Delusional

[Nam]

Delusional (basic definition): A false belief or opinion.

Atheists on this website use that word toward the god-believers as if it were candy. I don't think I've ever called someone "delusional" unless they actually were by actual evidence presented.

"Well, Nam, they believe in a god without any evidence of said god existing except their religion or themselves saying so. That's delusional.'

Is it? By the definition provided above, referenced from several dictionaries, it seems that their belief would only be false if ample enough evidence was provided by the person referring to the other as "delusional". And, in some cases the religion they follow can be shown to be false but not necessarily the god that represents it. I feel, they are two separate things. One is a basic constant (god), and the other is surrounded by it (religion).

But what actual effect does it have on the religious? I feel little to no effect in regard to the effect that would nominally be caused. Meaning: while the person calling the other "delusional" most likely gets self-gratification from doing so, the target probably becomes more firm in their belief based on such childishness.

An opinion.

-Nam

[Traveler]

Yes, I think you're right that religious persons are far more likely to dig in their feet and become more entrenched in their beliefs when challenged with words like "delusional." In addition, I find myself more willing to sling the word around with fundamentalists, who are probably the most likely to dig in, and the least likely to change under any circumstances.

Perhaps the only real point in using the word is for fellow atheists to clarify their feelings on religion?

[Hatter23]

An opinion.

-Nam

An opinion I disagree with. Anyone who has a moderate education in the modern world has ample evidence there are other beliefs systems, all prayers work at the same rate of coincidence, and "magic" claims are false. They maintain their god belief, the belief magic man made things happen, despite this evidence. They maintain the belief of a soul, despite the ample evidence of the working of psychological pharmacology and brain mapping.

I wouldn't call it a delusion for a medieval peasant, someone living in a shack with a 2nd grade education, a small child, or some one mentally retarded.

What does calling the belief delusion do?, Why I call it such isn't for some sort of self gratification like you assert, but to knock religion off the pedestal that it enjoys, being above reproach or scrutiny. It is a harsh word, no doubt, but without such plain face descriptors, religion will never cease to be the force of harm that it currently is.

[3sigma]

Is it? By the definition provided above, referenced from several dictionaries, it seems that their belief would only be false if ample enough evidence was provided by the person referring to the other as "delusional".

Perhaps you should also look up the definition of false. It doesn’t mean proven to be untrue, as some seem to assume. It just means not true; based on mistaken ideas; inconsistent with the facts. This pretty much fits religious beliefs.

That said, I wouldn’t normally call religious believers delusional, mainly because the contemporary connotation of that word is that it is a psychiatric condition. I might call them deluded. I would certainly call them gullible, self-deceived or mistaken.

[12 Monkeys]

So what term would you "label" these people with? Just because Delusion or Delusional is a term used for people we can actually see the degree of illness they have does not make it any less true when it comes to theists.

 They read excerpts from an exclusivley edited version of the Bible of their choosing and without evidence and only faith they believe this delusion. The only reason they invest in it is because of the promised reward at the end. They fail to follow the rules,ignore the contradictions,but they think they are still deserving of it......most Christians I know are deserving of nothing and I mock their delusion at every chance.

[kindred]

Stupidity needs to be mocked and identified. What would be the purpose of being smart if the system didn't reward you with a prize or at least some recognition?

If your own stupidity is pointed out, in this case an irrational belief/delusion, than you are given a choice of either indulging it or shedding it. Mock idiocy so people know its idiotic and are given a heads up.

[Karl]

...
I wouldn't call it a delusion for a medieval peasant, someone living in a shack with a 2nd grade education, a small child, or some one mentally retarded.
...

Mentally retarded refers to time with tard being late. Medieval peasant means back in time living with the knowledge available at the time.

I can identify myself with both conditions knowing that knowledge in the future will be beyond my understanding which then makes me look like them. In the future I will be medieval having lived in the distant past. Therefore I will have a lack of understanding of reality that then has brought forward more knowledge. That does not make me deliusional. I might be called that in the future, for no good reason. I just didn't know in retrospective. Calling an explanation from the past correct today is wrong but it is not dilusional. It may be a lack of knowledge and understanding. But that in the end would require an eternal state of mind when the universe stops evolving and we arrive in an ultimate situation of final truth. It is not going to happen. Still I find religion silly. Useful for the unknowing whatever the damage it does in many cases.

I do not believe in God so I consider myself an atheist.  But calling a dog delusional because it barks and doesn't speak makes no sense.

[bertatberts]

If a person has all the access needed to the knowledge the world can provide, yet still holds a belief in a deity, then that person is delusional, if the person doesn't, then that person is ignorant and deluded.

However even then, both have a delusional disorder, and will need help, to some it will be education, if they accept it. And to the other medication. 

[Graybeard]

Delusional (basic definition): A false belief or opinion.
...
An opinion.

-Nam

See my signature, there is a little more to the definition.

[Hatter23]

...
I wouldn't call it a delusion for a medieval peasant, someone living in a shack with a 2nd grade education, a small child, or some one mentally retarded.
...

I do not believe in God so I consider myself an atheist.  But calling a dog delusional because it barks and doesn't speak makes no sense.

That's why I specified I wouldn't call it such in those cases.

[bertatberts]

Delusional (basic definition): A false belief or opinion.
...
An opinion.

-Nam

See my signature, there is a little more to the definition.

Yes a little more, according to Stedmans medical dictionary.
It states it as.
 
Delusion: A false belief or wrong judgment, sometimes associated with hallucinations, held with conviction despite evidence to the contrary.
http://stedmansonline.com/ Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 28th Edition, Copyright© 2006_Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

[Karl]

...
I wouldn't call it a delusion for a medieval peasant, someone living in a shack with a 2nd grade education, a small child, or some one mentally retarded.
...

I do not believe in God so I consider myself an atheist.  But calling a dog delusional because it barks and doesn't speak makes no sense.

That's why I specified I wouldn't call it such in those cases.

I understood that. The point is where we position ourselves. Today we might consider us being well educated thus delusional if believing in god or a supreme being. But later we might be seen as medieval peasants so suddenly we change over from delusional to just not knowing. In his time the medieval peasant might have been right interpreting the world according to his knowledge. We might look the same from a distant future when we appear as primitive to the people who then judge. Hence both states of mind apply to the same person depending on who is judging when.

[12 Monkeys]

...
I wouldn't call it a delusion for a medieval peasant, someone living in a shack with a 2nd grade education, a small child, or some one mentally retarded.
...

I do not believe in God so I consider myself an atheist.  But calling a dog delusional because it barks and doesn't speak makes no sense.

That's why I specified I wouldn't call it such in those cases.

I understood that. The point is where we position ourselves. Today we might consider us being well educated thus delusional if believing in god or a supreme being. But later we might be seen as medieval peasants so suddenly we change over from delusional to just not knowing. In his time the medieval peasant might have been right interpreting the world according to his knowledge. We might look the same from a distant future when we appear as primitive to the people who then judge. Hence both states of mind apply to the same person depending on who is judging when.

of course as technology grows faster and better so will it seem we are cavemen to a person 100 years in the future,,,just as kids today can't relate back to the 80's and wonder how people even lived in the 50's. Remember when laser weapons and technology was only in science fiction movies and TV,not anymore.

But as science and technology grows by leaps and bounds so must the IDIOTIC views on any gods diminish out there....as we understand more about the universe,religious people have to further plug their ears and must scream "lalalalala,I can't hear you" at the top of their lungs and they MUST keep their eyes closed tight to avoid seeing it.

[Bad Pear]

Could the definition not also be expanded to include beliefs held without any supporting evidence? Maybe not, but if so I think this would cover the "Medieval peasant" issue above.

In any case I will say that when I first came to this forum as a YEC Christian (many years ago under a different name) that I was called delusional by several members.

Did I find it insulting? Yes.
Did I "dig my heels in"? Yes.
Did it encourage me to research ways to refute those heathen atheists? Yes.
Did this search to prove that I was not delusional eventually lead to my de-conversion? Absolutely.

There were many factors involved in my personal journey away from insanity, but I have to give partial credit to those who were not afraid to rightly humiliate me for my unjustified beliefs. To all of you bastards with balls of steel: I thank you. 

[dloubet]

Thank you for that post Bad Pear. I suspect you just articulated what many of us have been hoping all along. It's nice to see the sequence of events laid out that can potentially overcome the heel-digging we've all come to expect.

[Hatter23]

of course as technology grows faster and better so will it seem we are cavemen to a person 100 years in the future,,,just as kids today can't relate back to the 80's and wonder how people even lived in the 50's. Remember when laser weapons and technology was only in science fiction movies and TV,not anymore.

I personally have the belief that applied technology has been, paradoxically, slowing down. I know that that the futureshock paradigm of technology progressing faster is the norm, and what I am saying may seem...heretical...but hear me out.

Take a look at 1994 versus 2001 versus 2012. The cultural and technological differences between 1994 and 2001 seem pretty big when compared to 2002 and now.

Now lets double that. Look at the differences between 15 yeaars ago, 1994 versus 30 years ago, 1979.  Think about the differences between 1979 and 1994. In 1979 nearly no one owned a PC, offices were still mostly manual, broadcast TV was three channels and perhaps three more UHF stations if you were luck. Cars still used carberators. Gays still had to be in the closet. The term "oral sex" was confined to the pages of Playboy and private conversations; white males held absolute dominance in national politics. Compare that to 1994; cable tv, computerized fuel injection, the automated office, PCs were becoming household appliances with the web, rainbow pride was well known in the news.....less difference between 1994 and now than 1994 and 1979.

Lets double that again.

Sure 1979 cars had carberators, but the Japanense had unseated the US as the number one exporter, automatic tramsmission and cateletic conveters were standard. Two seperate markets, one interested in smaller efficient cars and some who wanted larger gas hogs Office work was the standard. Everone but the homeless had a telephone. News and entertainment come from a screen in peoples homes.

As opposed to 1949....the US was on the top of the world. Cars came in one size...big. Telephone service was sometimes scarce in rural communities. TV was nearly unheard of. Few people worked in an office.

And double it again 1889 versus 1949. We have far more in common with the motion picture viewing, modern thought, commuting by car person of 1949 than the horse and buggy agrarian 1889 has with 1949.

So the whole "speeding up" thing is IMNSHO a myth.

[12 Monkeys]

good points ....but we dont know what technology will be like 20 years from now.....we have a good idea of what it will be like...look at cell phones 1987 it was a giant brick with shitty reception and great expense....now it is a mobile computer with access to the net and CHEAP . We have an Idea about future innovations,but will it be based on need or want?   

Now the same time we have gone backwards cars of the 60's in Japan and Europe were getting 50 miles to the gallon with what is now ancient technology....now you are lucky to get 35 mpg in the same size car because of all the saftey innovations increase weight making modern cars less efficient because they must move the weight. put that same 2.0 L modern engine in a 1975 corolla and you may get 60 mpg

 Then there is medical science and technology

[Energized]

So what term would you "label" these people with?

Irrational.

"Delusion" is someone flying planes into a building because he thinks Allah told him to do it.

"Irrational" is the YEC who ignores physical evidence because they don't line up with his bible.

E.

[Graybeard]

Where's the difference? God told the YEC that the earth is 6000 years old.

[Hatter23]

good points ....but we dont know what technology will be like 20 years from now.....we have a good idea of what it will be like...

What 20 years from now will look like will have more to do with the destruction of the middle class, the environment, and the rise in the cost of fuel than it will have anything to do with 20 years worth of technological advances. I really hope I'm wrong.

[12 Monkeys]

So what term would you "label" these people with?

Irrational.

"Delusion" is someone flying planes into a building because he thinks Allah told him to do it.

"Irrational" is the YEC who ignores physical evidence because they don't line up with his bible.

E.

So because they dismiss the evidence they are just irrational...notice you mentioned Muslim's flying plains into buildings...so at what point does it go from irrational to delusional? Killing abortion doctors,your children or the host of other Christians who have killed for their God?

 Funny how someone who is willing to die for their religion is where you draw the line for irrational to delusional....funny also how you used a Muslim example when there are hundreds of Christian examples of the same violent act

[12 Monkeys]

good points ....but we dont know what technology will be like 20 years from now.....we have a good idea of what it will be like...

What 20 years from now will look like will have more to do with the destruction of the middle class, the environment, and the rise in the cost of fuel than it will have anything to do with 20 years worth of technological advances. I really hope I'm wrong.

Great points empires come and go like the tide

[Energized]

I think it's a fine line between the two.

On the one hand, you have a YEC who does the math of the timeline of the bible and comes to the conclusion that the earth is only 6,000 years old. And no matter what evidence you bring to him, he won't believe it.

On the other hand, you have a christian that believes god speaks to him directly and tells him to kill the local abortion doctor.

Both are dangerous to varying degrees, but based on the definition, being deluded involves a hallucination (that a diety is physically instructing you), as opposed to someone reading false information and believing it.

E.

[12 Monkeys]

I think it's a fine line between the two.

On the one hand, you have a YEC who does the math of the timeline of the bible and comes to the conclusion that the earth is only 6,000 years old. And no matter what evidence you bring to him, he won't believe it.

On the other hand, you have a christian that believes god speaks to him directly and tells him to kill the local abortion doctor.

Both are dangerous to varying degrees, but based on the definition, being deluded involves a hallucination (that a diety is physically instructing you), as opposed to someone reading false information and believing it.

E.

So you are saying if they fail to educate themselves and just believe what they read,despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary they are OK? is it ignorance that leaves them this way,or is it something else?

[Energized]

So you are saying if they fail to educate themselves and just believe what they read,despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary they are OK?

Again, i think it's a fine line. Someone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old really isn't hurting anyone. Someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old and refuses to allow their kids into the public school system because they teach differently is worse. Someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old and kills paleontologists is dangerous. But still only irrational if he only acts based on what he has read.

Someone who believes the earth if 6000 years old because the lord gad almighty spoke to him in a vision is deluded.

is it ignorance that leaves them this way,or is it something else?

Willfull ignorance, perhaps? I think anyone that takes any opinion at face value without investigating it and lives their life based on it, is simply irrational.

E.

[Nam]

Hatter23,

People know that I like calling people "idiot". But, I don't do it all the time. It has more effect when I use it in certain times, rather than all the time. But, I feel people are idiots or say idiotic things all the time. But I don't use the word or variations of it all the time. I use it when I know it'll have an effect.

People who call people "delusional" on here, without thought to do so, really has no effect. Mainly because a good percentage of people on here use it all the time. Therefore, it becomes meaningless.

To your first point: while those things may be true, for the most part, billions of people think that way. All those people, in regard to the other definitions that most people recognize rather than the one I provide, think of those things when you call them "delusional", and a good portion of them, I feel, do not represent such definition.

12 Monkeys,

I wouldn't label them as anything. As I mention to Hatter23 above, I sometimes refer to people as an "idiot" but I don't do it all the time, I use it when it has an effect. And, usually it's based on what they say or do rather than what they believe.

It doesn't matter whether it's true or, not, what matters is the effect. The effect they see based on atheists calling them that, and based on the effect for the one using it.

The only effect I see is, from their point-of-view: everything they tell me about atheists are true. Now, maybe saying that to a person who is already questioning their beliefs may have an effect: but to those who don't? I don't believe it does.

Your last line of your comment, I feel, proves my point. People want there to be something else after death. They want to be reunited with their loved ones. This is not delusional, this is false hope.

kindred,

Only at the point, I feel, the discussion with the person has escalated to the point where pointing out the delusion or idiocy would be warranted. Not before.

bertaberts,

You think the vast majority of people in the world need treatment and medication? That, in itself, seems delusional. Most are religious because they were born into it: i.e. brainwashed. Being of said state-of-mind doesn't make them delusional, it makes them ignorant of reality based on said premise. Ignorance is not the same as delusional.

When you have educational systems teaching things that others have shown to not be true, you're now debating against those educational systems.

Graybeard,

I know there's more to it, that's why I said "basic definition". It's the one definition that the dictionaries I looked up agreed upon, and therefore why I used it, and not all the others.

Energized,

I agree with both your points.

-Nam

[bertatberts]

If a person has all the access needed to the knowledge the world can provide, yet still holds a belief in a deity, then that person is delusional, if the person doesn't, then that person is ignorant and deluded.

However even then, both have a delusional disorder, and will need help, to some it will be education, if they accept it. And to the other medication.

You think the vast majority of people in the world need treatment and medication?

No only those that I've stated. (blue bolded above)

That, in itself, seems delusional. Most are religious because they were born into it: i.e. brainwashed.

Agreed hence the specification (blue bolded above)

Being of said state-of-mind doesn't make them delusional, it makes them ignorant of reality based on said premise. Ignorance is not the same as delusional.

Agreed if they don't have access, as stated. (red bolded above)

When you have educational systems teaching things that others have shown to not be true, you're now debating against those educational systems.

Well of course, goes with out saying.

[Nam]

bertaberts,

Take away 3rd world[1] societies then what's left is how many people?

You have North America, parts of Central and South America, pretty much all of Europe, parts of the Middle East, China[2], Russia, other parts of Asia, Australia, New Zealand, etc., that's not a few thousand people, that's not even a few million people, that's over a billion people[3]. Over a billion people you believe should be in treatment and on medication. But for a select few[4] everyone in the world is basically delusional and should seek professional help.

That's what I got from your comment.

-Nam

1.	since 2nd World is closely related to 1st World
2.	minus the rural areas
3.	perhaps even more than that
4.	few compared to that number

[Gnu Ordure]

Could the definition not also be expanded to include beliefs held without any supporting evidence?

I don't think so; because a belief held without supporting evidence might actually be true, and therefore not a delusion.

In order to demonstrate a delusion, one has to produce contrary evidence, as Bert cited:

Delusion: A false belief or wrong judgment, sometimes associated with hallucinations, held with conviction despite evidence to the contrary.
http://stedmansonline.com/ Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 28th Edition, Copyright© 2006_Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

The problem with this is that as far as theism goes, athiests have no evidence to the contrary; they have no proof of the non-existence of gods, and the best argument they have is the absense of evidence on the theists' side. But that doesn't meet Stedman's definition.

Likewise, as far as atheism goes, there is no solid evidence to the contrary; theists have no proof of the existence of gods, and the evidence they do have is unconvincing.

So there is a stalemate; theists think atheists are delusional, and vice-versa; and neither side can prove their point.

So the labelling and name-calling seem rather pointless.