Are atheists implying theists are delusional?

[Ryan2065]

You're right, but I was thinking of the word more as it is used in psychiatry, and in psychiatry, delusions are often considered to be symptoms of mental illness.

Yes they are often a symptom of a bigger problem when someone has "non-mainstream" delusions. It is expected of people to believe in a higher power and believe that higher power is talking to us, so this is a "mainstream" delusion. Believing that higher power is telling us what to do vocally and actually hearing him, however, is an example of a "non-mainstream" delusion that more than likely should be treated before it turns into something bigger.

Psychiatrists tend to get involved when the delusion takes over one of your senses and/or messes with your judgement in a negative manner.

I am just bothered by athiests who try to imply that a belief in a higher being is somehow crazy.

A belief in a higher power when there is no higher power, however, is technically a delusion. If there is no higher power then many people are delusional... If there is a higher power then you all aren't delusional.

I certainly don't think they're crazy for not believing, but I'm one of those people who tends to think that our spiritual sensitivity is inborn and not taught.

And people who have delusions are not necessarily crazy... And crazy isn't the best word to characterize those who have delusions.

 

[Buttercup]

I posted this in the secular beliefs forum. I thought I'd get a wider range of opinions.

...If someone says that God speaks to them and you still maintain that you see no evidence to believe in God/s, are you implicitly stating that they are delusional?

Do you believe you communicate with/have a sensation of God?

I don't know....maybe it's me but I don't care for the word delusional when pertaining to a theist's beliefs. Delusional can mean MORE than the simple definitions mentioned so far in this thread.......from Miriam Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: de·lu·sion
Pronunciation: di-'lü-zh&n, dE-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.

[SIZE=-1]DELUSION[/SIZE] implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind <delusions of persecution>.



I think theists might object to the word delusional being applied to them because so many people view the word as implying psychotic or abnormal as highlighted above. I would prefer another adjective were used.

 

[adilrockstar]

I posted this in the secular beliefs forum. I thought I'd get a wider range of opinions.

...If someone says that God speaks to them and you still maintain that you see no evidence to believe in God/s, are you implicitly stating that they are delusional?

Do you believe you communicate with/have a sensation of God?

Sense that you already think that we are delusional. But I will entertain your question anyway.

I don't think by telling a Christian you don't see the same way, is calling them delusional. I think it is just saying that you don't see it the same way.

Yes I do believe that I communicate with God (through prayer and praise), and I do have a sensation of God during these times as well.

 

[lunamoth]

Well...even Paul called belief foolishness. Perhaps that's a better word than delusional.

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

 

[adilrockstar]

Well...even Paul called belief foolishness. Perhaps that's a better word than delusional.

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Read it again and a little closer. He is calling non believers foolish.


It is SARCASM in its oldest sense......ha ha ha

Paul was actually being sarcastic

 

[Ðanisty]

absolutely; if a delusion is defined as "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact" but being 'delusional' doesn't make one a 'nut'.

i certainly don't think of myself as not being in any way delusional.

Well, to prove delusion, you'd have to prove the belief to be false and so far, that can't be done.

 

[klubbhead024]

How about the cases you hear in the news about the partents who kill their children becuase god told them to do it... so I would say.... ya, at least a little nuts

 

[Revasser]

I mostly agree with Rhonda (Buttercup).

Delusional may technically be correct, but the word carries a lot of baggage in common language that I'd rather not be slinging at my sensible theist friends, nor do I think it applies to them.

Though as I said in the other thread, there is a lot of difference between a person believing in God and believing they literally hear God speak to them. I would feel quite confident applying the label of "delusional" to the latter, baggage and all. In fact, hearing God speak to you is probably one the most common ideas of "delusion" in our society (the other being strolling about claiming your are, say, Napoleon and actually believing it to be true.)

And regardless of whether it may true or not, calling a theist "delusional" is not going to make them particularly inclined to listening to what you've got to say. If you're going to debate religion with someone as an atheist, you shouldn't dance around the fact that you think they're wrong in their beliefs, but nor you should start out with what is basically an insult.

 

[Fluffy]

I don't see the need to make such an assertion about the belief in God. Saying that X is delusional goes further than saying that X is incorrect. It also suggests a possible reason for why X is incorrect. On top of this, "delusional" is usually interpreted in the derogatory sense so I prefer to avoid that whole minefield.

It is possible that all religious experience is a delusion. That is sufficient, undebatable and, hopefully, inoffensive.

Edit: Words like "delusion" and "irrational" have a long history in philosophy in which they have no negative connotations. Often the atheist will use the terms in this sense and I personally cannot think of a time when I have used them otherwise.

 

[Revasser]

I don't see the need to make such an assertion about the belief in God. Saying that X is delusional goes further than saying that X is incorrect. It also suggests a possible reason for why X is incorrect. On top of this, "delusional" is usually interpreted in the derogatory sense so I prefer to avoid that whole minefield.

It is possible that all religious experience is a delusion. That is sufficient, undebatable and, hopefully, inoffensive.

I don't think the experience itself is necessarily delusional (unless it actually takes the form of an audible voice that tells you to KILL!!!!, perhaps). People getting warm fuzzies or feelings of "connection" is not uncommon and there's nothing false about acknowledging you had the experience.

 

[Fluffy]

I don't think the experience itself is necessarily delusional (unless it actually takes the form of an audible voice that tells you to KILL!!!!, perhaps). People getting warm fuzzies or feelings of "connection" is not uncommon and there's nothing false about acknowledging you had the experience.

There is an experience of God (an experience) and experiencing God (a religious experience). The second is by definition a religious experience since there is no way to experience God without experiencing God. The first is simply an experience since it merely describes how that experience feels rather than making claims about its source.

Now you are right in saying that an experience itself is not delusional. To give a similar example from an illusion: If I look at an orange object from a distance then my sensory data may tell me that it is an orange. When I get closer it turns out the object is actually an orange ball. However, the wrongness of my original experience does not make the experience itself a delusion. If I had made the assertion that my experience was of an orange rather than stating that I had experienced an orange then that would be a delusion.

However, we can feel like we are having a religious experience but this sensation cannot be accurately described as a "religious experience" unless its source is divine. Therefore, in implicitly stating its own source, a religious experience can be delusional in a way that realising that you felt like you had a religious experience cannot.

There is no difference in this sense between an experience of a voice saying "kill all" and a warm fuzzy. We may find the former more difficult to believe but that is merely our own bias since we have no discernable knowledge of the source about which we may say "well God wouldn't tell me to kill things but he would give me a warm fuzzy feeling". This is our only way of experiencing God (it is an identical description) and so we can't pick and choose with our scepticism.

 

[Ryan2065]

Well, to prove delusion, you'd have to prove the belief to be false and so far, that can't be done.

To PROVE delusion you need to PROVE the belief to be false. To THINK someone is delusional you need to THINK their belief is false. Slight difference.

Just because some people think delusional automatically means you are a complete nut job does not mean that is what is being said. Its a stereotype associated with the word and in my opinion its a sad stereotype that should be done away with. Medical stereotypes are some of the worst stereotypes out there because they seem to be pretty politically correct in todays society.

 

[Revasser]

There is no difference in this sense between an experience of a voice saying "kill all" and a warm fuzzy. We may find the former more difficult to believe but that is merely our own bias since we have no discernable knowledge of the source about which we may say "well God wouldn't tell me to kill things but he would give me a warm fuzzy feeling". This is our only way of experiencing God (it is an identical description) and so we can't pick and choose with our scepticism.

I don't even think we're disagreeing here. I think we're just getting ensnared by semantics.

If you're hearing a voice, you're hearing a voice. Acknowledging you're hearing a voice is not delusional, but declaring that it is in fact a voice, and the it is the voice of Richard Nixon instructing you to KILL KILL KILL!! when evidence suggests that it is not the voice of Richard Nixon (and that this is, in fact, probably impossible), is delusional.

In the same way, getting a warm fuzzy and saying you've got a warm fuzzy is not delusional. Hanging an interpretation upon that warm fuzzy and declaring that it is a man 2000 years dead directly and personally causing you to have that warm fuzzy when there is no evidence that this so or that this is even possible, could very well be delusional.

Although I do disagree that the souce implied by the term "religious experience" is a divine one. "Religious experience" is a common term used to describe a certain variety of experience, not a source. These experiences are commonly associated with religion, hence the term, but I do not believe that term prescribes that this must be the source, at least not in the way it is used in language today. It's a metaphor.

 

[Tigress]

...If someone says that God speaks to them and you still maintain that you see no evidence to believe in God/s, are you implicitly stating that they are delusional?

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.

If an atheist considers a theist delusional on that account, I'd say that the atheist himself is delusional, based upon the aforementioned definition of the word. If God cannot be proven, the atheist thus cannot be sure that God did not speak to the theist in question. In fact, even the theist himself cannot be sure.

 

[Revasser]

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.

If an atheist considers a theist delusional on that account, I'd say that the atheist himself is delusional, based upon the aforementioned definition of the word. If God cannot be proven, the atheist thus cannot be sure that God did not speak to the theist in question. In fact, even the theist himself cannot be sure.

It can also not be proven that, deep in the unexplored Amazon, there does not exist a giant, sapient, magenta turtle with a taste for small Bulgarian bank managers that can make itself invisble and intgangible at will thus avoiding detection. It would not, however, really be a justified belief to think such a creature exists, let alone makes a habit out of speaking to people through telepathy.

There are all sorts of things that we can't "prove there is no..." but that doesn't mean we should just assume such things exist and interact with people when there is a dearth of evidence for their existence, nor consider reasonable the beliefs of those who do assert personal interaction with such things without providing solid supporting evidence.

That's classic "Russell's Teapot."

 

[Yerda]

If an atheist considers a theist delusional on that account, I'd say that the atheist himself is delusional...

OK. I'm not suggesting that atheists are yelling, "Hey you, God-botherer, you're mental!"

I'm not even saying that we believe theists are deluded. I'm asking if it is implicit within our disbelief of the accuracy of their claims.


Theist asserts:

"God speaks to me"

And I say:

"I don't believe he does"


Is the message, 'you are suffering from delusion' entailed by the second statement?

 

[Revasser]

OK. I'm not suggesting that atheists are yelling, "Hey you, God-botherer, you're mental!"

I'm not even saying that we believe theists are deluded. I'm asking if it is implicit within our disbelief of the accuracy of their claims.


Theist asserts:

"God speaks to me"

And I say:

"I don't believe he does"


Is the message, 'you are suffering from delusion' entailed by the second statement?

Or "You're lying." Not that that's a nicer thing to be accusing someone of in these matters.

 

[MaddLlama]

Athiests don't beleve that God can exist. So, if he does not exist then it would be very hard for god to "speak" to people.
The atheists who would say that theists are delusional are most likely the ones who believe that they can prove that god does not exist - a delusion is contigent upon proof that what the delusional person believes is false.
Personally, I don't believe that you can prove that. I think "misguided" is a better word than delusional.

 

[Willamena]

...If someone says that God speaks to them and you still maintain that you see no evidence to believe in God/s, are you implicitly stating that they are delusional?

Do you believe you communicate with/have a sensation of God?

A theist's belief in god is certainly delusional, and rightly so. The person to whom god speaks is a different matter, as is the person who deduced messages from what was observed/experienced and interpreted that as being from god. As an agnostic I believe that we cannot know directly anything about god, so all belief in him is on faith; faith is a constructive delusion.

I may decide that a person who claims god is speaking to them is delusional because of my concept of god, but not automatically so --the initial assumptions would be that they are either destructively delusional, experiencing an illusion, or simply mistaken. Or they are interpreting something as being "of god." If god spoke to me, that would certainly be delusional.

No, god has never spoken to me --that would invalidate my concept of god entirely and pretty much shatter my entire world by proving that god exists. I would think myself insane for such a thing to happen.

 

[Revasser]

Athiests don't beleve that God can exist. So, if he does not exist then it would be very hard for god to "speak" to people.
The atheists who would say that theists are delusional are most likely the ones who believe that they can prove that god does not exist - a delusion is contigent upon proof that what the delusional person believes is false.
Personally, I don't believe that you can prove that. I think "misguided" is a better word than delusional.

I don't think it's contingent upon "proof" at all.

If someone claims there is an incorporeal dragonfly buzzing around their head that only allows itself to be visible to them and no one else, and they truly believe that this dragonfly speaks to them, is this person delusional? You can't prove there is no incorporeal-but-selectively visible dragonfly there. After all, it chooses only to make itself visible to this person.

Would the definition of this dragonfly idea change if earnestly believed by a thousand people? A hundred thousand? If the dragonfly were attributed with the creation of the world and a complex legalistic system devised for how we can garner the favour of this dragonfly, would that change it? Perhaps if the way this idea were designed to be unfalsifiable were a bit more philosophical-sounding and a bit less silly, it would?

If we strip away all the negative connotations the word "delusion" has taken on and just deal with it on it's definition (and I understand that this is impossible in the real world, so please indulge me), then what is the difference between your garden variety delusion (like thinking I'm a master at at playing Chainmail when I've only played a single game in my life, and I lost) and belief in an invisble, intangible deity that may speak with us?