Author Topic: Delusional  (Read 8020 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #261 on: August 26, 2012, 06:40:22 PM »
jamiehlers,

That's my reply to your first comment. I'm not ignoring anything. I can't help if you don't care for the answer, or doesn't suit to your viewpoint of how a response should be.

I was going to reply with this to 3sigma but my phone rang and I already submitted my comment to answer the phone.

A person who says they see Jesus/Mary in food or other items, in my opinion are delusional. The reason why is mainly for 2 reasons:

1. No one knows what either 2 of those people look like or even if they existed.
2. The fact in using such images confirms their belief.

A person who says Satan or God told them to kill people is an insane mindset with delusional aspects. However, believing a god exists, is not delusional. If anything it's ignorance. Or willful ignorance. Or, an uneducated mind.

The act of belief in things are not, in themselves, delusional unless one side can show with unbiased evidence that it is. You can't do that with belief (as a whole), and you can't do that with the existance of a deity.

Religious people are, for the most part, ignorant, not delusional. What we believe to be true, is always quite different than what actually is or could be true.

It's that simple.

-Nam



« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 06:42:13 PM by Nam »
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Delusional
« Reply #262 on: August 26, 2012, 06:41:36 PM »

Religious people are, for the most part, ignorant, not delusional. What we believe to be true, is always quite different than what actually is or could be true.

It's that simple.

-Nam

If only it were that simple.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #263 on: August 26, 2012, 06:47:15 PM »
I would like to say as a side note: I've never had a topic that lasted this many pages that wasn't in the Bottomless Pit. I'm proud of myself.

Anyway... back to topic.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Delusional
« Reply #264 on: August 26, 2012, 07:28:10 PM »
What lie? It's what you said.

No, I haven’t said that the only people who make unsupported claims are theists. You really are beginning to annoy me.

I was going to reply with this to 3sigma but my phone rang and I already submitted my comment to answer the phone.

A person who says they see Jesus/Mary in food or other items, in my opinion are delusional.

1. No one knows what either 2 of those people look like or even if they existed.
2. The fact in using such images confirms their belief.

Finally, you are giving examples of behaviour you think is delusional. If people who use an image of Jesus in a piece of toast to confirm their beliefs are delusional then what about people who think they have a personal relationship with their God without any external evidence to confirm it at all? Are they delusional? How about people who think their God is communicating with them or sending them signs—something other than an image in a piece of toast like… a meteor, perhaps? Are they delusional?

What would religious believers be limited to believing for you to say they aren’t being delusional? For example, would they only believe their God is real, but not believe that it performs miracles, answers prayers, has a personal relationship with them, communicates with them, sends them signs of its existence or interacts with the real world in any way?

I would like to say as a side note: I've never had a topic that lasted this many pages that wasn't in the Bottomless Pit. I'm proud of myself.

How old are you? I'm actually curious to know.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #265 on: August 26, 2012, 08:01:30 PM »
3sigma,

The lie you told is you referencing me as stating the definition I used throughout the topic is the medical definition; which you proceeded to quote me from responses to different people as evidence that's the definition I've been using. That's the lie.

Can you provide evidence they do not have a personal relationship withtheir deity? I don't think you can.

The rest read as irrelevant or just blah.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Delusional
« Reply #266 on: August 26, 2012, 08:39:10 PM »
The lie you told is you referencing me as stating the definition I used throughout the topic is the medical definition; which you proceeded to quote me from responses to different people as evidence that's the definition I've been using. That's the lie.

No, I didn’t say you stated it. I said you seemed to think it, just as you said I seem to think that it is only theists who make unsupported claims. Will you please stop these childish accusations of lying.

Quote
Can you provide evidence they do not have a personal relationship withtheir deity? I don't think you can.

You are evading my questions by asking an irrelevant question in response. The point is that they believe they have a personal relationship with their God and use it to confirm their belief that their God is real. I asked you whether you would consider people who hold such a belief to be delusional in the same way you consider to be delusional people who use an image on a piece of toast to confirm their belief that their God is real. At least the actual image on the toast has an objective existence whereas their personal relationship is necessarily subjective.

What would religious believers be limited to believing for you to say they aren’t being delusional? For example, would they only believe their God is real, but not believe that it performs miracles, answers prayers, has a personal relationship with them, communicates with them, sends them signs of its existence or interacts with the real world in any way?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #267 on: August 26, 2012, 09:16:00 PM »
Yeah, "seemed to think", that's why someone goes to all the trouble of going page-to-page quoting comments that don't even imply it from my point-of-view but no, I just seemed to think it. One would think if I thunk it that'd been the definition I would've used in my OP--oh, no, you must be right.

Please...

However, in reference to my comment to Hal, I forget why I mention you with pianodwarf in the same vein so I will retract. There is a reason, I may have em dashed myself and forgot to put in the reference, and I can't remember it at the moment[1] so I retract that only.

My question was my answer to all your "blah" questions. They have their own separate sections of answers not one. You, I feel, just want one which is why I answered it with a question.

-Nam

 1. you have no idea how many em dashes in my head there is; I'm like Emily Dickinson
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 09:21:40 PM by Nam »
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4736
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Delusional
« Reply #268 on: August 26, 2012, 09:17:08 PM »
jamiehlers,

That's my reply to your first comment. I'm not ignoring anything. I can't help if you don't care for the answer, or doesn't suit to your viewpoint of how a response should be.
If you don't answer something because you think it's "irrelevant", or whatever excuse you use, then you're dodging.  While appropriate for dodgeball, it's wholly inappropriate for a discussion.  I get too much of it from theists to be willing to even slightly tolerate it from someone who should, in theory, know better.  That also applies to answering a question with a question, since it works the same way.

Quote from: Nam
A person who says they see Jesus/Mary in food or other items, in my opinion are delusional. The reason why is mainly for 2 reasons:

1. No one knows what either 2 of those people look like or even if they existed.
2. The fact in using such images confirms their belief.
I hope you understand that this is practically identical to my "Vulcans from Andromeda" scenario.  In other words, if someone makes a claim that can't be verified, because there is no way to verify it, then you consider them to be delusional.

Quote from: Nam
A person who says Satan or God told them to kill people is an insane mindset with delusional aspects. However, believing a god exists, is not delusional. If anything it's ignorance. Or willful ignorance. Or, an uneducated mind.
Certainly, such a belief is ignorant and is not necessarily delusional.  But it can also be delusional, if they start inventing attributes for this god of theirs.  To use your own words from above, no one knows what any of the attributes of such a god are or even if such attributes exist at all, and yet people use those attributes to prove the existence of their god.

Quote from: Nam
The act of belief in things are not, in themselves, delusional unless one side can show with unbiased evidence that it is. You can't do that with belief (as a whole), and you can't do that with the existance of a deity.
Herein lies the problem.  If someone states that they believe in the existence of some being, by this standard you say that they can be considered ignorant but not delusional because their belief hasn't been proved yet.  But if you have exactly the same scenario, except that they also state that the being they believe in also has various attributes which they can't verify, by your logic and your words it's perfectly acceptable to consider them delusional.

Quote from: Nam
Religious people are, for the most part, ignorant, not delusional. What we believe to be true, is always quite different than what actually is or could be true.
It's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other when you start talking about ignorance and delusions.  In my view, ignorance very often leads to delusions, because the delusions allow someone to think that they're not ignorant.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Delusional
« Reply #269 on: August 26, 2012, 09:31:49 PM »


Religious people are, for the most part, ignorant, not delusional. What we believe to be true, is always quite different than what actually is or could be true.

It's that simple.

-Nam

Not even remotely. Ignorant means "not knowing the facts." The facts are there, apparent, and widespread. So readily available are the facts that an entire industry and discipline, apologia, has been around for centuries to create ad-hoc arguments as to why those facts somehow don't count.

« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 09:34:01 PM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #270 on: August 26, 2012, 09:39:57 PM »
jaimehlers,

I never stated or implied one making highly inane observations about what they believe to be true were never delusional. My whole point has always been from page one: you can't call all theists delusional because they believe in something that can't be shown to be real even if they provide inefficient evidence or none at all. All one can do is say they are uneducated, ignorant, or willfuly ignorant.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, I have never said otherwise. However, calling someone delusional is making a claim that they are based on A, B, C, and D. Unless said person can provide unbiased evidence based on A, B, C, and D then they have a leg to stand on. If they can only do it for a couple of them, or just one--not so much.

'Til then they are just opinionsby one over the other.

--

I believe in god. --not a delusion.
I believe in a god who can grant all my prayers. -- not a delusion.
I believe that my god has granted all my prayers. --not a delusion.
God regrew my hand after it was cut off. -- delusion.
God told me to kill my parents. -- insanity with elements of delusion.
God told me to kill babies of other faiths. -- insanity with elements of delusion.

See where I'm going?

However, even if all theists were delusional: why call them that?

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #271 on: August 26, 2012, 09:45:36 PM »
Hatter23,

I've stated "wilful ignorance" quite a few times toward, I believe, you.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Delusional
« Reply #272 on: August 26, 2012, 09:56:16 PM »
Hatter23,

I've stated "wilful ignorance" quite a few times toward, I believe, you.

-Nam

Actually you did once, and I asked you to separate "willful ignorance" from the aspect of the definition of delusion that is "maintaining a belief in the face of contrary evidence" because I do not see the difference. You did not address this, and still have not addressed this. I sincerely doubt you can address this because willful ignorance is "ignoring the facts" which is the definition of delusion.

 
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Delusional
« Reply #273 on: August 26, 2012, 09:59:44 PM »


However, even if all theists were delusional: why call them that?

-Nam

I've told you, it is to knock religion off the pedestal that it currently enjoys, to be above criticism. It is this pedestal that allows it to continue to exist and do the harm in the world generation after generation after generation. Only by shattering the illusion that it is a rational and reasonable belief to have will the negative influence wane.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #274 on: August 26, 2012, 10:11:11 PM »
Hatter23,

Doesn't such a statement go to what y'all keep denying, and I keep stating is true: self-gratification?

The act[1] of giving oneself pleasure[2] or of satisfying one's own desires[3][4]

-Nam

 1. calling people delusional
 2. knowledge of theists being referred as such
 3. by calling them delusional redundantly
 4. american heritage 2000 ed.
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Delusional
« Reply #275 on: August 26, 2012, 10:30:29 PM »


Hatter23,

Doesn't such a statement go to what y'all keep denying, and I keep stating is true: self-gratification?

The act[1] of giving oneself pleasure[2] or of satisfying one's own desires[3][4]

-Nam
 1. calling people delusional
 2. knowledge of theists being referred as such
 3. by calling them delusional redundantly
 4. american heritage 2000 ed.

Then you are engaging in using what comes across as a pejorative term in such a broad way that it could be said of any and every statement ever.

So, I'll be stating every time I quote you with "Nam made this self gratifying post" if you want to play it that way.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #276 on: August 26, 2012, 10:38:35 PM »
Hatter23,

I thought that was evident?

:P

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Delusional
« Reply #277 on: August 26, 2012, 11:01:01 PM »
Can you provide evidence they do not have a personal relationship withtheir deity? I don't think you can.

Here’s the problem with that argument: it applies equally to you.

You said you consider people who use images of Jesus on pieces of toast to confirm their beliefs to be delusional. So, can you prove that it isn’t an image of Jesus placed there by God as a sign? Of course you can’t, yet you still consider those people delusional. You didn’t say that you just call them delusional for self-gratification. You said that, in your opinion, they are delusional.

So, what is the difference between using an image of Jesus on a piece of toast to confirm one’s beliefs and using a subjective personal relationship to confirm one’s beliefs? I can’t see any significant difference. If anything, the image on toast is less subjective because at least the toast is real, whereas the personal relationship is entirely within a person’s mind. What makes pareidolia delusional, but a personal relationship existing only in someone’s imagination not delusional?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #278 on: August 26, 2012, 11:31:31 PM »
3sigma,

Yes, in my opinion. Those here who call people delusional don't see it as an opinion but a fact, as they've repeatedly have told me throughout this discussion.

-Nam

A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4736
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Delusional
« Reply #279 on: August 27, 2012, 12:06:37 AM »
I never stated or implied one making highly inane observations about what they believe to be true were never delusional. My whole point has always been from page one: you can't call all theists delusional because they believe in something that can't be shown to be real even if they provide inefficient evidence or none at all. All one can do is say they are uneducated, ignorant, or willfuly ignorant.
Trying to parse things that way doesn't make a lot of sense.  Delusions that are not caused by a medical or psychiatric disorder almost always come about because of ignorance.  For example, you will not see someone who understands the mechanics behind a solar eclipse make the claim that the sun is being 'eaten' by a creature that lives in the sky.  You will not see someone who understands the mechanics behind lightning strikes claim that it's the wrath of some god smiting the sinful.  You will not see someone who understands plate tectonics claiming that an earthquake is some god shaking the earth.  All of those are delusional beliefs, which come about through ignorance.

Quote from: Nam
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, I have never said otherwise. However, calling someone delusional is making a claim that they are based on A, B, C, and D. Unless said person can provide unbiased evidence based on A, B, C, and D then they have a leg to stand on. If they can only do it for a couple of them, or just one--not so much.
So what do you men by "unbiased evidence"?  Are you saying that the words out of someone's own mouth do not qualify as "unbiased evidence"?  Because right now, it seems that way.  What a person says is itself evidence, so if you have someone making a statement of belief, that can be used as evidence as to whether they're delusional or not.

Quote from: Nam
'Til then they are just opinionsby one over the other.
Except that opinions can qualify as evidence in some cases.  For example, legal trials often use expert opinions as evidence.  So why, then, can we not use some ignorant person's opinion as evidence of something?

Quote from: Nam
I believe in god. --not a delusion.
I believe in a god who can grant all my prayers. -- not a delusion.
I believe that my god has granted all my prayers. --not a delusion.
God regrew my hand after it was cut off. -- delusion.
God told me to kill my parents. -- insanity with elements of delusion.
God told me to kill babies of other faiths. -- insanity with elements of delusion.

See where I'm going?
I disagree.  It's true that a simple statement of belief in "a god" is not delusional, because it doesn't mean anything in and of itself.  It could mean practically anything used that way.  But the moment you start assigning attributes to something that you can't prove, then it becomes a delusion.  For example, someone who believes in djinni who can grant wishes, without any evidence that such a thing actually exists, can be considered delusional, because they can't prove that the thing they believe in exists.  In short; they're making a claim about something, but they can provide no evidence that it exists at all.  Yet they believe that it exists, despite the complete lack of evidence.  How is that not a kind of delusion?

Quote from: Nam
However, even if all theists were delusional: why call them that?
That's an entirely different question; and in my opinion, one you would do far better to pursue rather than nitpicking over whether it is a delusion or not.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #280 on: August 27, 2012, 12:39:16 AM »
jamiehlers,

1st comment:

I have never heard of any of those. Either you have an inventive mind, or you know some weird people. But, you seem to be saying, and I could be wrong, but, alcohol leads to smoking pot, which leads to doing crack, which leads to doing heroin, which leads to murder, which leads to ass rape in prison! That's what you're saying, right?

Ever think that mentality was there before religion? Before ignorance? Before delusion?

Nah...

2nd comment:

Unbiased evidence is sourced material dealing with the subject but not from the subject's POV, 'cause that'd be biased; which can be collaborated by other sources, yet still holding a neutral position.

3rd comment:

And, sometimes that "opinion" by said "expert" leads innocent people to death row. Not a good example, I feel.

4th comment:

But that's been one of my consistent points: those calling people delusional usually use the "main" object (i.e. belief in god), and use the relying attributes as just cherry on the cake.

5th comment:

That question is in my OP, did you even read that?

-Nam
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 12:43:26 AM by Nam »
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5011
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Delusional
« Reply #281 on: August 27, 2012, 06:44:33 AM »
Nam, answer this question please. Several definitions of delusion are shown below. They exist because delusion is a word invented to use towards people - to apply to people (not chairs or lawn mowers) as descriptions of them. As far as I can see each of the three definitions can easily be applied to theists.

But, if you say we can't apply the definitions to theists, then please tell us what types of people the word can be applied to as a description of their mental state. Also explain in what way the type of person you say the word should be used to describe, is different than a theist.


Delusional is just the act of holding a delusion. So what does deluded mean according to the dictionaries?

delusion

de·lu·sion

noun
1.an act or instance of deluding.
2.the state of being deluded.
3.a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4.Psychiatry . a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion

delusion

de·lu·sion  (d-lzhn)
n.
1.
a. The act or process of deluding.
b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Delusional


delusion

Noun

delusion (plural delusions)

    A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.
    The state of being deluded or misled.
    That which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; false belief; error in belief.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #282 on: August 27, 2012, 07:04:06 AM »
Hal,

Never stated or implied you can't state such things about theists. If you want to call theists "delusional",go ahead. Your perogative. All I've been saying, really, is why? Whether they fit the description, definition, or whatever; why call them that? Because you can? Because they fit the definition? Because they call us immoral, so we call them delusional? Where does any of it lead? To a welcoming place? To a good place? To a positive place?

As I've stated: I enjoy calling people idiots. Mainly because almost everything they say or do is idiotic. I used to call people idiots all the time. It was seen by others as expected. But then one day I stopped doing it as often as I did. Not because the enjoyment ceased but because, after awhile, it just wasn't having the effect it used to have. Yes, it still pissed a lot of people off, which I enjoyed. Yes, I still got banned a lot for name-calling. But, it was expected. And, after awhile it just didn't seem to have the same effect. Also, I was seen as bit of an asshole, not that that bothered me, it didn't but I was projecting a negativity, even if I was right, and I usually was but it just ceased to have a worthwhile effect. But, now when I do it, it has an effect.

Because I do it sparingly.

Keep calling people delusional whether it's true or not: and in the end, you're the bad guy, and since you represent atheists being an atheist (whether you want to or not) people will just see atheists as being what's preached to them.

I mean look at at what those New Atheists are doing. Some atheists here feel they are going a bit too far. And, I'm sure, some think they aren't going far enough.

My opinion.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4736
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Delusional
« Reply #283 on: August 27, 2012, 09:24:15 AM »
I have never heard of any of those. Either you have an inventive mind, or you know some weird people.
They're all parts of actual mythologies.  The wolf that eats the sun is Viking in origin; some of the other myths about eclipses on that page are equally strange.  Lightning as the wrath of a god stems from Greek myth, specifically Zeus, the king of the gods and the wielder of the mighty thunderbolt.  Earthquakes being the work of a god is also Greek, specifically Poseidon.

Those are just scratching the surface of mythology.  The peoples who came up with them really believed those things; that wolves chased the sun and the moon and tried to eat them, that gods flung lightning bolts and shook the earth, and many more besides.  Would you consider such things delusional?

Quote from: Nam
But, you seem to be saying, and I could be wrong, but, alcohol leads to smoking pot, which leads to doing crack, which leads to doing heroin, which leads to murder, which leads to ass rape in prison! That's what you're saying, right?
Perhaps you should keep your imagination on a leash, if you come up with things like that when you exercise it.  This isn't Nam's rendition of "for want of a nail", so try to avoid such strawmen in the future.  There's a very simple fact underlying my statement that ignorance leads to delusional beliefs, which is that people try to make sense out of seeming senselessness.  That's why you have all those mythological beliefs, people trying to explain something they couldn't make sense of by the exercise of their imaginations.

Quote from: Nam
Ever think that mentality was there before religion? Before ignorance? Before delusion?
As far as we know, all three of those things were around before we had the concept of recording history.  Given that every single culture that we have any records of whatsoever have mythologies based on things they invented out of whole cloth to try to explain things they didn't understand, I think that answers your question.

Quote from: Nam
Unbiased evidence is sourced material dealing with the subject but not from the subject's POV, 'cause that'd be biased; which can be collaborated by other sources, yet still holding a neutral position.
Oh, very clever.  You've managed to come up with a definition that excludes any statement made by someone who holds possibly delusional beliefs, simply by fiat, because those statements are 'biased'.  Well, I don't agree with you or your statement that only evidence you judge as 'unbiased' is valid.  'Biased' or not, I think it's perfectly fine to use someone's own words as evidence about something they believe.

Quote from: Nam
And, sometimes that "opinion" by said "expert" leads innocent people to death row. Not a good example, I feel.
This is a strawman, Nam, and the second one you've used in this very post.  Seriously, I'm quite disappointed.  Can you not argue without coming up with ridiculous exaggerations of another person's position?  Unless you can show that experts send innocent people to death row very frequently compared to other situations (such as convicting a guilty person), your insinuation is not valid.

Quote from: Nam
But that's been one of my consistent points: those calling people delusional usually use the "main" object (i.e. belief in god), and use the relying attributes as just cherry on the cake.
In their defense, every religion ever invented has come up with statements about the universe which are almost certainly false, such as a being in the sky who throws lightning at the ground, or a wolf in the sky that tries to eat the sun.  You seem to be insisting that a belief that hasn't been proven false can't be considered delusional, but I think that's taking reasonable doubt to an absurd level.

If someone tries to argue that there's a teapot in orbit of Alpha Centauri, it may not be possible to prove that it's definitely false until we're in a position to tell for sure, but that doesn't make the belief any less delusional.  They might end up being 'right' by sheer chance, but that doesn't mean that their belief was at all reasonable, or that they didn't make it up to begin with.

Quote from: Nam
That question is in my OP, did you even read that?
As I stated, you would do far better than to pursue the question of whether it's appropriate to label people as delusional for a belief they hold than to get caught up in arguing semantics and technicalities about whether the term applies at all.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5011
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Delusional
« Reply #284 on: August 27, 2012, 10:24:49 AM »
Hal,

Never stated or implied you can't state such things about theists. If you want to call theists "delusional",go ahead. Your perogative. All I've been saying, really, is why? Whether they fit the description, definition, or whatever; why call them that? Because you can? Because they fit the definition? Because they call us immoral, so we call them delusional? Where does any of it lead? To a welcoming place? To a good place? To a positive place?

You said it - because they fit the definition.

Quote
As I've stated: I enjoy calling people idiots. Mainly because almost everything they say or do is idiotic. I used to call people idiots all the time. It was seen by others as expected. But then one day I stopped doing it as often as I did. Not because the enjoyment ceased but because, after awhile, it just wasn't having the effect it used to have. Yes, it still pissed a lot of people off, which I enjoyed. Yes, I still got banned a lot for name-calling. But, it was expected. And, after awhile it just didn't seem to have the same effect. Also, I was seen as bit of an asshole, not that that bothered me, it didn't but I was projecting a negativity, even if I was right, and I usually was but it just ceased to have a worthwhile effect. But, now when I do it, it has an effect.

I call Hummers oversized gas guzzlers because that's what they are. I call Zebras striped because that's what they are. I call Jetson, Screwtape, and Pony Admins because that's what they are. And, I call theists delusional because that's what they are ... delusional.

I think this comes under the old saying - The truth hurts.

Quote
Keep calling people delusional whether it's true or not: and in the end, you're the bad guy, and since you represent atheists being an atheist (whether you want to or not) people will just see atheists as being what's preached to them.

I don't call them delusional because it's not true, I believe in the face of the evidence they are delusional - they hold a delusion. If they said "Don't call me delusional HAL, it pisses me off!" I'd show them the definition and ask them to show me where I'm wrong about their being delusional. I've never had a theist overturn my observation that they are delusional.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +645/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Delusional
« Reply #285 on: August 27, 2012, 10:51:36 AM »
I call Jetson, Screwtape, and Pony Admins because that's what they are. ... The truth hurts.

Ow.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Delusional
« Reply #286 on: August 27, 2012, 05:26:14 PM »
As explained above, that's a misrepresentation of my position.
It appears from everything you’ve said that your position is: deluded and delusional mean the same thing within a specific context and if the context is different then the meaning may be different. Is that a fair representation?
Yes. That's what I mean.

Quote
Is it also fair to say that you think, in the context of general discussion, deluded/delusional means believing something that is not true and in the medical context, deluded/delusional means maintaining a psychotic belief despite indisputable evidence to the contrary?
Yes, that's basically it. There's a layman's definition, and a medical one, and both words can be used interchangeably in both contexts. The context determines the appropriate meaning.

And now that you seem to understand my position, what's your response, 3sigma?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #287 on: August 27, 2012, 06:54:06 PM »
jaimehlers,

1st comment:

You're talking about myths that, most likely, don't even believe in anymore. Why not, as examples, use ones that people do believe in? There's a thought.

2nd comment:

Not a strawmen.

4th comment:

Only if ones words canbe sourced neutrally.

5th comment:

Not a strawmen.

6th comment.

"In their defense" -- another one of my points.

7th comment:

I find it's always "semantics" et al, that one goes to in certain discussions dealing with one's belief, or in this case: non-belief.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Delusional
« Reply #288 on: August 27, 2012, 09:58:53 PM »
Yes, in my opinion. Those here who call people delusional don't see it as an opinion but a fact, as they've repeatedly have told me throughout this discussion.

I asked you two pertinent questions in the post above this response and I can’t see how this answers either of them. Here are the questions.

1. What is the difference between using an image of Jesus on a piece of toast to confirm one’s beliefs and using a subjective personal relationship to confirm one’s beliefs?

2. What makes pareidolia delusional, but a personal relationship existing only in someone’s imagination not delusional?

Could you try to answer those questions please?

With reference to your opinion that people are delusional when they use images of Jesus on pieces of toast to confirm their beliefs, could you also answer these questions, please? Is your opinion unwarranted, baseless or without any foundation in fact? Is there insufficient evidence to justify your opinion? Is it unreasonable or foolish to hold that opinion? Are you delusional to hold such an opinion?

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Delusional
« Reply #289 on: August 27, 2012, 10:00:08 PM »
And now that you seem to understand my position, what's your response, 3sigma?

I apologise, Gnu Ordure, I thought I had responded. I see what happened. I compose my posts offline in Word and sometimes write responses to more than one person in the same document. I had a response to Nam after yours in one document and when I submitted his response, I must have thought I’d submitted yours as well. Here is the response I wrote earlier.

Quote
So in a general discussion where atheists are not making medical diagnoses and they describe religious believers as deluded/delusional, is it reasonable to assume they are saying religious believers hold beliefs that are not true rather than saying they hold psychotic beliefs maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary?[1]
 1. even though some religious believers may hold beliefs that are maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

I’ve since gone back over this thread and I see you stated earlier that we are using the layman’s definition in this thread so I’m guessing you don’t need to respond to that question.