When is a Religious Belief Delusional?

[Mystic]

I can make a thread filling it with examples of Atheists doing exactly this on these forums and it would be pages and pages of examples.

Do it then.  But we both know that unless you lie through your teeth your thread will be empty.  Becausewe both know that atheists dont pretend to be god.

They claim they know exactly what God would or would not be, and then because of the design and situation we are, they use that to deny him. I will make a thread with ample evidence of this.

[Pat Mustard]

There is no restriction on delusions that they cannot be shared with others: (from Marriam-Webster)

Definition of delusion

1 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

• under the delusion that they will finish on schedule
  

• delusions of grandeur
  

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

• the delusion that someone was out to hurt him
  

; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

-------------------

Does this apply to religions? At the very least, it applies to beliefs in supernatural deities that affect day-to-day lives of people. Combined with the confabulation (called apologetics) that is typical of religion (and delusions), it is hard to see a way that most religions are NOT delusional.

Note the bold. Please provide a list of the "indisputable evidence" that there is no God. Absence such a list, such a belief by definition is not a delusion. Note that this is not merely "in spite of no evidence". It is in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary. 

Even worse for your position is that you cannot even adequately undercut the evidence that people rely on for the religious beliefs. Who's delusional again?

Here's the proof. If there's a god he will surely strick me down with great fury and righteous anger 60 seconds after I call him a fucktard.

God's a fucktard.

[Abaddon_ire]

Not if it's taken to be a political construct rather than an inherent or objective fact.  Moreover, even as an inherent or objective fact, it can be derived from the morals of fairness, that all should be treated as equal, regardless of any objective existence of such an equality.

Any notion of fairness already presupposes some measure existential equality. You're arguing in circles. Let's step further back. I believe there are moral facts. Are those delusions?

How do you determine what exactly these "moral facts" you claim exist really are?

[Pat Mustard]

Do it then.  But we both know that unless you lie through your teeth your thread will be empty.  Becausewe both know that atheists dont pretend to be god.

They claim they know exactly what God would or would not be, and then because of the design and situation we are, they use that to deny him. I will make a thread with ample evidence of this.

Stop asserting. Start doing.  Go go. Go go.

@steve 60 seconds are up I'm unsmitten.  God doesn't exist.  Quad erat Demonstrandum.

[Angrboda]

Any notion of fairness already presupposes some measure existential equality. You're arguing in circles. Let's step further back. I believe there are moral facts. Are those delusions?

How do you determine what exactly these "moral facts" you claim exist really are?

I think his point is that we accept the existence of morals without tangible evidence of their reality, and we don't consider people who act on morals to be deluded, so we shouldn't hold people who hold to the existence of God delusional because they are in the same boat, asserting the reality of something without tangible proof (or disproof).

[Fake Messiah]

They claim they know exactly what God would or would not be, and then because of the design and situation we are, they use that to deny him. I will make a thread with ample evidence of this.

Actually nobody - not theists or atheists - knows how to define gods in the first place. What are they? The question could hardly be any simpler, but the answer is strangely elusive. Do you know? I'm not sure I do. People have been so enthralled with gods and religions for so long, many willing to kill and die for them, that this question ought to be considered among the most important of all, yet most people sail right by it and instead obsess over secondary issues such as which gods exist, how we should worship, which book gets it right, and how the gods mean for us to behave.

What makes a god? Are they all supernatural? Are they all immortal? Can all of them fly, or only some? Can they walk through walls? Can they read our thoughts? Do they know the future? Can a god have mental and physical frailties? Can a human become a god? Can a god become a human? What is it that makes someone or something a god in our eyes? What is a god?!

[Angrboda]

Do it then.  But we both know that unless you lie through your teeth your thread will be empty.  Becausewe both know that atheists dont pretend to be god.

They claim they know exactly what God would or would not be, and then because of the design and situation we are, they use that to deny him. I will make a thread with ample evidence of this.

They claim based on theist representations and reasoning from them using logic. No atheist simply "makes shit up" about God. Atheists accept what theists tell them, ex hypothesi, which is not the same thing. So your problem is really that we hold you and other theists to their word, when you'd rather we did not.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Any notion of fairness already presupposes some measure existential equality. You're arguing in circles.

No, it does not.  The notion of fairness creates an imperative to treat identical members consistently.  That's a question of identity, not of inherent value.  Do we have reason to believe that all humans share the identity of human independent of ideas that we should?  Yes, we do.  So it's not circular.  

It absolutely is circular because human beings are not naturally equal. There are all kinds of metrics by which people vary not the least of which are sex, intelligence, age, health, stature, and attractiveness. Any one or more of those natural inequalities could (and has been) used to deny the dignity due to every human being. And if you think that is obvious then you are at odds with the overwhelming judgment of cultures over history for thousands of years. I would suggest that the only reason it is 'obvious' is because Judeo-Christian values, developed over 2000 years, are so embedded in Western culture that even secular people in those societies take them for granted.

---

Any notion of fairness already presupposes some measure existential equality. You're arguing in circles. Let's step further back. I believe there are moral facts. Are those delusions?

How do you determine what exactly these "moral facts" you claim exist really are?

That is irrelevant. The question is about delusions. Are you saying that anyone who believes something, like "humans are existentially equals" or "pederasty is evil",...that person is delusional? Suppose that person has no reason to support that belief. Does that, in-and-of-itself, make that person delusional.

Is the belief in categorical imperatives delusional?

Is it delusional to believe in mathematical objects?

I am highly skeptical that anyone on this thread can propose criteria that capture religious beliefs that don't also capture other beliefs widely held by intelligent people of sound mind.

---

You know what's strange? Everyone who believes in "moral facts" just happens to know what those facts are, or knows the correct way to find them, and they always line up with their own opinions.

That is a total straw man. You don't need to know what a thing is to know that a thing is. I believe moral facts exist even if it takes some reflection, digging, and discussion to parse out just what those might be.

Moreover, you sidestep the issue. The issue is when a belief is delusional. Knowing you, I believe you are personally motivated by animus towards religion and would be inclined to mock any religious belief as delusional. If you think that is unfair the onus is on you and your ilk is to demonstrate that religious beliefs are categorically delusions and to differentiate your criteria so as not to include include beliefs in moral facts or mathematical objects. Similarly, if you are going to broadly categorize people who believe in God as delusional then you have included people who clearly were not such as Plato, Wilberforce, Bonheoffer, and George Washington. One it's face, that position is even more ludicrous than believing in God.

So far you are failing desperately and flailing around and trotting out your typical hobby horses.

[Abaddon_ire]

No, it does not.  The notion of fairness creates an imperative to treat identical members consistently.  That's a question of identity, not of inherent value.  Do we have reason to believe that all humans share the identity of human independent of ideas that we should?  Yes, we do.  So it's not circular.  

It absolutely is circular because human beings are not naturally equal. There are all kinds of metrics by which people vary not the least of which are sex, intelligence, age, health, stature, and attractiveness. Any one or more of those natural inequalities could (and has been) used to deny the dignity due to every human being. And if you think that is obvious then you are at odds with the overwhelming judgment of cultures over history for thousands of years. I would suggest that the only reason it is 'obvious' is because Judeo-Christian values, developed over 2000 years, are so embedded in Western culture that even secular people in those societies take them for granted.

---

How do you determine what exactly these "moral facts" you claim exist really are?

That is irrelevant. The question is about delusions. Are you saying that anyone who believes something, like "humans are existentially equals" or "pederasty is evil",...that person is delusional? Suppose that person has no reason to support that belief. Does that, in-and-of-itself, make that person delusional.

Is the belief in categorical imperatives delusional?

Is it delusional to believe in mathematical objects?

No. It absolutely is not irrelevant.

If you are unable to state where on earth you get your moral absolutes, then those clearly are NOT moral absolutes.

Furthermore, Judeo-christian values have propagated violence, mysogyny, hate, genocide, paedophilia and incest for those very same 2,000 years and continue to do so to this very day.

I ask again. From whence do you garner your moral absolutes? It cannot be the bible, nor the Torah, nor that Koran. Those would make you a monster, and I am sure you don't want that.

The question remains. From whence do you glean your moral absolutes? And the fact remains that you are unable to say. Or possibly afraid to say.

[Amarok]

It absolutely is circular because human beings are not naturally equal. There are all kinds of metrics by which people vary not the least of which are sex, intelligence, age, health, stature, and attractiveness. Any one or more of those natural inequalities could (and has been) used to deny the dignity due to every human being. And if you think that is obvious then you are at odds with the overwhelming judgment of cultures over history for thousands of years. I would suggest that the only reason it is 'obvious' is because Judeo-Christian values, developed over 2000 years, are so embedded in Western culture that even secular people in those societies take them for granted.

1. Those you mention don't matter real equality and yes equality is naturally found dated .


2. Countless cultures believed in some degree of equality Christianity didn't invent this nor practice it for most of history so it's not remotely a Christian value. You simply hijacked it like everything else.

3.Secularism does not take from Christianity in the slightest you have no steak in morality period.

4. Equality is a natural moral fact like all other facts

5. Even if most cultures didn't believe something or understand something that does not mean it's not true .

---

Is the belief in categorical imperatives delusional? 

Is it delusional to believe in mathematical objects?

Love how he thinks he's stumping us this is child's play

---

That is irrelevant. The question is about delusions. Are you saying that anyone who believes something, like "humans are existentially equals" or "pederasty is evil",...that person is delusional? Suppose that person has no reason to support that belief. Does that, in-and-of-itself, make that person delusional. 

It's very relevant as for the rest of this is asinine