People who believe in god are broken

[iNow]

Earlier in the thread Inow quoted the newest version of the DSM (a version that isn't on most psychologist's shelves yet), and it says the following:

 

Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith).

Now... Inow wants to call belief in God delusional based on the above.

 

You just cited the OLD definition from the DSM-IV. The DSM-V has this new definition, and this is what I cited:

 

Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g. persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).[…] Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. […] The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity.

And from that source I previously cited:

 

delusions do not need to be about external reality or to be based on incorrect inference. They could be about oneself and one’s own experiences, requiring little or no inference.

 

Third, we may have no proof against the truth of a belief, even when the belief is wildly implausible, and this is reflected in the move from the phrase “despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary” to the phrase “despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity”.

 

More important, in my eyes the new account narrows the gap between delusions and other irrational beliefs, suggesting that the epistemic features of delusions are not unique to pathologies of the mind, but characterise many of our everyday beliefs.

[Iggy]

You just cited the OLD definition from the DSM-IV. The DSM-V has this new definition, and this is what I cited:

 

 

And from that source I previously cited:

 

 

Sorry, I'm sure that was an accident.

 

Let's see... "clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers"

 

Yes, it says the same thing.

 

 

Tar, what you have said is not "clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers". It is both understandable and well-understood. Belief in God is not a delusion.

[iNow]

Any response to this part?

 

A personal relationship with someone who maybe never even existed at all? A personal relationship with someone who... even if he did actually exist... died two thousand years ago?

 

Yes, I'm saying that people who say they have these personal relationships are deluded, or at the very least hallucinating, but probably just deluded.

 

 

 

The same would be true of someone who said they have a personal relationship with Napoleon, or with Christopher Columbus, or Tycho Brahe or Nicolas Copernicus or Cleopatra. Could they be inspired by these individuals and find them to be amazing or motivational? Sure, but personal relationship? No, that's deluded. They are dead. If you think you have a personal relationship in the present with someone who is long dead, then you are deluded or lying. Same with Jesus, who doesn't have anywhere near as much evidence for his existence as those other names I just cited.

 

Let's see... "clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers"

 

Yes, it says the same thing.

 

 

Tar, what you have said is not "clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers". It is both understandable and well-understood. Belief in God is not a delusion.

Sigh. Cherry-picking hardly helps you in adding veracity to your position. Many of us are saying it's a delusion. You're saying it's not, hence you might acknowledge this other bit which implies your position is flawed and you are arguing based on an ignorance of the definition:

 

"The new account narrows the gap between delusions and other irrational beliefs, suggesting that the epistemic features of delusions are not unique to pathologies of the mind, but characterise many of our everyday beliefs."

 

 

Just because it's common or understandable to same culture peers does not negate the fact that it's accurately described as a delusion. You can repeat yourself all you want, but merely typing the same thing over and over again won't suddenly make your position correct.

Edited August 23, 2013 by iNow

[Iggy]

Any response to this part?

exhausting.

 

A personal relationship with someone who maybe never even existed at all?

Yes. Do I need to make you understand what "mistaken" means?

 

A personal relationship with someone who... even if he did actually exist... died two thousand years ago?

Yes, believing something illogical doesn't make a person delusional. Pointing out that it is illogical doesn't help you.

 

Yes, I'm saying that people who say they have these personal relationships are deluded, or at the very least hallucinating, but probably just deluded.

Actually, no you aren't.

 

I welcome you to read your previous comment:

 

I never said it wasn't real to them. I said they were either lying or delusional. Why do you think something is lost on me...

Apparently you said "they were either lying or delusional". I'll go with that and ignore what you just said about "or at the very least hallucinating".

 

The same would be true of someone who said they have a personal relationship with Napoleon, or with Christopher Columbus, or Tycho Brahe or Nicolas Copernicus or Cleopatra. Could they be inspired by these individuals and find them to be amazing or motivational? Sure, but personal relationship? No, that's deluded. They are dead. If you think you have a personal relationship in the present with someone who is long dead, then you are deluded or lying. Same with Jesus, who doesn't have anywhere near as much evidence for his existence as those other names I just cited.

and I've responded to all that before.

 

You didn't answer my question. You said that you didn't contradict what the Hitch said when he said "[seeing Jesus] is real to them". That means that they aren't lying. Do you still agree? Have you changed your mind?

 

edit:

 

I apologize, you did answer that question. When you said "Yes, I'm saying that people who say they have these personal relationships are deluded, or at the very least hallucinating..." you answered it.

 

When you originally answered you said that people were lying, delusional, or had recently ingested a hallucinogen. We've now squarely crossed off the hallucinations and the lying. I'm to understand that most of the people with whom you converse are delusional by your account. Yes?

 

/edit

 

 

Sigh. Cherry-picking hardly helps you in adding veracity to your position. Many of us are saying it's a delusion. You're saying it's not, hence you might acknowledge this other bit which implies your position is flawed and you are arguing based on an ignorance of the definition:

 

"The new account narrows the gap between delusions and other irrational beliefs, suggesting that the epistemic features of delusions are not unique to pathologies of the mind, but characterise many of our everyday beliefs."

I could do that, or I could quote the same site that says:

 

One difference is that DSM-IV says that delusions are "erroneous beliefs", while DSM-5 says that they are "fixed beliefs". This would be a nice change, because "erroneous" probably implies "false", but delusions do not have to be false.

 

http://imperfectcognitions.blogspot.com/2013/08/delusion-in-dsm-v-response-to-lisa.html

Cherry Picking! HA!

 

There isn't a reputable psychologist on this planet that would draw the conclusion you've drawn :-D

Edited August 23, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

Iggy,

 

Sad to learn that the only thing you found odd about my post was that I actually said something relevant.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

I apologize, you did answer that question.

Yes, I know.

 

I'm to understand that most of the people with whom you converse are delusional by your account. Yes?

People who believe in god are delusional, specifically in context of that belief, not necessarily in all other aspects of life.

 

Cherry Picking! HA!

The part you cited supports my position, not yours.

 

 

Here's another approach since you're simply mincing words and arguing semantics at this point since your position is so specious. I'll just come at it from a different angle.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Delusion

 

The noted New Atheist, Richard Dawkins, wrote a book entitled The God Delusion, in which he asserted that the question of God's existence was tied to the question of special creation, and then argued that since special creation has largely been demonstrated to be false, belief in God is a delusion.

No matter how you slice it, delusion fits. You can ignore that fact, but you cannot escape it.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Since we both have firmly ruled out there actually being a beginning and end fellow, but have neither ruled out there being a beginning and end, I would like to ask you a philosophical question.

 

To whom does the actual beginning and the actual end matter?

 

If not us motals, then who?

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

Yes, I know.

 

People who believe in god are delusional, specifically in context of that belief, not necessarily in all other aspects of life.

So, they aren't lying or hallucinating. I thought I'd have to pry that out with pliers.

 

I am correct then, that anyone who says they have a personal relationship with Jesus is delusional... anyone who believes in God is delusional... (and psychologically fit to be so)?

 

Mental wards for them all!

 

That is your position?

 

I hate to put a fine point on it, but I have to snare this trap before it gets away from me.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

And just in general, when you consider who will care what the Earth, or the solar system, or the galaxy is like in 1000 or 10000 or 500 billion years, what unseen other are you putting yourselve in the shoes of? Does it have to be an actual, existing being, for you to put yourself in their shoes?

Edited August 23, 2013 by tar

[Iggy]

And just in general, when you consider who will care what the Earth, or the solar system, or the galaxy is like in 1000 or 10000 or 500 billion years, what unseen other are you putting yourselve in the shoes of? Does it have to be an actual, existing being, for you to put yourself in their shoes?

Tar, you are no better fit to care what happens in this world 500 billion years from now than any of the rest of us. We all have trouble enough putting ourselves in our contemporary's shoes. You aren't helping. Your insights are a more than a little fleeting.

 

Not being broken doesn't mean such grandiose things.

 

Have you planted that flag in camp atheism already? Are you willing to say "God doesn't exist"? Let's hear a three word reply.

[iNow]

So, they aren't lying or hallucinating. I thought I'd have to pry that out with pliers.

Surely, some people are either lying or hallucinating. For those that are not, delusion clearly fits as a valid descriptor for them. I'm not sure why this simple point is so hard for you to grasp.

 

I am correct then, that anyone who says they have a personal relationship with Jesus is delusional... anyone who believes in God is delusional... (and psychologically fit to be so)?

 

Mental wards for them all!

You need the calm down a bit. People can display broken thinking and have flawed beliefs and be delusional in some of their beliefs without them ipso facto needing to be locked up through some mandate.

 

It's clear that these beliefs are common, and it's clear where they come from. Humans have several neurobiological tendencies that lead to an increased likelihood of belief in a higher power, and indoctrination from a young age tends to exploit those tendencies. None of that means they need to be locked up, and none of that means these beliefs cannot be accurately described as delusional or broken.

 

That is your position?

 

I hate to put a fine point on it, but I have to snare this trap before it gets away from me.

No, it's not my position. I'm not an inarticulate man, and I've clarified my position repeatedly. It's odd to me that you're so consistently struggling to comprehend it accurately.

---

Since we both have firmly ruled out there actually being a beginning and end fellow, but have neither ruled out there being a beginning and end, I would like to ask you a philosophical question.

 

To whom does the actual beginning and the actual end matter?

 

If not us motals, then who?

 

<...>

 

And just in general, when you consider who will care what the Earth, or the solar system, or the galaxy is like in 1000 or 10000 or 500 billion years, what unseen other are you putting yourselve in the shoes of? Does it have to be an actual, existing being, for you to put yourself in their shoes?

Hi TAR - While this is potentially related, it's very much off-topic. If you want to explore these thoughts further, perhaps you'd be so kind as to open a new thread for the discussion in the Philosophy forum and link to it? I'm not terribly clear what you're even asking, but don't want to derail us by attempting to extract that clarity here.

A quick answer is that what things mean and to whom they matter depends entirely on the sentient being considering them. Again though, new thread please.

[Moontanman]

Iggy, correct me if I'm wrong but could some of your resistance to this idea stem from your own less than substantiated "experiences" and the fear of being labeled broken? If it is I do indeed understand, having had more than a bit of experience with "experiences" I know how puzzling it is to have something extraordinary happen, something that is as real to you as.. well.. reality... but with no external means of verification.

 

It is puzzling, I do admit that, I grew up dealing with these experiences but I found that after repetition after repetition it became apparent these "things" existed only in my mind and had no external reality, no information not already available to me was ever revealed (well except once) and over time they slowly lost their power over me and the few that continue are easily to put up with once you understand they are not real, doesn't make me crazy (my mother had me tested ) but it does show that the human mind is capable of deluding it's self into many things and if you are not prepared to genuinely deal with these things in an objective rational way they can make you crazy but having them doesn't...

[Iggy]

Surely, some people are either lying or hallucinating...

I just don't know, iNow. Earlier you said that the experiences are "real to them", now they could be lying. Earlier you said, and confirmed, that all people who believe in God are delusional, but now they could be hallucinating. It does get confusing where you stand.

 

 

I'm not sure why this simple point is so hard for you to grasp.

Well... you are a bit slippery and hard to grasp, if it comes to that. Perhaps your earlier posts were made just for the sake of argument and shouldn't be taken seriously, or perhaps your latest one. I don't know. When a person contradicts themselves every other post it gets a bit difficult to reply.

 

 

For those that are not, delusion clearly fits as a valid descriptor for them

Perhaps, but you should be careful with that. Let's look again at that DSM-5 definition you keep thumping:

 

Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

You certainly have a fixed belief that is not amenable to change.

 

Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g. persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).[…]

 

The theme is certainly religious.

 

 

Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. […]

 

I dare say that your same-culture peers do not share your belief on this topic.

 

 

The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity.

 

And, obviously it is a strongly held idea with a great degree of conviction, despite 90% of the people in this culture thinking they hold evidence against it.

 

Yikes! I think you just qualified!

 

You know... people approaching a mental professional often are hesitant because they don't know what to say. All you need to say is "my friend thinks I needed to see you". They will take it from there.

Iggy, correct me if I'm wrong but could some of your resistance to this idea stem from your own less than substantiated "experiences" and the fear of being labeled broken?

Earlier I said to you that I had no such experience and I don't believe in God. I'm correcting you. You are wrong.

 

I have no fear of being labeled broken.

[Moontanman]

I am sorry Iggy, I have so many threads going I may have lost track...

Yes it was Tar that posted those things not you Iggy, again sorry...

[Iggy]

I am sorry Iggy, I have so many threads going I may have lost track...

Yes it was Tar that posted those things not you Iggy, again sorry...

 

I've done that at least a couple times and felt embarrassed each time. Don't think anything of it.

[Moontanman]

I just don't know, iNow. Earlier you said that the experiences are "real to them", now they could be lying. Earlier you said, and confirmed, that all people who believe in God are delusional, but now they could be hallucinating. It does get confusing where you stand.

 

 

Well... you are a bit slippery and hard to grasp, if it comes to that. Perhaps your earlier posts were made just for the sake of argument and shouldn't be taken seriously, or perhaps your latest one. I don't know. When a person contradicts themselves every other post it gets a bit difficult to reply.

 

 

Perhaps, but you should be careful with that. Let's look again at that DSM-5 definition you keep thumping:

 

You certainly have a fixed belief that is not amenable to change.

 

 

The theme is certainly religious.

 

 

 

I dare say that your same-culture peers do not share your belief on this topic.

 

 

 

And, obviously it is a strongly held idea with a great degree of conviction, despite 90% of the people in this culture thinking they hold evidence against it.

 

Yikes! I think you just qualified!

 

You know... people approaching a mental professional often are hesitant because they don't know what to say. All you need to say is "my friend thinks I needed to see you". They will take it from there.

 

Earlier I said to you that I had no such experience and I don't believe in God. I'm correcting you. You are wrong.

 

I have no fear of being labeled broken.

 

 

So if a majority of people have a personal relationship with Cthulhu they are not delusional but simply mistaken? Even though a total lack of empirical evidence exists for Cthulhu?

[Iggy]

So if a majority of people have a personal relationship with Cthulhu they are not delusional but simply mistaken?

Yes.

 

Even though a total lack of empirical evidence exists for Cthulhu?

Yes, that really is what I'm saying.

 

I think you and iNow are lost on the same point... that it is illogical.

 

I was saying that people often believe in the illogical. I was saying that people aren't lying when they say they believe in the illogical. You know... people think they see the supernatural. I was just saying that it doesn't make them delusional. That's all.

[Moontanman]

Yes.

 

 

Yes, that really is what I'm saying.

 

I think you and iNow are lost on the same point... that it is illogical.

 

I was saying that people often believe in the illogical. I was saying that people aren't lying when they say they believe in the illogical. You know... people think they see the supernatural. I was just saying that it doesn't make them delusional. That's all.

 

 

You may have a point, it's difficult for me to say seeing or hearing an imaginary being, not just thinking you might have, is not delusional but simply mistaken, a mistake is something you correct when new info comes in, a delusion is something that defies all evidence to the contrary...

[Iggy]

You may have a point, it's difficult for me to say seeing or hearing an imaginary being, not just thinking you might have, is not delusional but simply mistaken, a mistake is something you correct when new info comes in, a delusion is something that defies all evidence to the contrary...

I know what you mean. To me it is detrimental and awful that people believe this nonsense. I understand. But, I know so many intelligent and rational people who do believe it that that I wouldn't call them delusional. And, I certainly w0uln't call them liars.

 

I don't think that is too fine a line to draw. They could simply be mistaken. You know?

 

I'm looking for some help here.

[Moontanman]

I know what you mean. To me it is detrimental and awful that people believe this nonsense. I understand. But, I know so many intelligent and rational people who do believe it that that I wouldn't call them delusional. And, I certainly w0uln't call them liars.

 

I don't think that is too fine a line to draw. They could simply be mistaken. You know?

 

I'm looking for some help here.

 

 

Like I said a mistake implies getting bad info or an assumption based on less than accurate info but new info would correct that but I don't see that happening much in the theist world view among those who see or hear gods or goddesses manifest as part of their reality...

 

If i say i have an invisible dragon chained in my basement that tells me how to live my life being mistaken just doesn't seem to cover it...

In fact it goes further, around here having a basement is cause for a raised eye brow at least. I have told people here that I had a basement and been questioned thoroughly but if I said i talked to Jesus last night it is accepted with out question by most people here...

 

Not broken?

[iNow]

I just don't know, iNow. Earlier you said that the experiences are "real to them", now they could be lying. Earlier you said, and confirmed, that all people who believe in God are delusional, but now they could be hallucinating. It does get confusing where you stand.

When a person says they believe in god(s), they could be lying. That is one possibility. When a person says they believe in god(s), they could be hallucinating, or suffering from some sort of head trauma or lack of oxygen to the brain or similar things. That's another possibility. There are probably also other possibilities and I'm not here suggesting these possibilities are either exhaustive or exclusive.

 

Mostly, though, I am suggesting that most people who say that they believe in god(s) are otherwise fully functional intelligent human beings who get along just fine as productive members of society. However, I am suggesting they are more than mistaken in context of this god topic, and concluding the existence of god(s) using broken logic, flawed rationality, and based on a double standard for evidence that they generally use no where else in their lives or for any other belief or conclusion they hold. I'm suggesting they are mostly deluded, and this is obvious when taking even a cursory view of the several definitions of that term I've shared. For that sub-population who cannot be accurately described as deluded, most are either lying or hallucinating.

 

Are you still confused about my position, or does this clarify for you? None of this is contradictory, and it is all consistent with my previous posts and arguments. If you're still struggling to comprehend, please ask something specific because it feels painfully obvious to me and likely most other readers.

 

 

You certainly have a fixed belief that is not amenable to change. The theme is certainly religious. <snip> Yikes! I think you just qualified! <snip> You know... people approaching a mental professional often are hesitant because they don't know what to say. All you need to say is "my friend thinks I needed to see you". They will take it from there.

So, you've now resorted to suggesting I am delusional, is that accurate? You've become so flustered you're attacking me instead of my position. Well, if that's the path you wish to pursue, then so be it, but you should note that such an approach is not going to negate the validity of any of my points nor the logic and consistency of my position.

 

Delusion fits as a descriptor. So does broken, IMO. It's fine if you disagree. When, where, and how we use labels like "broken" is rather subjective. You don't have to share my opinion, and it's perfectly okay for you to have a different opinion. However, holding a different opinion or disagreeing with me are not good reasons for you to resort to suggesting I am myself deluded nor should it be a justification for you to attack my character or me personally.

 

If you see a flaw in my logic or an inconsistency in my position, then point it out and give me a chance to address it, but stop with the immature schoolhouse playground nonsense already. You've already been suspended once for flying off the handle and losing your cool. Try to learn and grow from that experience and improve your style and approach.

I was saying that people often believe in the illogical. I was saying that people aren't lying when they say they believe in the illogical. You know... people think they see the supernatural. I was just saying that it doesn't make them delusional. That's all.

Except, it does.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Iggy

Whether this was meant in light-hearted jest, or if it was to further your argument through the use of satire, or perhaps even written in earnest - it is an unacceptable characterisation of another individual member. Others have already been warned away from making this tinderbox of a thread too personal - therefore I ask you in turn; please would you tread very carefully and avoid other posters' toes.

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

I just don't know, iNow. Earlier you said that the experiences are "real to them", now they could be lying. Earlier you said, and confirmed, that all people who believe in God are delusional, but now they could be hallucinating. It does get confusing where you stand.



Well... you are a bit slippery and hard to grasp, if it comes to that. Perhaps your earlier posts were made just for the sake of argument and shouldn't be taken seriously, or perhaps your latest one. I don't know. When a person contradicts themselves every other post it gets a bit difficult to reply.



Perhaps, but you should be careful with that. Let's look again at that DSM-5 definition you keep thumping:

You certainly have a fixed belief that is not amenable to change.


The theme is certainly religious.



I dare say that your same-culture peers do not share your belief on this topic.



And, obviously it is a strongly held idea with a great degree of conviction, despite 90% of the people in this culture thinking they hold evidence against it.

Yikes! I think you just qualified!

You know... people approaching a mental professional often are hesitant because they don't know what to say. All you need to say is "my friend thinks I needed to see you". They will take it from there.


Earlier I said to you that I had no such experience and I don't believe in God. I'm correcting you. You are wrong.

I have no fear of being labeled broken.

 

[Iggy]

So, you've now resorted to suggesting I am delusional

Apparently, I'm not allowed to do that. You get to call 90% of the population delusional, and I don't get to return the favor even when I politely prove it by your own standard.

 

It figures.

 

You all can have this thread. Peace out.

[iNow]

Apparently, I'm not allowed to do that. You get to call 90% of the population delusional, and I don't get to return the favor even when I politely prove it by your own standard.

 

It figures.

90% of the population are not here at this site following the rules of this site posting as active members in discussions with other active members who also agreed to site rules.

 

Also, the number is closer to 80% than 90% since Buddhists don't worship god(s): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html#xx

[Iggy]

90% of the population are not here at this site following the rules of this site posting as active members in discussions with other active members who also agreed to site rules.

I didn't break any rules. Your slander is getting way past annoying.

 

I committed the crime of defending religious people. I've therefore been run off. I get it. You can stop beating the dead horse now.