Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Salesman, by your own definition traditional religious beliefs cannot be delusions since they cannot be shown to be indisputably false.

I started thinking a bit more about this, and it something occurred to me to bring up. I'm curious to see how you respond.

Doesn't it depend on what sort of religious beliefs we're discussing?

To believe a God exists is not a belief that can be shown to be false by indisupitable evidence. This much, by definition, is not a delusion. But believing in such a God, with nothing tied to it, isn't a religion. Religions add claims. Of those claims, a delusion could be formed, right?

Are you saying that it's not delusional to think that a virgin woman can give birth? Is this much different than claiming to know a married bachelor?

There's no evidence to disprove that Mary wasn't the only exception to the rule, but it is incompatible with every bit of evidence that supports our understanding of child conception. Is this not delusional?

There's no evidence that Jesus, a mortal man, could die and then be resurrected, but all evidence tells us that this is not possible. To be dead, and lying in a tomb, and then magically get up. Is it not a delusion to believe this?

Is there not indisputable evidence that tells us that these things are not physically possible? On what grounds, except as a delusion, does one believe these things?

The definition of a delusion suggested that one believes something even in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.

Is it not a delusion because we can't test the specific instance in question, or does this sound like someone grasping at straws as a means of clinging to a belief that is truely irrational?

I was just wondering what you thought about that Chad.