Delusional

[HAL]

It is reasonable to ask religious believers to prove their God is real because their subsequent failure to do so drives home the point to them and onlookers that their ridiculous beliefs have zero sound evidence or sound arguments to support them.

It would be unreasonable to expect them to prove it, but I don’t.

All I’m saying is that using the words prove and proof is reasonable. Look again at the meaning of prove from the OED: to demonstrate the truth or existence of something by evidence or argument. Isn’t that what you are asking religious believers to do when you say “just show the evidence”? You seem to be arguing here just for the sake of it.

If they can define how they would prove it exists, then do so, I would allow the word proof to be used.

Tell me what evidence would prove a god exists first, then gather it and present it. No theist can prove a god exists because they can't define what it is that would constitute the proof or if they do, it can be explained by other means. Even when they do define a term, such as "supernatural" again they cannot gather evidence for even the supporting items required for the proof.

If you can't even define the problem or demonstrate the underlying supporting terms you certainly cannot follow through to an "proof".

[Hatter23]

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.

That's when people talk of the Deist god...I don't use the word delusional. It is in regard to the interventionist god or gods(like Yahweh) there is overwhelming evidence of nonexistence and to ignore this evidence...say the non-healing of amputees, the Epicurus proof, the repeated historical, scientific, and fossil evidence of the inaccuracy of holy texts, that gods fall and rise or evolve like any other legend showing they are a cultural artifact, and that every gnostic religious stance must stumble over special pleading, things like that.

[Bad Pear]

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.

Sorry if this has been mentioned already; I'm in China and my connection sucks at the moment, so I'm having issues loading the other pages.

I feel I have to bicker with this a bit Gnu. I see your point about merely lacking evidence not being grounds for the label and I agree. I would also agree that calling a deist delusional would be silly as there is no evidence to contradict their belief, but a theist is a whole other ballgame. The theist's inability to answer the primary question that this very site addresses is, in my opinion, a form of contradictory evidence against the specific god that Jesus describes. I would argue that almost any time someone claims the existence of a specific god with specific attributes that there likely exists mounds of contradictory evidence.

Hell, we have theists come here all of the time to argue the site's primary question. They are presented with Biblical citations and irrefutable proof that God does not (at a minimum) answer all prayers, and yet they still hold on to their original view of "him". The YEC Christian would likely fit the same bill.

TLDR: Calling someone delusional simply for believing in an untestable higher power is pointless. Calling someone delusional for believing in a specific higher power that can be proven to not exist in that specific way is, IMO, accurate.

*Edit: Likewise (and I'll probably catch heat for this but it's the truth) calling an atheist who states with certainty that there absolutely is no god a fool is also accurate. You simply cannot know.

[Bad Pear]

Damn, Hatter beat me to it. Good show old chap. 

[screwtape]

*Edit: Likewise (and I'll probably catch heat for this but it's the truth) calling an atheist who states with certainty that there absolutely is no god a fool is also accurate. You simply cannot know.

Not heat, but a question. 

What about someone who says without question there is no Zeus?  No Odin?  No mermaids?  No chupacabra?

[Karl]

... 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.

I see your point, but look around you. I had a discussion with an evangelist Cab Driver in Guayaquil lately. I am sort of hopeless now. I got home safely though. Then again, get the meat out of the fridge, have a cold beer and enjoy reality without repent.

[Nam]

12 Monkeys,

Perhaps I am delusional in thinking that but I guess I have higher hopes for all people rather than a select few.

bertaberts,

It's relevant based on you stating that those you refer as "delusional" as those who have the information yet either choose to ignore it, or are oblivious to it based on their beliefs. From your statement, of such, you seem to think a great deal of people, not a few, should be on medication and in a treatment program because they must be ill, or something. I disagree with such a statement and point-of-view.

Those people who follow their religions to the letter, such as fundamentalists, I would contend have delusional state-of-minds but as it has been proven on this website and others, the vast majority of those who follow a particular religion are "cherry pickers", orhaven't even read their holy books, and those people usually only cherry pick the "good" rather than the "bad" parts. I don't see those people as delusional. Misinformed, perhaps but not delusional.

Actually they are your words, I just paraphrased it from your opinion on the matter (that I am sure you see as a fact).[1]

Actually, bertaberts, some people on this website have said that's exactly what'd they do if a religious person made it known to them that they were. I just don't see the point in it except for self-gratification. I understand for the fundamentalists, or the bizarre religious act by a theist but for every single one of them? I don't get it.

-Nam

1.	in concern to "your words not mine" part

[Hatter23]

It's relevant based on you stating that those you refer as "delusional" as those who have the information yet either choose to ignore it, or are oblivious to it based on their beliefs. From your statement, of such, you seem to think a great deal of people, not a few, should be on medication and in a treatment program because they must be ill, or something. I disagree with such a statement and point-of-view.

Just because a person has a delusion does not mean they are ill to a point of medication and treatment, no more than acne, being a skin infection, requires medication and treatment. When acne reaches a point that it interfere's with a person's health and well being...and that does happen....would such be needed. Below a minimal level, extraordinary measures to eliminate acne would do more harm than good.

But to not treat acne as a skin infection, but to treat it as society treats religion...as a good...is the equivalent of rubbing your kids faces with rancid grease filled with Propionibacterium, hoping for acne to develop and flourish.

[Nam]

Hatter23,

Nonsense. Equating a skin disease to what is percieved a mental disease. You would have had a better convincing if you used a mental disease vs. What everyone considers to be equally a mental disease but then what disease equates to mass delusion?

-Nam

[jdawg70]

Hatter23,

Nonsense. Equating a skin disease to what is percieved a mental disease. You would have had a better convincing if you used a mental disease vs. What everyone considers to be equally a mental disease but then what disease equates to mass delusion?

-Nam

---------------------------------------------------
Just because a person has a delusion does not mean they are ill to a point of medication and treatment, no more than depression, being another mental disorder, requires medication and treatment. When depression reaches a point that it interferes with a person's health and well being...and that does happen....would such be needed. Below a minimal level, extraordinary measures to eliminate depression would do more harm than good.

But to not treat depression as a mental disorder, but to treat it as society treats religion...as a good...is the equivalent of filtering out serotonin from the body and fostering social dejection hoping for depression to develop and flourish.
---------------------------------------------------

That's pretty close to what I think you're looking to argue against Nam.  Hatter23, is that substitution valid?

[Nam]

Depression is a mental disorder, religion isn't.

-Nam

[Bad Pear]

*Edit: Likewise (and I'll probably catch heat for this but it's the truth) calling an atheist who states with certainty that there absolutely is no god a fool is also accurate. You simply cannot know.

Not heat, but a question. 

What about someone who says without question there is no Zeus?  No Odin?  No mermaids?  No chupacabra?

I feel like an answer to this was implied in the first part of my post,  but in case it wasn't clear the answer is no. It is perfectly acceptable to deny the existence of specific, testable claims. I can claim with reasonable certainty that there is no invisable/intangible unicorn sitting next to me,  but I cannot claim it with absolute certainty. 

Of course the very fact that it is untestable makes trying to argue the point rather. ...pointless imo.

[Bad Pear]

Depression is a mental disorder, religion isn't.

-Nam

If 95%+ of humanity were depressed would it still be a mental disorder?

[Nam]

Being depressed isn't the same thing as being or having clinical depression.

-Nam

[stuffin]

There seems to be two different points being maintained.

1-   The extreme believer - a person who speaks in tongues, feels god is in their body or with them, they see god's hands in almost everything that happens in their daily lives, quote or have scripture on display (office/car/etc.) you get the idea. We all probably agree the extreme believer came be considered delusional.

2-    The mainstream (and casual) believer - These are the people who “cherry pick” the bible, go to church on Sunday’s, and have never challenged the scriptures. The mainstream/casual believer is being seen as normal because their behavior is considered the accepted norm by society.

My question regarding the difference is where does one draw the line?

My concern is the mainstream/casual believer. Both these groups have a strong connection to an imaginary entity; so what makes the mainstream guy saner? Are you telling me belief in an un-provable deity is sane?  If so, wouldn’t that make us atheists delusional?

Because mainstream belief is the accepted standard, that doesn’t make it healthy. The treatment is not medications but education.  When you try to educate (confront) these mainstreamers, even on the simplest level, most of these mainstreamers panic. Granted the panic is not that of shooter in the area, but there is turmoil in their mind. Recently, whenever I have had the opportunity, I have told people (mainstreamers) “I don’t believe in god, I’m an atheist.”

No you’re not. You can’t be telling the truth. Stop fooling around. Don’t say such a thing. MICKEY!

These were some of the common responses I’ve gotten.
 
When confronted (even on the simplest level) these mainstreamers vehemently reject the concept their imaginary entity doesn’t exist. This is reminds me of a person/child who refuses to take their medication. We accept all this as normal because our Constitution grants the mainstreamers, also the extreme believers, the right to have delusions.  What a beautiful fucking country.     

Interesting side; I once treated a person with Scrupulosity

What is Scrupulosity?

A form of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) involving religious or moral
obsessions. Scrupulous individuals are overly concerned that something they thought or
did might be a sin or other violation of religious or moral doctrine.
What are the symptoms of scrupulosity?

Common obsessions seen in scrupulosity include excessive concerns about:

• Blasphemy
• Having committed a sin
• Behaving morally
• Purity
• Going to hell
• Death
• A loss of impulse control

[Hatter23]

Hatter23,

Nonsense. Equating a skin disease to what is percieved a mental disease. You would have had a better convincing if you used a mental disease vs. What everyone considers to be equally a mental disease but then what disease equates to mass delusion?

-Nam

It is called an analogy. Really. Yes depression works as a good substitution.

[Hatter23]

There seems to be two different points being maintained.

Actually I like how the way "delusion" is used in the G.U.R.P.S role playing game.

Take the Delusion: Purple things are alive

One delusion – “Purple things are alive”, 4 levels of effect
1 point (quirk) – Smile at and occasionally pet purple things
5 points (minor) – Don’t talk about secret things if purple things are in the room
10 points (major) – Organise protests and petition the government for Fair Treatment for purple things
15 points (severe) – Attack any and all purple things on sight.


They are all delusions, but how severe they are is directly relative as to how it affects the delusional person;s behavior.

1 point (quirk) Your typical C & E er who goes to church twice a year
5 points (minor) A devout Catholic who puts some bucks into the collections basket and goes to church 3 times a month, and feels guilty if they use a condom
10 points (major) Operation Rescue Member lobbies to eliminate evolution in schools
15 Points (severe) Abortion Clinic Bomber/Al Queda operative.

[Hatter23]

Depression is a mental disorder, religion isn't.

-Nam

Ahh but that's the crux of the issue. I am saying it is, but not a chemical one. And Furthermore I am saying delusions are such a common disorder, that everyone is likely to have had at least one at some point or another, like a bout of depression.

[Bad Pear]

Being depressed isn't the same thing as being or having clinical depression.

-Nam

You're missing the point of what I am saying. I was referring to clinical depression, so we are back to pretending that 95%+ of humanity has it. Is it still a mental disorder at that point or is it simply the norm? If that were the situation you would have said "Euphoria is a mental disorder,  religion is not".

[bertatberts]

It's relevant based on you stating that those you refer as "delusional" as those who have the information yet either choose to ignore it, or are oblivious to it based on their beliefs. From your statement, of such, you seem to think a great deal of people, not a few, should be on medication and in a treatment program because they must be ill, or something. I disagree with such a statement and point-of-view.

It is your prerogative.

However if a person expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
I.E. even though there is evidence to the contrary, or that the idea appears to exert an undue influence on the person's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.

And there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the person is questioned about it or the person tends to be humourless and over-sensitive, especially about the belief.

And any attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.

And it is becomes even worse if the person is over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche. Then that person is delusional, without a doubt.

Those people who follow their religions to the letter, such as fundamentalists, I would contend have delusional state-of-minds but as it has been proven on this website and others, the vast majority of those who follow a particular religion are "cherry pickers", or haven't even read their holy books, and those people usually only cherry pick the "good" rather than the "bad" parts. I don't see those people as delusional. Misinformed, perhaps but not delusional.

And I ask why do you consider they are not delusional? You have yet to answer just expressing your opinion isn't cutting it.

Why do you consider they are not delusional?

How would you define the difference between a man who believes he hears god and a man who just hears voices? In what way can you demonstrate whether the voice of god real? if you can't demonstrate it is real then your only course of action is to see it as a delusion.

Actually they are your words, I just paraphrased it from your opinion on the matter (that I am sure you see as a fact).

So you made up your own version, so not my words yours. These are my words

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. 

Note that I never say.

everyone in the world is basically delusional and should seek professional help.

And in particular note that I state that for some it

will be education

So no sir not my words yours.

Actually, bertaberts, some people on this website have said that's exactly what'd they do if a religious person made it known to them that they were. I just don't see the point in it except for self-gratification. I understand for the fundamentalists, or the bizarre religious act by a theist but for every single one of them? I don't get it.

Well again that is your prerogative. I'm not going to try and change your mind for you; only you can learn to see sense.

Depression is a mental disorder, religion isn't.

-Nam

Why not! Explain.

[Nam]

Hatter23,

Didn't you read the "Analogies" topic.

To your second post to me, after that one, "religion" itself isn't a delusion. It is the makeup, or basic principle wrapped around what "we" perceive to be the delusion: i.e. "god".

I mean, would you consider those who follow atheistic religions to be delusional?

Bad Pear,

You're pretending that 95% of the population is clinically depressed, I'm not. Or, you actually believe it, either way...

bertaberts,

You're equating all, but your selected criteria, as being so, without any actual evidence, per person you're accusing of being "delusional". The average religious person, where I live in the southern US, doesn't act like that. They usually act like we're crazy or dismissive. That's denial, not delusion.

I hear voices. They don't tell me what to do, or have conversations with me. They are primarily what I feel are "echoes". Just yesterday I swear I heard someone call my name. I went to see, and nothing was there. I went back to what I was doing.  I have even attempted to hear things with my ears with just thinking about a certain thing, and I heard something. Which is why I conclude they are "echoes".

Does that make me delusional? I'm hearing things? I must be. I mean, I don't think it's the devil or god or what not but how is that different from a person who does?

They try to explain it with religion, and I try to explain it with logic. We both use the crux we know.

That's the best way I can answer your question.

I never said "everyone" was the paraphrase. The paraphrase is reply #25, page 1:

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

That's the paraphrase. Reply #27 is my OPINION of such a viewpoint.

Next time: quote me correctly.

-Nam

[bertatberts]

bertaberts,

You're equating all, but your selected criteria, as being so, without any actual evidence, per person you're accusing of being "delusional". The average religious person, where I live in the southern US, doesn't act like that. They usually act like we're crazy or dismissive. That's denial, not delusion.

I hear voices. They don't tell me what to do, or have conversations with me. They are primarily what I feel are "echoes". Just yesterday I swear I heard someone call my name. I went to see, and nothing was there. I went back to what I was doing.  I have even attempted to hear things with my ears with just thinking about a certain thing, and I heard something. Which is why I conclude they are "echoes".

Does that make me delusional? I'm hearing things? I must be. I mean, I don't think it's the devil or god or what not but how is that different from a person who does?

They try to explain it with religion, and I try to explain it with logic. We both use the crux we know.

That's the best way I can answer your question.

Sorry doesn't cut it, that just dodges the issue. Everybody hears things it whether those things are considered real or not. That makes the difference.
How would you define the difference between a man who believes he hears god and a man who just hears voices? The answer is you cant they are both clearly delusional.

Do the people you know act in anyway like that of the criteria I put forward I.E. does any person express an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force?
Or does the idea appears to exert an undue influence on the person's life, and their way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent?

And there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the person is questioned about it or the person tends to be humourless and over-sensitive, especially about the belief?

And any attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility?

And it is becomes even worse if the person is over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche? If you answer yes to any of those conditions then that person is delusional.

I never said "everyone" was the paraphrase. The paraphrase is reply #25, page 1:

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

That's the paraphrase. Reply #27 is my OPINION of such a viewpoint.

Irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that your opinion in reply #27  as you said

Over a billion people you believe should be in treatment and on medication. But for a select few everyone in the world is basically delusional and should seek professional help.

That's what I responded too with "your words not mine". in my reply of #57 page 2:

Next time: quote me correctly.

I did.

[Nam]

bertaberts,

Well, then, I must be delusional.

No, you didn't quote me properly. You stated the second quote was my paraphrasing, and it wasn't. Reply 25 was my paraphrasing. The second one was my viewpoint of such a ridiculous comment.

I admit I was wrong in reply 57, I think, stating that those were your words but that statement based on what actually was paraphrased of your words in reply 25 was made by the viewpoint you seem to hold for "everyone" in the world you consider to be "basically delusional" by your set criteria.

You stated my paraphrasing was of reply 27, of what you quoted but my paraphrasing was of reply 25. Perhaps, if anything, it was miscommunication more on my part than yours. But, it is "basically" your stance on the issue since only a very small percentage of the world is atheistic in the sense "they know god doesn't exist", which apparently you're one of them[1], and therefore becomes concluded in such thought.

-Nam

1.	which could be said is a delusional state-of-mind since one says they know something to be true without any evidence to back it up

[HAL]

Well, then, I must be delusional.

Sig Alert! Sig Alert! Get it while it's hot!

[Hatter23]

Hatter23,

Didn't you read the "Analogies" topic.

Yes, but I can't quit them. I've been using analogies all my life to try to explain things to people who aren't as versed in a subject. I regularly use them at work as I've got to explain how tax law works to the general public.

To your second post to me, after that one, "religion" itself isn't a delusion. It is the makeup, or basic principle wrapped around what "we" perceive to be the delusion: i.e. "god".

I mean, would you consider those who follow atheistic religions to be delusional?

If you want to split hairs, religion itself isn't a delusion. Remember I did say Deists weren't delusional. It is the belief set that comes with religion 999 times out a 1000 that's delusional. Any concept of a soul, an interventionist god, or a belief that prayer affects the world outside of your mind...all delusions. So yes even every atheistic religion I've encountered still qualifies. The only one I can think of that doesn't(and it isn't atheist) is Deism. Yes even Buddhism qualifies, but in its most abstract form barely so because reincarnation does not match biology and Karma implies morality is objective.

[Nam]

Hatter23,

I believe I have a soul. I explained why to another atheist member in pm a while back. Perhaps if he or she remembers and still has the pm, they can copy/post it here. If not, then I can copy it but i'd first have to write on paper, then type it here. I believe they accepted my premise.

I wonder, does that make them delusional, too?

-Nam

[bertatberts]

bertaberts,<snip> But, it is "basically" your stance on the issue since only a very small percentage of the world is atheistic in the sense "they know god doesn't exist", which apparently you're one of them[1], and therefore becomes concluded in such thought.

-Nam

1.	which could be said is a delusional state-of-mind since one says they know something to be true without any evidence to back it up

Now your thinking for me too!

I have never said anywhere that a god/gods cannot exist, I have never come across any atheist that would state that absolutely.
 
It is an infantile position, to even contemplate, as nobody could know, So the most that could be said is, I'm 99% sure that god/gods do not exist, as I cannot look under every nook and crannie in the entire universe, therefore I nor anybody else could state a god/gods do not exist.

It is infantile in the extreme of you to even suggest it.

And you still haven't answered my questions?

[Hatter23]

Hatter23,

I believe I have a soul. I explained why to another atheist member in pm a while back. Perhaps if he or she remembers and still has the pm, they can copy/post it here. If not, then I can copy it but i'd first have to write on paper, then type it here. I believe they accepted my premise.

I wonder, does that make them delusional, too?

-Nam

Depends on your definition of a soul. IIRC, your's was the "software" produced by your brain...and it neither predated nor postdated death. I.E. nothing was in direct contradiction to available evidence, therefore no delusion.

[Bad Pear]

Bad Pear,

You're pretending that 95% of the population is clinically depressed, I'm not. Or, you actually believe it, either way...

No, I'm not. I was presenting a hypothetical situation and asking you a question based on it. I am not pretending that 95% of the population is actually clinically depressed. Here is my original post, edited to satisfy your pedantry.

Depression is a mental disorder, religion isn't.

-Nam

If 95%+ of humanity met the criteria for clinical depression[1][/b] would it still be a mental disorder?

1.

The specific disorder here is not important. You asserted that clinical depression is a mental disorder. I agree with you. That is, however, irrelevant to the point. You could have said "Peanutbuttereggdirt is a mental disorder, religion isn't" and my question would have been "If 95% of humanity had peanutbuttereggdirt would it still be a mental disorder".

You have yet to give me a straight answer.