When is a Religious Belief Delusional?

[Abaddon_ire]

See, neo, religious superstition is always nonsense and will never be demonstrated because it always fails to be demonstrated.

You can go right ahead and ignore whoever you like. All that means is that I can say whatever I wish, everyone else can read it and your beliefs look frankly idiotic.

It may well be that you are a Poe, but I doubt it. I think you really are that level of idiot.

Prove me wrong.

Oh you can't see me.

Everyone else can, just not you. I am cool with that.

[Amarok]

Another bullshit thread by Wooter filled with snark and empty babbling 

Yawn 

No one said you had to participate in it. 

Your post is exactly why some believers here feel like they can't have any sort of meaningful conversations with non-believers about anything. No matter the subject.

Normally, I like about 97% of your posts but you seem to just want to troll here and that's sad.

No i'm afraid the reason believers her can't have a conversation here because that's not why their here (CL an exception of course) there here to preach or push apologetic's and i will participate in threads like this to point that fact out. 

I normally like your posts to but on this i must disagree .

[polymath257]

Mathematical objects exist *as language constructs*. If you are claiming that deities only exist in the same way, you might be able to avoid the delusion label.

Platonism was the first major philosophical mistake.

Added: If you pray to the number 2 and think you get an answer, you are delusional. if you think any mathematical object has an intelligence, you are delusional.

I understand your frustration. Theists dragged philosophy and fucked it around like a cheap whore. Math however, is just out of their reach. It's a hard mistress, needs attention and careful thought. I should know. Contrary to theology (lel), where one just makes things as they go.

No person with any basic understanding of math could equate it to a god. It has been the foundation of mankind progress ever since goat herders made marks on sticks to count the lifestock. Way before they were able to write the silly fables of gods.

There is no limit for ignorance. Math requires formal proof and consistence. Its work in process. But then, theists of the delusional kind just piss and shit on everything on their personal path.

It goes even deeper than that. Plato used math as an example of his 'pure forms', suggesting that we don't actually *learn* math as much as we *remember* it. Rather silly on the face of it, actually.

The idea was that math allows us purely intellectual access to a realm of truth that is irrefutable. One of his examples was Geometry (as later written up by Euclid).

Unfortunately for this metaphysics, we learned about 200 years ago that more than one geometry is possible, then more than one number theory, and finally more than one set theory.

We realize today that math does NOT give access to some irrefutable realm, but instead is fundamentally a type of language with certain assumptions made (axioms) and conclusions made from those axioms via assumed rules. Math is more like a game of chess than it is a science like physics.

I'd also point out that the rise of modern set theory and its study of the infinite has refuted *logically* many old claims against infinite regress being illogical, etc. Any time an infinite regress argument is made, it is likely to be faulty simply because it fails to take into consideration our more recent understanding of infinity.

But, no, the whole metaphysics upon which mathematics rests does not and cannot support the extremes required for the existence of a deity. That requires an outmoded philosophical stance based on the ideas of 'necessity' and 'contingency'. if those words are used, you can be almost guaranteed that the underlying philosophy is no longer creditable.

---

No, not really.

Morality is based on something, some subjective baseline. Once the baseline is agreed, OBJECTIVE assessments can be made as to morality with regard to that baseline.

So what is the baseline subjectively? The bible? The Koran? Gilgamesh? All of those would have us butchering each other. With the imprimatur of whichever deity.

What Neo is talking about, and what I was talking about, was the ontology or nature of morality; not how you know what is moral.  When you are talking about "objective assessments"  you are talking about something else.

The nature of morality is that a sense of fairness and of justice are part of our genetic heritage (they are seen in other primates also). That is a common thread in humans and then supplies the basis for further extensions of morality to larger and larger groups.

[robvalue]

If you want to see how values are attributed subjectively, you need look no further than other animals. Most people consider any animal to be "worth less" than a human life. Some animals are considered to be of almost no value, or even negative value. Is this in any way objective? No. Inherent value is a nonsensical concept, in my opinion. What value something has entirely depends on what the purpose is, and who is judging it. Us valuing ourselves over other animals comes down to tribalism in the end.

According to most religious texts, God doesn't much care about animals either. But I don't care what he thinks.

[The Grand Nudger]

Depends on the human life, I'd reckon. 

The answer to this, though..

Some animals are considered to be of almost no value, or even negative value. Is this in any way objective? No.

-Is a fairly easy yes. Ask anyone who produces anything why pest species have a negative value. They can give you the dollars and cents on that one. You pay that negative value yourself, in cost.

The concept of inherent value isn't incoherent so much as that this concept is attached to incoherent things and, particularly with the religious, described incoherently. Inherent value is a good kid, with dick friends.

[Neo-Scholastic]

- Unquestionable certainty.
- Resistance to scrutiny.
- Contrary to what is demonstrably false.

bold mine. 
Clarification needed here. If it's to be considered a delusion, wouldn't the thinking have to be contrary to what is demonstrably true?

A mundane example would be if someone holds the opinion that it will rain all of next week. He cannot demonstrate that it is true other than referring to a weather report, which based on my experience, tend not to be all that reliable. Similarly, while at work I may be looking forward to having a cold brew from my fridge at home, but I cannot currently demonstrate to others that I do indeed have beer in my fridge. Neither case involves delusion. I truly believe that otherwise reasonable people can believe in any number of wild ideas, like Bigfoot and alien abductions. Neither can be shown to be demonstrably true. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a large undiscovered primate roams the forests of the Pacific Northwest and it is not inconceivable that a race of vastly superior intellect has managed to make their way to our remote corner of the universe.

There is no certainty or guarantee that your beliefs are true and correct...

That seems besides the point. Very few things in life are certain and religious beliefs are no exception. On that we can agree. Merely having strong convictions is not reason to consider them delusional.

Whenever any religion is up for scrutiny and doesn't pass the litmus test, believers go all on the defensive and immediately close their minds to the facts that science has provided, which can't be ignored by those possessing logic and reason.

I cannot speak to your personal experiences with believers. I too have noticed that is true for a small number of people I know. Otherwise most religious people I know are fairly open minded. I think it is very dismissive to simply dismiss them as delusional or dispossessed of logic and reason.

If things are demonstrably true, as has been tested by the Scientific Method, believers still refuse to come around to seeing the logic and reason for the non-existence of a god or gods. 

I know of no clear demonstrations showing that God does not exist. However, there are findings that undermine specific reasons for believing in God or that certain doctrines are contrary to current findings.

So I pose the following question to you: If you can show me why any of the Greek gods are false, then please do. I'll be happy to use your own reasons and explanations as to why the Abrahamic god you follow is also false. 

That is unnecessary. The powers generally attributed them have largely been undermined, such as causing the change of seasons, or that they set constellations to commemorate various heroes, etc. I would say those attributions are demonstrably false. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible that the Greek gods do exist, in some lesser way, but even if they did I would still consider them contingent beings not worthy of the title of God. That said, I would not consider the ancient Greeks delusional for believing in them.

[Minimalist]

After 8 pages of drivel I think the answer to the OP is "Always."

[Amarok]

Wholly hell Wooters view of objective secular morality ontology and perspective norms is simplistic .

---

After 8 pages of drivel I think the answer to the OP is "Always."

Oh come now drivel is a compliment to Wooters nonsense

---

Depends on the human life, I'd reckon. 

The answer to this, though..

Some animals are considered to be of almost no value, or even negative value. Is this in any way objective? No.

-Is a fairly easy yes.  Ask anyone who produces anything why pest species have a negative value.  They can give you the dollars and cents on that one.  You pay that negative value yourself, in cost.

The concept of inherent value isn't incoherent so much as that this concept is attached to incoherent things and, particularly with the religious, described incoherently.  Inherent value is a good kid, with dick friends.

True very true

[downbeatplumb]

A mundane example would be if someone holds the opinion that it will rain all of next week. He cannot demonstrate that it is true other than referring to a weather report, which based on my experience, tend not to be all that reliable. Similarly, while at work I may be looking forward to having a cold brew from my fridge at home, but I cannot currently demonstrate to others that I do indeed have beer in my fridge. Neither case involves delusion.

I have a fridge and beer so I would tend to believe you unless you were a trump like liar. Trump lies so often that if he told me he was Trump on the balance of probablility it would be a lie. It has been measured that 60% of anything he says is false.

I truly believe that otherwise reasonable people can believe in any number of wild ideas, like Bigfoot and alien abductions. Neither can be shown to be demonstrably true. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a large undiscovered primate roams the forests of the Pacific Northwest and it is not inconceivable that a race of vastly superior intellect has managed to make their way to our remote corner of the universe.

It is not mad to think there might be not mad. But without proof to think there is, is delusional.

That seems besides the point. Very few things in life are certain and religious beliefs are no exception. On that we can agree. Merely having strong convictions is not reason to consider them delusional.

But god is not only "not certain" but is also extremely unlikely to the point where I find the idea absurd.

I know of no clear demonstrations showing that God does not exist. However, there are findings that undermine specific reasons for believing in God or that certain doctrines are contrary to current findings.

I know of no reason to think that a god is likely. Or even a very good description of what a god is.

So I pose the following question to you: If you can show me why any of the Greek gods are false, then please do. I'll be happy to use your own reasons and explanations as to why the Abrahamic god you follow is also false. 

That is unnecessary. The powers generally attributed them have largely been undermined, such as causing the change of seasons, or that they set constellations to commemorate various heroes, etc. I would say those attributions are demonstrably false. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible that the Greek gods do exist, in some lesser way, but even if they did I would still consider them contingent beings not worthy of the title of God. That said, I would not consider the ancient Greeks delusional for believing in them.

I would.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I know of no reason to think that a god is likely. Or even a very good description of what a god is.

Doesn't matter. Even if the existence of something is unlikely, it does not follow that belief in its existence is delusional.

Your claim about God being ill-described is completely disingenuous. The nature of God in Christianity has been very rigorously explored, revolves around a narrow set of concepts, and expounded upon extensively. You know exactly what God is being described. Stop spouting things you don't even believe.