christer god, or that there's a requirement that I deny some obvious fact of reality, or that I'm incapable of spotting and accepting a good argument..or any of that trash.

I don't have to imagine that she's stupid or crazy.  There are reasonable people who can employ and accept their faith with integrity - and then there's the rest of the lot. The category that any given believer falls into is entirely up to them, theres no compulsion to be deluded asshole, on account of having faith. That's a personal..freely willed™ choice one makes. For some reason...I doubt that "jesus" would approve.

[CapnAwesome]

Meh, fuck em, a compulsion to use softer language is just another example of undue deference to a tradition that has been browbeating the shit out of people (and worse) since it's inception.

I suppose I could coddle believers, like fragile children...but I'm not sure that's an instance of showing respect.

I'm not being deferential by not calling someone delusional, I'm just being precise with my language. I believe words have meaning, beyond some dictionary definition, which normally are so broad that it's not really how a word is used in real life.
In real life, if I say someone is delusional, I mean they are mentally I'll. Since I (and pychologists) generally don't think Theism is the same as mental illness, I don't use the term. 
I'm highly skeptical that people who call Theists delusional online call their theistic family or friends or co-workers delusional in real life. So it mostly seems to be a phrase just for pissing people off online. 
That being said, these people are delusional:

[vorlon13]

My favorite:

When the hand penned version (there are MANY MANY versions, BTW) of his first visitation not being the LDS approved version of the tale means that if Joe Smith were alive today and a member of his church, he'd be excommunicated for believing the WRONG version. Belief in the 'correct' version being a requirement to be a Mormon in good standing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

On the other hand, a believer who recognizes they have insufficient means to convince an intelligent, fair minded third person but chooses to believe anyway for reasons they can articulate is certainly not delusional.

If this hypothetical third person already considers any religious belief to be delusional (see replies above) can you consider that person truly fair-minded?

[Whateverist]

On the other hand, a believer who recognizes they have insufficient means to convince an intelligent, fair minded third person but chooses to believe anyway for reasons they can articulate is certainly not delusional.

If this hypothetical third person already considers any religious belief to be delusional (see replies above) can you consider that person truly fair-minded?

No, at least not on this one matter.  Is anyone fair-minded across the board?  Who knows?

[The Grand Nudger]

In real life, if I say someone is delusional, I mean they are mentally I'll.

Sure, I get that..I just don't use it the same way.  When I point out that some belief is delusional I'm being equally precise..I'm just not commenting as a clinical diagnostician, mostly because I'm not.

Theres a noticeable difference between being wrong, deluded, and ill.

As I pointed out in the thread that spawned this one. I was wrong about how much I owed the electricians. If, after he showed me the bill and I looked at my bank account I persisted..I would be deluded...if, after being shown the bill and my account balance I persisted because I was certain that he was a lizard person out to destroy and reject everything good in the world..I would be ill.

In my way of using the term, there are some believers who are simply wrong. Theres a significant portion who are deluded, and some portion of that fraction toes the line to the next category....the subset of people who are deeply fucked up.

I also note that some people who are simply deluded masquerade as ill because of their insistence on using churchspeak - that doesn't mean what it says or say what it means..they don't actually believe it as stated. It's on them if they put in the work to convince people that they've long since taken the bus to crazytown.

[downbeatplumb]

Religions are all delusional, being based on what is as far as any meaningful investigation has uncovered, nothing.

But I suspect that you can believe in them without being delusional.
If they believe the delusion of others is it delusion or just being misinformed?

[Neo-Scholastic]

OP: To you most of the religious are not delusional because their beliefs and actions comply with the belief system. When the occasional believer is identified that does not comply with the belief system (i.e. Jim Jones/extreme example, Joseph Smith/less extreme) you then consider them delusional also.

That is true. To the degree that a new doctrine or revelation is being introduced it should be viewed skeptically. That is why I admitted that the internal safe-guards include consistency with prior teachings and would add that this safeguard is more of a warning sign than a test. A new doctrine could be a further clarification of prior revelations and historically these have not always been accepted. That is why there are still religious Jews and why Christians do not convert to Islam.

Since atheists do not hold your belief system we have no choice to consider it anything other than delusion. You communicate with an invisible being (for which there is not concrete evidence) that created everything and watches over the creation all the while directing actions, proclaiming judgement's and imposing rewards/punishments.

I do not consider the practice of prayer, in and of itself, evidence of delusion. The idea that there is a level of reality deeper (or higher depending on your perspective) and more fundamental that what is currently known does not seem on its face to be irrational. After that, it is more a difference of degree than of kind by which we evaluate its reasonableness.

[Amarok]

If this hypothetical third person already considers any religious belief to be delusional (see replies above) can you consider that person truly fair-minded?

Too bad for you no ones arguing that accept the straw atheists in your head

[The Grand Nudger]

That is true. To the degree that a new doctrine or revelation is being introduced it should be viewed skeptically. That is why I admitted that the internal safe-guards include consistency with prior teachings and would add that this safeguard is more of a warning sign than a test. A new doctrine could be a further clarification of prior revelations and historically these have not always been accepted. That is why there are still religious Jews and why Christians do not convert to Islam.

I strongly doubt that a work of fiction having a good editor -or- a bad editor is an indicator of it's divine origin -or- a particulalry useful "warning". You know that only takes a pen and some whiteout..right?

I do not consider the practice of prayer, in and of itself, evidence of delusion.

Neither do I.