Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[Godscreated]

@ The Reality Salesman, do you remember what I said in another thread, "that your mouth does not contain enough words to convince me there's no God", well now you've provided the proof. You've spewed enough contrite babble that you have to be getting dizzy... if you get the drift.
You want to convince people there's no God with nothing more than question, where is you evidence, you say you would be willing to change your view if we present evidence to you, yet you are not willing to apply the same logic to yourself, now if that isn't delusional. So why do you not bring proof to us, such a simple way to put all this to a rest, yet you avoid it like the plague.

GC

[The Reality Salesman01]

Usually delusional people show signs of their problem in multiple contexts, like interpersonal relations. I don't see how you could claim that an otherwise competing person is delusional just because they have interpreted a very small number of experiences differently than you would.

True. There is a difference between being mistaken about something and being delusional. 'Squirrels report my activities to the NSA' is a delusion. 'I believe what I was raised to believe and what most people important to me believe' may be a mistake, it may reflect a failure to examine the belief closely and objectively, but it's not a delusion in the sense of being a symptom of mental illness.

Until fairly recently, I believed Daddy Longlegs were dangerously poisonous. If I trusted my parents and pastor more than anonymous scientists on such matters, I might still believe it.

I agree. I think the problem here is the stigma that goes with something being a delusion. It doesn't imply that people have a mental illness, and thereby are delusional across the board!

A single belief can be a delusion in this sense:

DELUSION- a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

It's a bit more than merely interpreting a few things differently. What makes one interpret these things in that way is much more relevant to determining whether or not the interpretation is a delusion.

"I have a personal relationship with the creator of the cosmos, and he intervenes in my life. He speaks to me, and motivates my decisions."

There is a load of things going on here aside from "interpreting a few things differently".

---

@ The Reality Salesman, do you remember what I said in another thread, "that your mouth does not contain enough words to convince me there's no God", well now you've provided the proof. You've spewed enough contrite babble that you have to be getting dizzy... if you get the drift.
You want to convince people there's no God with nothing more than question, where is you evidence, you say you would be willing to change your view if we present evidence to you, yet you are not willing to apply the same logic to yourself, now if that isn't delusional. So why do you not bring proof to us, such a simple way to put all this to a rest, yet you avoid it like the plague.

GC

Your insults don't add much to the conversation, but they are indicative of your ignorance. You've demonstrated a lack of understanding of virtually every concept associated with this topic in several threads. There is absolutely no reason to think that you and I could have a productive exchange of ideas. Especially when I have to take time explaining to you the definitions of the words you use. I would even be willing to bet that you didn't bother watching the video, or reading any of the other responses, and skipped straight to the end so you could make baseless accusations.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

[Lion IRC]

Some religious positions are mutually exclusive.
Theism versus atheism for example.
They can't BOTH be right.
Therefore one must be false.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Some religious positions are mutually exclusive.
Theism versus atheism for example.
They can't BOTH be right.
Therefore one must be false.

Welcome back! Please, continue that thought.

---

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

I pulled that definition off of Webster, but I'm certainly not married to every word in it. I'm genuinely interested in hearing your view, I'm just asking questions about them as they come to mind. That being said, and if we were limited to the exact words in the definition, would you be willing to adopt this view

A belief that cannot be proven false couldn't possibly be a delusion.

I'm not sure I would. There must be something more to it, and perhaps "delusion" is the wrong word. Your thoughts?

---

Some religious positions are mutually exclusive.
Theism versus atheism for example.
They can't BOTH be right.
Therefore one must be false.

Those are not the only mutually exclusive religious views. Islam and Christianity are two other examples. The same implication applies. Are you leaving the conversation again? I'd be happy to play Devil's Advocate in favor of Islam. (No pun intended)

[Lion IRC]

Islam and Judaism and Christianity have some major differences, but line them up side by side and then, compared to atheism, they may as well be identical.
Ask a Muslim whether they think Jonah, Noah, Moses, Lot, Abraham, etc all worshipped the One True God.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...if we were limited to the exact words in the definition, would you be willing to adopt this view...A belief that cannot be proven false couldn't possibly be a delusion....perhaps "delusion" is the wrong word. Your thoughts?

Many forum members use the term 'delusion' as a hyperbolic description of people they believe are deceiving themselves about something. Usually because the alternative is, to their mind, unthinkable. So, I would distinguish between delusion and self-deception. A person who is delusional cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. As such, that defect would play out in multiple areas of their life. On the other hand, a self-deceived person can distinguish fantasy from reality, but chooses to not do so.

[Zazzy]

Many forum members use the term 'delusion' as a hyperbolic description of people they believe are deceiving themselves about something. Usually because the alternative is, to their mind, unthinkable. So, I would distinguish between delusion and self-deception. A person who is delusional cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. As such, that defect would play out in multiple areas of their life. On the other hand, a self-deceived person can distinguish fantasy from reality, but chooses to not do so.

You have just perfectly described my discomfort with the language used often on this forum. I don't think any theist currently here is delusional, and I have winced at the use of that term. I'm sure most theists would not be exactly flattered to be called self-deceivers, but even in the most negative view of theism, it's certainly a more rational term than "delusional."

[Lion IRC]

Some religious positions are mutually exclusive.
Theism versus atheism for example.
They can't BOTH be right.
Therefore one must be false.

Welcome back! Please, continue that thought.

Will do. Thanks for the kudos point.

Atheism is completely false if ANY deity exists.
Every single version of theism must be disproven.
Better get cracking. You got a lot of work ahead of you.

Whereas theists, on the other hand, only need to be partly right on even the tiniest detail about the God Conclusion in order to refute atheism.

[Ryantology]

Atheism is completely false if ANY deity exists.
Every single version of theism must be disproven.
Better get cracking. You got a lot of work ahead of you.

Every single version of theism, except for one, is false if any is proven true. A Christian is wrong unless the God of their bible is proven to exist and if the Jesus story is actually true.

By your logic, you have to accept every competing theist claim since you have disproven none of those. That means you have to accept that Islam is equally true to Christianity according to your own rules. Do you?

Whereas theists, on the other hand, only need to be partly right on even the tiniest detail about the God Conclusion in order to refute atheism.

I can agree to that if it applies both ways. All we need to do is show that Christians have been partly wrong about even the tiniest detail of the God Conclusion in order to refute Christianity.

Your particular virulent strand of theism has had 4,000 years to be partly right about even the tiniest detail about your "God Conclusion" and that has produced a giant tub of nothing. There's no reason to assume that's ever going to change.