(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.
