Would the world be better off if religious beliefs were treated as other delusions?

[el_bryanto]

Put it this way. Two people apply for a job - the first says "I have a personal relationship with Napoleon" the second says "I have a personal relationship with God." Right now the first would require additional scrutiny if not outright rejection. Should both require additional scrutiny if not outright rejection.

Edited to address Cleanhippies poisoning the well concerns.

Bryant

10 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Definitely
	4 (40%)
	Probably
	1 (10%)
	Maybe
	0 (0%)
	Probably not
	1 (10%)
	Definitely not
	1 (10%)
	You haven't defined your terms accurately enough
	0 (0%)
	You should consider shutting the fuck up.
	2 (20%)
	I like to vote!
	1 (10%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[cleanhippie]

1. Poison the well much?

Candidate A is portrayed as an obvious lunatic that believes he is a long-dead historical character, while candidate B is portrayed as a stand-up guy who happens to believe in a god.

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

There is this thing called false equivocation you should look into.

[el_bryanto]

4. He's only seen as a stand up guy because his religious beliefs are accepted in society

Isn't that the argument of the other thread? Someone who says "I have a personal relationship with God" is the equivalent of "I have a personal relationship with this 9 foot invisible rabbit here."

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

8. You should reword your question to read like that.

Candidate A has a personal relationship with Napoleon while candidate B has a personal relationship with Jesus.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Both are making unfounded, unprovable metaphysical claims.

I can no more disprove that hypothetical job applicant number one ISN'T a reincarnated Napoleon, any more than I can disprove a person having a close personal relationship with god.

Both claims are equally delusional, as far as I can tell.

[gcomeau]

13. Perhaps you should consider what you're saying.

The only basis upon which you call the former an obvious lunatic and the latter a stand up guy is that you recognize that the thing the former guy believes is ridiculous but do not acknowledge that believing that you have a personal relationship with an all powerful magical super being that created the entire universe (which, by the way, generally comes along with the associated belief that long dead historical figures have risen from the dead on at least one claimed occasion) is equally ridiculous.


Perhaps you would care to formulate an argument as to how the former is more lunatic than the latter without resorting to blatantly obvious logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum?

[cleanhippie]

34. Perhaps you should consider telling that to the OP.

Careful though, you will be "on the record."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218126607#post6

[gcomeau]

42. Why?

You're the one that made the accusation I'm disputing, not the OP. What point would there be for me to address my response to your post to someone who didn't write it?

[cleanhippie]

53. I'm confused.

Are you telling me that there is not false equivalency in the OP's scenario due to the societal acceptance of religious belief?

Perhaps I have mistaken your point.

[gcomeau]

65. Yes, I'm telling you there is not a false equivalency.

Unless you can explain how there is one in a manner that goes beyond the general level of "Belief in God is accepted by more people therefore it's ok but belief in being Napoleon makes you a lunatic".

[cleanhippie]

82. So the OP's poll question is valid?

You do realize that the OP is being facetious and sarcastic, right?

[gcomeau]

84. I don't care if that was or wasn't his intention.

The question is, in fact, valid. Whether he recognized it or not.

[cleanhippie]

87. I agree that in practice, this scenario is treated with respect.

That doesn't mean it's not comparing apples and oranges.

As I replied to the OP, a better scenario might be candidate A has a personal relationship with a god while candidate B has a personal relationship with Napoleon.


Objectively, one must concede that both candidates hold equally absurd or equally valid beliefs, no?

[gcomeau]

98. "Apples and oranges..."

I've pointed out that there appears to be nothing "apples and oranges" about the original formulation of the question. I also invited you to explain how they are "apples and oranges" if you disagree.

Yes, your scenario is a valid way to formulate the question... but not noticeably more valid that the OPs. I see nothing about the first person's beliefs that could be argued to carry any greater degree of absurdity than the second persons.


What does person 1 believe? That he's Napolean. Ok... well I can think of only three things that could entail (although I'm open to other possibilities)


1. He believes he's been reincarnated.
2. He believes he's the original Napolean who died, got resurrected, and proceeded to live a really really long time.
3. He believes he's the original Napolean who didn't die (faked his death or something)... and proceeded to live a really really long time.

All absurd beliefs, to be sure. But let's compare and contrast with the avrage Christian God beliefs shall we? Person 2, from his description, almost certainly believes ALL of the following:

1. That he has a personal relationship with an all powerful magical superbeing that created the entire universe.
2. That that magic superbeing had an offspring with a human being 2000 years ago who was then kill, resurrected, and who to this day lives on after 2 millenia have passed (as opposed to the measly few centuries our Napolean may believe a person is capable of still being around for after they die) in some kind of mystical other-realm called "Heaven". And, quite probably, also believes he's returning to earth at some point.
3. That they themselves will be somehow magically transported to this realm when they "die"... (but not really die, 'cause they'll still be around in heaven you see...)

Etc... we both know we could easily ass a dozen similar points to the list. All of which are simultaneously believed by the average Christian.



Tell me what common criteria we use to judge that any person holding any single one of the former beliefs to be an unbalanced lunatic... but a person holding all of the latter to be a well balanced upstanding citizen.

[cleanhippie]

110. The criteria is what is currently socially acceptable behavior.

Both seem equally absurd to me, and to you. My contention is that the OP has used descriptors for one person that is socially unacceptable while the other is perfectly "normal." In order to make a valid, objective comparison, the scenarios need to be presented as equally socially acceptable or unacceptable behaviors.

It's the framing of the question that creates the false equivalency. YMMV.

[gcomeau]

113. I refer you to my first reply to you.

...where I pointed out that an appeal to the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum was not a valid argument. Just saying a bunch of people agree with something does not in and of itself make it right.


The OP asked a what if question. What if society did NOT declare that one was more socially acceptable than the other? That rather clearly establishes that the OP is aware that currently one is considered to be more acceptable than the other.


The core of the question, the thing that has to be considered in order to reasonably answer it, is why? How is this justified? Is this so for a good reason and should continue to be the case... or is it so for a bullshit reason and should not continue to be the case?



And you cannot make an argument that one of the behaviors being considered socially acceptable and the other not is justifiable because one is considered socially acceptable and the other isn't. That's just a way of saying "My preferred belief is right to be popular because it's popular so it's right.". It's classic circular reasoning.

[GOPee]

75. This is so dissappointing, and not at all usefull.

Can there possibly be any need to stoke a fire that is always smoldering under the ashes of resentment, on all sides of this debate? Why must either side win an unwinnable war? We cannot, or recognize that will not defeat someones theory of FAITH, with inflammatory rhetoric, and I believe you know this.. However I may be wrong, and often am..

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

2. My gut reaction is to say Definitely, but that would be unfair. The job candidate who seems to

think s/he is Napoleon has little to no social sanctioning of that belief. On the other hand, society not only sanctions, but encourages people in their religious beliefs. I wish that weren't true, but even with deliberate effort, it would be close to impossible to disabuse the majority of their god delusions.

[cbayer]

3. Really? Are you seriously putting up this piece of utter flame bait?

What is the purpose here?

[el_bryanto]

6. To get people on the record. nt

[cleanhippie]

9. On the record for what?

[el_bryanto]

11. For my own purposes. nt

[cleanhippie]

12. So you can use it in future discussions?

[el_bryanto]

14. I probably wouldn't do that - the only person I do that to is Warren Stupidity

But that's because he made it clear that in his opinion all believers are thoughtless and/or dishonest.

To be honest I'm just curious what kind of world I would live in if DU Atheists had their way.

Bryant

[gcomeau]

18. A rational one. -eom

[cleanhippie]

40. And just what is it that DU Atheists want?

I'd like to know what you think, just to get it on record.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218126607#post6

[el_bryanto]

49. I can't speak for all DU Atheists q

Obviously there is a wide range of opinions from those who just want DU Believers to be aware of how their faiths are interacting with the public sphere to those who have more stringent views. But if I had to guess, I'd think they'd like to see atheism and religious belief switch places in public esteem. They'd rather it were religious believers who were on the defensive, who had to worry about their beliefs impacting their jobs, their social status, their opportunities for political advancement. They'd like to live in an America/World where to be an open believer, particularly one who is forthright about believing in the supernatural aspects of their beliefs, would be made to feel a bit embarrassed by society.

Did you get all that down?

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

56. So if you cannot speak for DU Atheists, please stop trying to speak for DU Atheists.

Not only are you NOT giving accurate representations of what DU Atheists think or want, you infer what you need to in order to make your narrative seem more reasonable.

Stick to espousing what is is YOU think and what YOU want. And be clear about it. These passive-aggressive polls are much more transparent than you realize.

[el_bryanto]

61. You asked a question -

I answered it.

Is it unfair to suggest that you, at least, want to live in a world without religion? or have I misread you?

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

79. I don know what you have done.

The caricature you have created in your mind seems impossible to overcome.

[el_bryanto]

80. Do you want to live in a world without religion?

It's a simple question.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

85. Even if it were possible, it wouldn't happen in my lifetime.

I'd like to live in a world where belief in the supernatural is not treated as some sign of positive morality and used a the basis for legislation that governs societal behavior.

[el_bryanto]

89. Well I completely agree on the second and I'm pretty sure I agree on the first

If in the first case religion shouldn't be used as a get-out-of-jail free card I agree - particularly when it comes to public behavior or behavior that effects other people. People get their morality from somewhere, and so long as they act decently, I don't care on whether it's religiously motivated or family motivated ("That's what my mom taught me&quot or philosophically motivated. But if they claim their religion makes them just more moral people than I'd disagree with that.

If that's where the fault lines are and that's what you cared mostly about I don't know why we would be in conflict. Except, you do regularly post posts in which religious people do awful awful things, and it seems you are drawing a connection between the beliefs of the people killing children for example, and my own beliefs.

[cleanhippie]

92. I think I see the disconnect here.

Do you recognize the difference between institutionalized religion and a personal religious belief?

From my perspective, there is a major difference to be found, and one is inherently harmful while the other is not. Care to guess which is an which isn't?

[el_bryanto]

94. I'm guessing institutionalized religion.

But it doesn't really make much of a difference in our case as I practice an institutionalized religion.

Bryant

[cyberswede]

111. Well, this atheist wouldn't like to see anyone have to be on the defensive

due to their religious beliefs.

They'd rather it were religious believers who were on the defensive, who had to worry about their beliefs impacting their jobs, their social status, their opportunities for political advancement.

I really doubt this is what most atheists want. Of course, atheists shouldn't have to be on the defensive either.

(sorry to barge in...I found this thread via jury duty. As you were...)

[Warren Stupidity]

97. Your poll just goes to prove my assertion.

However I am willing to admit that there might exist an honest thoughtful religious person, just so far I haven't met one.

[el_bryanto]

99. Ah you are softening - it's nice to see you are evolving. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

102. I am pointing out that it is a falsifiable theory.

[el_bryanto]

105. I'm saying you are at least open to the possibility of a thoughtful honest believer

I recognize that I'm not one (in your opinion) but at least you are open to the possibility.

It's certainly a step up from "They're all like that."

Bryant

[cbayer]

21. Well, for the record, I think this is just an opportunity for bigots and trolls

to continue to spout their hate filled bullshit.

Best of luck.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. pssst - he's on your team.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Sam Harris nailed this one.

[DreamGypsy]

64. Jesus and Elvis - Jesus had some water, said wine'd be better yet...

...Elvis picked up a guitar and made all women wet.

There are many similarities, but some important differences, between J and E, as documented by Greg Brown:

Jesus had some water, said "Wine'd be better yet".
Elvis picked up a guitar and made all women wet.

Elvis he died young - Jesus he died younger.
Elvis died of too much - Jesus died of hunger.

Jesus sang down through the ages: "Do like you'd have'em do you".
Elvis rocked the universe with be-bop-a-lu-la.

Now here they are on black velvet, in a parking lot in Missouri,
Rocking my soul with rock'n'roll, soulful harmony.

Jesus went back to heaven to be the King of Kings,
But I hear the King of Rock'n'Roll is still restlessly roaming.

Go on home to Jesus, El - he's waiting there you'll find.
You two can jam on old gospel songs - them are the best kind.

There is a certain immortality that is acquired through music.

I enjoyed your video. Thanks, AC.

[hrmjustin]

10. I am getting sick of being told on this board we are deluded or ill.

[gcomeau]

15. You could try presenting an argument you're not then... -eom

[hrmjustin]

16. See this is exactly what I mean.

[gcomeau]

17. Hmmm... not really an argument.

Perhaps you should try harder than that.

[hrmjustin]

19. You start!

[gcomeau]

33. Ok

There is no compelling, or even semi-reasonable, evidence compelling one to adopt the proposition that there exists an all powerful magical super being as the explanation for any observation ever made or answer to any question ever posed. In the absence of such evidence it is irrational to simply adopt such a belief without justification. Thus people who do so are irrational.

Observations that are consistent throughout pretty much all of human history strongly support the hypothesis that God is a fiction that was invented to deal with several different things people wanted the idea to serve. It is a security blanket against their fear of their own mortality... a useful bludgeon to use to impose ones own ideas of ethics and morality on others (hard to do if you have to make a convincing argument supporting them, easy to do if you simply declare the all knowing all wise supreme being said so and who are you to question that you arrogant little mortal you)... or generally to use as a tool of general control over large groups of people. It does in some circumstances serve a moderately useful function as a tool of social group cohesion, although at the expense of hideously undermining rational thought. It spreads so successfully because the rituals and dogmas that are built up around it are designed to disseminate it... requirements to spread the word to save those poor unsaved souls who haven't realized your truth yet (it's for their own good!!!)... repeated reinforcement of the idea that "faith is a virtue" as an excuse to justify ignoring the complete and total lack of anything resembling credible evidence supporting the belief... the convenient construction of the concept of this deity as beyond human comprehension as an excuse for any claims made about it that just don't make sense on close scrutiny or are even blatantly logically contraditory (I have, on multiple occasions, been told that the laws of logic do not apply to God after establishing firmly that some two claims made about that entity cannot both be true at the same time)


Etc.


Through it all you never find any legitimate argument that this thing actually exists.


Thus, atheism.


Your turn.

[hrmjustin]

41. Well I guess I just have to give up my faith now.

I am not here to convert you so I am not going to explain my faith to you.

I will say this. I am nit deluded or ill and if you have an issue with that it is not my problem.

[gcomeau]

44. That's what I thought...

If you're pressed to justify a position you have taken you immediately beg out... change the subject.... avoid the question...

And yet you complain your beliefs aren't being treated with enough respect. Want respect for your beliefs? Here's a concept to consider... try earning it.

[hrmjustin]

50. thank you for your opinion.

[gcomeau]

66. You realize that's just passive-aggressive begging out too right?

You're just making my point for me every time you do that.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Can you demonstrate that it is not a delusion?

A couple days ago, I was under the delusion that my running/exercise output should have put me on a negative weight glide path, due to my caloric intake.

My weight did not go down. I either over-estimated the output, or I under-estimated the input. I was SURE of it at the time, but it just wasn't the case. That's a delusion.

In my case, a falsifiable one.

[hrmjustin]

51. I am done.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. How about the one making the accusation...

making it stick?

[gcomeau]

36. Ok

Start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218126607#post13


Would you like to take a shot at it? Or would you instead care to argue our Emperor Napoleon is a completely reasonable and rational fellow... that's an option too I suppose...

[TreasonousBastard]

57. Actually, I'd rather start by noting that you have...

no idea what my concept of "God" is, or why I capitalize it sometimes. And sometimes don't. You're not sure if my god is the Christian one, or if it is, of what Christian denomination it may be.

Do I believe in the creation story? The resurrection? Do I care about either of them?

After we get through the definition of terms part usually ignored by amateur logicians when discussing religion, you can tell me what, specifically, is deluded about my personal religion or "relationship" with my God?

To give you a head start, I'll say that I stick with versions of Christianity largely because it's what I grew up with and familiarity with it saves a lot of work. I do not believe the Bible is a history book, but I do believe in the usefulness of myth.

[gcomeau]

69. But I know what concept the OP was almost certainly talking about.

Based on the description of the person given. And that is the topic of conversation here, and in the post I linked you to.


Now... care to try? Or would you prefer to just drop your challenge to my statement? I'm good either way really.


Or you could spell out your idea of God and I could specifically address that if you prefer. It wouldn't be much of a problem.

[TreasonousBastard]

77. Alas, when I broke in here you were not talking to the OP but...

someone else who took some umbrage at your insistence he defend himself.

At any rate, if the conversation continues you will always be right and have no doubts or serious questions of your own. You may now claim victory and hope someone cares.

[gcomeau]

83. Someon else who first took umbrage...

...at believing the OP was suggesting his belief in God was delusional. Which could only be true if his concept of God and the one the OP was referencing were common.


And I see you and he share a tendency to instantly recoil from any attempt to get you to actually try defending or arguing your positions. You can toss all the mind reading fortune telling sarcasm around as a smoke screen that you like. I offered you a chance to take up your position in a serious discussion and you're running the other way. Snidely projecting the appearance that you don't care or that it does not matter that you're beating a retreat doesn't alter the facts on the ground.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Please don't try to equate the two.

Deluded doesn't mean ill, mentally or otherwise. I'm deluded about my caloric intake/exercise output. Happens to everyone, and not specific to this subject.

de·lude [dih-lood] Show IPA

verb (used with object), de·lud·ed, de·lud·ing.
1. to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive: His conceit deluded him into believing he was important.

[hrmjustin]

22. My point is I am tired of being called both.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Others would have to believe as you do, to interpret your metaphysical faith as anything else.

You could just accept it for the sake of argument and move forward.


How about this; what would you prefer I, a non-believer, call it? Because as a non-believe, I must needs interpret it as a mistake/error/etc.

[hrmjustin]

27. I would prefer you to say I don't share your beliefs.

If you choose to use the term deluded or ill don't act so surprised we get insulted by that.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Is this the royal 'we'?

Deluded is not the exclusive province of religious thought. There are concepts, social, political, and otherwise, wherein I am myself properly labeled as 'deluded'.

Happens all the time. Your perception of insult seems out of scope with whatever small negative connotation the word carries.


This isn't a matter of me 'not sharing' your beliefs. I utterly reject the entire abrahamic tradition. ALL beliefs/source documentation, etc. I think it's based on absolute horror, murder, mendacity, etc. It's a frightening thing, from where I'm standing. Even the core idea of the torture, murder, and resurrection/redemption of the biblical character of Christ. You couldn't PAY me to share in the profit from a murder of any scope or scale, let alone what happened in the biblical story to that guy. I would be ashamed if such profit came my way, and I would be outraged at a god that arranged events thus that such a thing had to happen to 'save' me. It's horrific.

So, no, it's a hell of a lot more than 'not sharing' your beliefs. Your beliefs are highly disturbing to me, all the more so, since they are utterly unprovable.

[hrmjustin]

43. Since my beliefs disturb me then you shouldn't bother with me.

Have a good day.

[TM99]

63. Cut the bullshit!

Your personal subjective view of the Abrahamic religions is yours and yours alone. Fine. You don't agree with it at all. As long as you present such a pure emotional expression of hatred for these religions, you will have others of those beliefs fight back against it with equal emotional vigor.

But the bullshit being presented here needs to stop.

There is a small and very vocal group of anti-theists that are indeed using the word 'delusion' as a psychological professional would to denote a mental illness. To play some silly little words games as you are now by spouting off that 'deluded' is just a vernacular term used all over the place is disingenuous gamesmanship.

"That band geek girl is deluded if she thinks the college quarterback is going to ask her out" is an example of vernacular and every day use of the word delude. Here it obviously means naive, inexperienced, irrational, etc.

"The beliefs are still mental illnesses...Delusions of various sorts. You don't have to have talking voices to have a mental illness,"

"that the DSM makes a specific and explicit exception for religion......in the definition of delusion tells me that absent such an exception, which was likely made to avoid hurting religionists' feelings, religious beliefs precisely define delusional thinking,"

"So the exact same belief is psychotic delusion in one person and normal in another,"

"As to the mental illness part, that is really not the argument, the argument is that the distinction in the DSM between a delusion and a religious belief is problematic, for good reason, as it basically boils down to "a religious belief is a socially acceptable delusion", and the additional related clause: "except when the religious belief results in unacceptable behavior,"

"Nonetheless, I do think religion is delusional and a social illness at best,"

"The bible was written by people with mental illness. Obsession with numbers, cleanliness, rituals, Incredible, nonsensical imagery, it's simply filled with evidence that it was written by people with mental illness. I believe that continuing to think any of it is true (at least the supernatural stuff) is indicative of delusional, irrational thought,"

are all actual examples from one thread alone of anti-theists untrained in the field of psychology promoting a specific use of the word delude or delusion that is hardly vernacular. In these cases, delusion is clearly meant to be descriptive of an actual psychological illness.

For you and other atheists to accept this and rationalize it as you are now in your reply is as bad as those promoting it.

I don't need to call it mere bigotry. I don't need to call it mere insults. I am a professional in the field, and as Pauli would have put it, "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong."

For those who claim to practically worship the scientific method and to disparage any thing that even remotely hints at pseudo-science or of woo, I find it tragically ironic the pseudo-psychological bullshit being promoted by this religion = mental illness meme.

Stop enabling it with your word games and feigned victimization at being called out on the insult and yes, quite bigoted nature of this practice in the religion forum as of late.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. I do not share, and have not repeated, in this thread or others, that religious belief is a mental

illness.

In fact I have quite explicitly stated that it is NOT, and that it is a thing humans are predisposed to.


So unless you have a fucking link to some place wherein I DID say such a thing, feel free to take back that wall of bullshit text and direct it at someone guilty of what you specify.

[TM99]

88. You have not stated it.

I did not say you did.

I did say that your post and others do enable the meme because you choose to use a word in the vernacular and know that it is being used in a 'professional' sense by others.

Be an adult. Show some empathy. Respect other liberals and progressives who are on your side politically and opposed to the same injustices perpetrated by fundies of any and all stripes. Stop using words that you know are insulting and stop coming to the defense of fellow non-believers who are pushing the religious belief equals mental illness meme which is just hateful to the believers on this forum.

Show me that you are doing something different and not enabling that,because as you are right now is equally as bad in my book.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. I don't care what your book says to you, because apparently you wrote it.

And you are in error.

I have not only NOT furthered or supported the equivalence of religious faith to mental illness, I have explicitly disagreed with the idea entirely.

Herein I speak to the clear predisposition of humans to religious belief.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=126319

I did not participate in the "Religion a mental illness?" thread, because I do not think it was a worthy question. I participated in THIS thread, because it clearly DID NOT link delusion to mental illness. It used the correct context.

Please don't pretend this thread is that thread.

[TM99]

104. I can appreciate you clarifying and directly stating

that religion is not mental illness.

I am not in error in seeing you furthering that belief despite your non-acceptance of it in this thread because it is not talking about the vernacular use, and you bloody well know that. Please, read the OP again. Look at the example given of a job. Clearly in this thread, the usual suspects did read it as another round of religion = mental illness. So, why jump into it? Seriously, why?

[AtheistCrusader]

107. The only 'usual suspects' I saw jump to the conclusion that it it equivocated between delusion and

mental illness, was in fact, religious people.

This may be a side effect of my block list, however. The last person I added to it insisted on interpreting the word delusion (even when I did not use it, in fact, I stated 'credulous', and that poster substituted 'delusion') as a mental illness in all cases.


I spelled out repeatedly upthread, with examples, issues upon which I have occasion to be deluded myself. I don't know what more I can do to divorce the two meanings for you. El-Bryanto's OP appears to be something of a fishing expedition, but did not use that particular bait. (I may have incorrectly guessed which side he was fishing for, but I wouldn't call it trolling, I think it was an honest question.)

[AtheistCrusader]

120. All right, I went back and found the thread.

Had to take someone off ignore to find it, hope that satisfies my claim earlier of NOT having a history of equating delusion, credulity, religious faith, etc, with mental health issues:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218113909#post18
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218114774#post96
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218114774#post114
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=107098

I have been accused of equating the two, especially viciously in that last link there, when I actually used the word 'credulous', not 'delusional'. So, I hope that explains why I strongly reacted to your assertion that I was giving cover to that behavior. I don't. Mental illness is a thing. Religious faith is a totally different thing. When I call a religious belief a 'delusion', I am not calling the person that holds it, mentally deficient.

What I do think of faith, is perhaps not flattering, but I do not think of it a mental illness.

[skepticscott]

122. And yet you regularly attack and broad-brush

all atheists here for pushing a black and white "religion=mental illness" meme, attacking a caricatured and unnuanced version of what is being argued (something you regularly upbraid others for doing with fundamentalist religion.

And let's not even go there about your "tone". You're about the last person here with any right to go all preachy about it.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. I have more examples wherein I explicitly reject the automatic equivalence of

religious faith to mental health concerns, but unfortunately I can no longer view the entire thread fork, because I have cbayer on ignore.

I gave specific examples of what might be, versus what is clearly not. Perhaps you can find it. I'm not going to remove that poster from ignore to go get it.

[Goblinmonger]

71. So what would you think

if someone came to you and said they heard the voice of god tell them to do ________ (fill in the blank with whatever you wish)? Literally heard god talk to them.

And the OP says he believes in divine revelation. Justin says he believes it happened at one point just not now. This is real religious belief being discussed here on this forum.

If that person came to you would you:
1. Think it was awesome to be in the presence of someone so special god would talk to them.
2. Think that this person needs some professional help.

[TM99]

86. Your post is as bad as his.

Why?

Because it is a distraction from the actual relational issue going on here. It is a distraction from the hatred, the bigotry, and the outright pseudo-science of the meme being presented here as a 'rational' discussion.

I wrote my dissertation on the distinctions between altered states of consciousness and extreme states of psychosis. In particular, I discussed religious experiences, organic disease processes, chemical imbalances, heretofore unknown etiologies of psychosis, and trauma induced psychoses. My answer to your question is book length and was designed for those in the field, to assist other professionals in answering your question so that a real mental illness can be diagnosed and hopefully treated if one is truly present.

You are not a mental health professional. You are a school teacher. You are sadly out of your depth right now. And continuing to pretend that you understand these distinctions as part of your arguments for or against this meme is rather ridiculous to me. An eighth grader may be ready for algebra I but to believe they can discuss Calculus first is inane.

If you want to really understand these distinctions, my advise is get off the internet. Ignore the anti-theists here and elsewhere who have no real education or training in the field. Get away from Wikipedia and Skeptics.com. There are some excellent beginning textbooks on psychopathology, clinical diagnosis of psychopathology, etc. PM me, and I will actually take the time to put together a short reading list for you. That is if you are actually serious and not just playing games here in this forum.

[Goblinmonger]

91. Still the master of tone, I see

As a "school teacher," if I had a student come to me saying the scenario I gave you, what is your professional suggestion for me? At this point in time, I would talk to our counselor and let them know this student has some issues and is hearing voices. Apparently, that is me being a horrible anti-theist. Help me out. Should I not let professionals know in that instance?

[TM99]

109. Are you insecure?

Should I be more sensitive when referring to you as a school teacher and NOT a mental health professional. I am not insulted if a physicist corrects my errors and tells me if I continue to plough forward anyway that I am out of my depth. If you found that insulting, perhaps you need to talk to someone.

You are a teacher. The scenario you describe is not the whole sale discussion of religious believers like hrmjustin's 'discussions' with God being called 'delusional' and you also know this.

Stop being obtuse. You are obviously smarter than that. I didn't answer your 'gotcha' question because it is not relevant to the discussion at hand. If you have a student disrupting your class because of an apparent hallucinatory episode, yes, since you are a school teacher and not a counselor, you would refer him out. Are you qualified to distinguish between an organic disease process such as schizophrenia kicking in as a teenager versus a teenager high on LSD versus a teenager sick with a high fever and hallucinating and rambling about god?

No. And that right there is my point. No one pushing this meme has the education, professional training, or clinical background to be even remotely suggesting what is being suggested in these threads about delusion, mental illness, and religion. And when others like yourself or AtheistCrusader play word games and gotcha posts like this, you are tacitly giving approval to that hatred and bigotry being expressed towards believers.

Delusion as a mental illness is semantically different than delusion as a synonym for being silly, irrational, naive, etc. Why wade into topics to further muddle things? Why do you get out of it?

[Goblinmonger]

112. So we are pretending you aren't

using a condescending tone? I'm an English teacher. You are out of your league when it comes to discussions of tone in writing.

I'm not even talking about disrupting class. If a student comes to me and tells me that they are hearing god talk to them, should I treat those as religious beliefs that may be real or should I get in touch with a professional that can help them. I'm not claiming I know the difference between an organic cause or a fever, but I know if a kid tells me that, it is likely a seriously issue and not really god talking to them. But it seems like you and others here are telling me it is insulting if I assume there are problems and not just that god is talking to them.

What do I get out of it? I'm tired of people thinking that because they say it is a religious belief that it entitles them to some special treatment.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. I don't see you admonishing hrmjustin for also referring the hypothetical voice-hearer to profession

al help.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=126661

Hop to!

[AtheistCrusader]

101. A two-way street, since you brought mental health into the context of 'delusion' upthread

when that was not the case.

[TM99]

106. I would appreciate

a direct post number as this thread is getting a bit long.

Though in any case, I brought it up because the usual suspects were already carrying on the same meme from yesterday's thread as well as the one last month.

I stated then as I stated now, I won't sit back and watch that happen unchallenged. I work in the field. They are simply wrong. As presented it is hateful and insulting to anyone on these forums who consider themselves religious or believers.

Why do you seemingly tolerate it so cordially?

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Post 63.

"There is a small and very vocal group of anti-theists that are indeed using the word 'delusion' as a psychological professional would to denote a mental illness. To play some silly little words games as you are now by spouting off that 'deluded' is just a vernacular term used all over the place is disingenuous gamesmanship. "

I was, at the point you responded to me with that, engaged in driving a clear wedge between the vernacular, and a mental illness/smear interpretation of that word. I was not insisting to hrmjustin that *I am mentally ill*. I am not. I still have occasion to be deluded on things, as I specified. I was using myself as an example, hoping to defuse his incendiary response to the word.

It is a useful word with a useful meaning. I will not disagree with you that other people may use it as invective, and may in fact even use it as a smear to suggest mental illness, which is a leap and bound beyond merely insulting someone. I have utilized the alert button for such posts, myself.

[Goblinmonger]

23. Let's do this one thing at a time.

Do you believe that God physically spoke to Moses?

[hrmjustin]

24. Yes.

[Goblinmonger]

26. So. If someone came to you today

and said, "God just talked to me. He told me to do _______" (you can fill in the blank with whatever you want). It is clear that this is not an allegorical statement. They believe that a real, physical voice told them ______ and that that voice was the voice of god.

Would your first thought be:
1. How great that I am in the presence of someone as blessed as Moses.
2. I hope this person is getting the psychological help they need.

[hrmjustin]

29. I said this before that I believe the revelation period is over and God does not talk physically

anymore. This is my personal belief and others can view things differently.

Personally if someone told me they heard physical voices and ut was God I would advise medical attention.

[Goblinmonger]

45. So if you would advise medical attention

why are you mad at atheists for saying there are things about religion that are the same as mental illness. You have just said you think the same thing.

And as to your other point, I realize this is a snarky graph, but it makes a good point. Why do you think the revelation period is over?

[cleanhippie]

48. Well that's certainly a convienient belief.

Psychologists consider creating beliefs so that the believer has more internal consistency an artifact of Cognitive Dissonance.

Question: What Is Cognitive Dissonance?

People tend to seek consistency in their beliefs and perceptions. So what happens when one of our beliefs conflicts with another previously held belief? The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs and behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance. How exactly does cognitive dissonance work and how does it influence how we think and behave?

Answer: Psychologist Leon Festinger proposed a theory of cognitive dissonance centered how people try to reach internal consistency. He suggested that people have an inner need to ensure that our beliefs and behaviors are consistent. Inconsistent or conflicting beliefs leads to disharmony, which people strive to avoid.

In his book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Festinger explained, "Cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads toward activity oriented toward hunger reduction. It is a very different motivation from what psychologists are used to dealing with but, as we shall see, nonetheless powerful."

The amount of dissonance people experience can depend on a few different factors, including how highly we value a particular belief and degree to which our beliefs are inconsistent.
Cognitive dissonance can often have a powerful influence on our behaviors and actions. Let's start by looking at some examples of how this works.

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/f/dissonance.htm

[AtheistCrusader]

52. If you turn out to be wrong that the 'revelation period is over' and you dismiss

someone who actually did hear from god directly, are you not guilty of the same thing you are objecting to ME doing?

[el_bryanto]

30. Is that the same thing as

"I have been really struggling with this decision. I looked at it logically, but both options seemed really good. But while praying I felt that option A was the better choice; I think God was responding to my prayers by guiding me. So that's what I'm doing."

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

46. No.

My question is that the person says the same thing Moses did. God physically talked to them.

What would your reaction be?

[el_bryanto]

54. What is the distinction in your opinion?

In both cases they claim that they received communication/guidance from God.

That said, it would depend on the circumstances - I am a Mormon and we do believe in personal revelation.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

67. In my mind there is a clear distinction.

If one means "god told me" to mean that they thought about it an feel that god is pushing them in one direction or something similar, then they are conflating their socially and personally developed conscience for what their religion has told them is god. I wish they gave more credit to themselves, but whatever.

If one means "god told me" to mean that they heard a voice when nobody was around and then attribute that voice to the voice of god, then they have some mental health issues they need to address. Justin just agreed with me above.

And if you wish to believe in personal revelation, then that's fine, but please don't expect me to stop thinking that if you are making a literal claim that the voice of god talked to you that you need some mental health help. People who hear voices aren't in connection with god; they need help. I have the field of psychiatry and psychology on my side. But, again, believe what you want. Just know you get no special dispensation to hear voices just because you say it was god and not your dog.

[TreasonousBastard]

28. Still poisoning the well, and...

there's probably no way out of it for this line of questioning.

This "personal relationship" thing has to be defined. I still have some sort of personal relationship with my father who died 50 years ago. I have a personal relationship with something I call "God" largely because I haven't found anything else to call it. I don't have much in the way of conversation with either of them, but they both affect my present life in real, and I hope positive, ways.

Why would anyone bring this up in a job interview anyway? Is the job a minister's? An historian's?

It's still up to you to show there's a point here and it's not just juvenile flamebait.

[el_bryanto]

32. Well if you feel it's juvenile flamebait - you are free to alert on it.

In my case since I did some of my undergraduate work at BYU, it stands a good chance of coming up.

Bryant

[TreasonousBastard]

38. I won't alert on it...

and I won't say what I think of people who use the jury system or hosts to do their dirty work.

[el_bryanto]

58. I never alert on anything either - are you suggesting that I do? nt

[TreasonousBastard]

60. Not at all.

[upaloopa]

37. Sorry I can't get my head around all these

threads about religion being a mental illness or a derangement. Maybe it is, also maybe the one asking the question has a few screws loose.
Don't you have more interesting things to think about?

[rug]

39. What do you mean, "other" delusions? Are you actually buying into that claptrap?

[hrmjustin]

55. I am stepping away from this room for a period of time due to the fact it has become unhealthy for

Me to be here.

I am putting the room on trash and will not be responding to anymore posts here for awhile.

So if you wish to talk you can pm me

I won't be responding to this post and will trash the room at some point today.

[agbdf]

59. President Obama believes in God

I assume you must think our President is crazy? President Obama has talked extensively about his belief in and personal relationship with God.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Delusion != Crazy.

[agbdf]

68. Really?

President Obama is far from crazy. He will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents. It was, as he has explained, his innate intellectual curiosity which led him to the conclusion that the universe didn't happen by mistake.

Rather than your merely respectfully disagreeing with President Obama and, the majority of Americans, you choose hateful names for our President such as "crazy." Frankly, I doubt that you even are a Democrat and I assume that you are some type of conservative, Ayn Rand, disruptive troll or, you are a member of the extreme radical fringe left wing. In any event, not a Democrat. By the way, the Democratic Party is not a bigoted anti-religious party. We do, properly so, fight against excessive entanglements between government and religion as our constitution calls for.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. What the hell are you talking about?

I just specified the OPPOSITE of what you just accused me of.

[Goblinmonger]

74. Your "!="

flew over their head and is on the wall behind them.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Perhaps it is not as commonly understood as I had thought.

Possibly a delusion on my part.

[Goblinmonger]

78. Quit calling yourself crazy.

And I thought it was clear, though I have a background in argumentation to I have spent a good deal of time in the logic world.

[Goblinmonger]

73. I think you don't know what != means.

Read up

Then maybe reply in a way that doesn't make you look like you don't understand things.

[trotsky]

119. Wow.

Talk about uninformed overreaction.

Perhaps an apology is in order?

[John1956PA]

81. An Oct. 6, 2005, article from The Guardian - "Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' "

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

[AtheistCrusader]

103. I voted 'probably' because I cannot objectively prove for certain that religious people are wrong.

maybe there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being out there that does not wish to be directly perceived by me. If that's the case, by definition I cannot objectively prove it does not exist.

It would sort of make him/her/it a dick though.

[ZombieHorde]

114. By whom?

Would the world be better off if religious beliefs were treated as other delusions?

By whom? Atheists?

[el_bryanto]

115. By society in general. nt

[ZombieHorde]

116. Isn't society in general religious?

Would they consider their own religious beliefs delusions, or just the religious beliefs of others? I feel like I'm missing something.

[el_bryanto]

117. I'm not talking about how things are right now but how you (and other posters) would like them to be

Obviously we are a long way from that now.

Bryant

[ZombieHorde]

121. Aha! Now it makes sense to me. nt

[Iggo]

118. Abso-fucking-lutely.

[LostOne4Ever]

123. A couple of Queries:

By personal relationship do you mean they talk to god and god LITERALLY talks back. As in they hear his voice and have a conversation.

Hi God how are you today?
Doing Good Lost, and you?
Oh I am surviving. Hell of strange weather you been giving us lately
You live in Texas, I thought giving you hell's climate was to be expected!
HA! Good one God. Good one!

Or do you mean they believe in God and think he has some revealed message to us all to try and interpret and all that metiphorical jazz?

My second query, are you calling belief in god a delusion?

I know for an objective fact that Napoleon (Bonaparte not Dynamite) is dead and gone and no one is having a personal relationship with him. Anyone who is having a personal relationship with him is demonstratably believing in something that is not true. The definition of a delusion.

The existence or non-existence of god has not been proven and is arguably not provable/unfalsifiable. I do not know if he/she/it/they/whatever exist so I don't if belief in such a being is a delusion or not. Thus my second question. Further, regardless of God's existence that does not mean that one may or may not be having delusions. Thus the first question.

If someone is carrying out a conversation with god then given my expeirences I would think it more likely that person is experiencing delusions and I would be within my rights in wanting to rule that possibility out of the question.

So before I procede to reply to your poll, I need this additional information.

[okasha]

124. I find myself wondering about folk

who believe that they and only a small number of enlightened others like them are in possession of the truth, while the remaining six billion or so humans are ignorant and/or mentally ill.

I do worry about their health.

[cbayer]

125. OK, this is nauseating. There are 21 people on this site who think we should treat

religious beliefs like psychiatric delusions.

This is how we treat people with psychiatric delusions.

We medicate them, hospitalize them at times, marginalize them, put them on disability and medicaid/medicare, scorn them, mock them and provide them with virtually no social support.

I can't wait for this brave new world populated and ruled by non-believers.

The 21 people who voted for this are the ones who should be scorned and shamed. Their arrogance is loathsome.

[AtheistCrusader]

129. There's at least one person willfully misconstruing the results of the poll.

[Niceguy1]

126. advocating for discrimination on a progressive board

Wow

[lunasun]

127. Tomás de Torquemada is that you?

[el_bryanto]

128. Didn't he torture people? I don't think anybody is suggesting that. nt