I'll borrow an idea from Sam Harris here:

The idea that belief in a God is not essentially dilussional is unsound in that one could say the same thing about the refrigerator sized diamond buried in my backyard. Every weekend my family and I go out to the backyard and dig furiously for this diamond. This digging serves to unite my family and I toward a common goal and we all have fun doing it. There is no material evidence for the diamond, but the journals of my forefathers say that it must be there.

 I have faith that we will eventually find the diamond and we can live in luxury for the rest of our days knowing that our children's children will be provided for.

 Random House Unabridged definition of delusional:

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.

 

 Random House Unabridged definition of deluding (obsolete definitions included for completeness):

1.	to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive: His conceit deluded him into believing he was important.

2.	Obsolete. to mock or frustrate the hopes or aims of.

3.	Obsolete. to elude; evade

 
1. My trust in my ancestors has deluded me into believing that there is a diamond buried in my backyard.
2. My delusion manifests in the form of weekend spelunking and more digging.
3. Ultrasound spectrography would probably show that there are no diamonds the size of a refrigerator in my backyard, let alone any diamond caches whatsoever and
4. Such evidence would not convince me to give up my belief in the diamond because
5. New evidence may present itself which will prove that the diamond exists such as
6. Me digging it up.

HAHA! very funny and interesting mustard. i too searched for that diamond in my backyard. every weekend i kept looking and digging. then after a while i gave up.. went inside to get a drink and realized that my refrigerator was in fact the DIAMOND!!

religion doesn't say we have a special prize to look for, it says that we already posses the item we just have to claim it. reflecting thoughts and ideas to a physical example can be very misleading...

i have proof that God exists by my experiences and reason but it would be irrational for me to ask you to believe. i suggest that you keep digging other places than your backyard. try your pockets or your room it could be anywhere... but if you keep on looking i will promise that you will find it!

Thanks for the compliments sapphen. You're a cool guy  

Has 'Harvey the giant talking rabbit' been proven false or true?

See? This is what opens those questions.

In my opinion, it isn't a 'contingent' issue upon whether god exists or not. It is an issue of believing in things not evidential based upon assertion rather than experiment.

It's a mental play using our present ignorance.

If we don't understand why then why not? is absolutely irrational.

However,

If we don't understand 'why this' then 'this is true' is delusional.

By their very nature those two statements are logical fallacies. The mind disorder part comes in when theism asserts that one of those two statements is true despite being logically false. It is a rejection of reality not just a mere avoidance of issues to the contrary that causes me to label theism as a mind disorder. 

If I beleived there were an invisible, magical green lobster sitting on my head that defied all scientific testing, and dogmatically held this belief in spite of the lack of evidence as well as the irrationality of the thing as a whole, would I be called merely irrational or would I be considered delusional?

 What if I beleived in this lobster so strongly I'd be willing to kill myself to do its bidding? If I beleived the lobster controlled my actions through invisible, metaphysical tugs with his spindly green invisible claws?

 I do beleive I would be considered delusional rather than irrational, and the beleif in a personal God is just as irrational, just as ridiculous, just as delusional as a belief in an invisible lobster sitting on my head controlling all my actions.

Thanks for the posts guys! I really appreciate you taking the time to go through the entirety of my long post. I wanted to keep this post "bumped" so that way I could get feedback and criticism on exactly what you three have replied about, the delusional stuff.

First off, I find that each of you did a great job of forcing me into a position of honesty. Honesty,with myself, that my belief in God can arguably be a delusional belief. As much as I hate to admit it, it appears that not much can be said, by way of reason or explanation, that would satisfactorily prove that a belief in God is not delusional. The only thing I can think of to attempt to reply to your posts, have to do with the idea of a 'God' existing compared to a giant lobster existing in my backyard.

I have posted on this subject before in a posting called, "is there a difference between God and teapots?" And I was able to realize that really isn't a difference scientifically between the chances of teapots orbiting Jupiter and God existing somewhere in/or outside the universe. Although, it does seem that there is a difference between God and giant lobsters. I can't say anything scientifically or rationally to back up my judgment; the distinction I see between the two is primarily emotional. But, here is my main dilemma, is the comparison between a belief in God existing and a belief in a giant lobster existing in your backyard, an attempt to argue fallaciously via reductio ad absurdum? The question then is, is this argument via reductio ad absurdum being used correctly or is it being used as a fallacy? Truly, I venture to guess that it is being used correctly, (I wish my university offered more logic courses) but if someone would be so kind as to explain how this is a correct or incorrect usage of the argumentation style of reductio ad absurdum I would greatly appreciate it.

Lastly, I want to individually reply to those of you who posted.

darth_josh: I find what you said very interesting and convincing:

When I read this, you immediately made me consider more skeptically my own beliefs. The only thing I can say to try to wriggle out of your well said statement, is that I am not entitled to use "true" in my belief in God. I would therefore, in a logical schema, be forced to admit the following of my belief in God, namely: My belief in God existence is based on an irrational faith. I feel that if phrased this way, I can escape the delusional label. Although, I feel you can rightly argue further and insist that even though I didn't type the word 'true' in my admittance, it was implied. Granted, I also see that possible implication, but I feel that there is a subtle difference. By not saying my belief is true, I am keeping it outside the realm of truth or falsehood. I think arguably, truth and falsehood are apart of rationality and have no affect on those things which are outside of rationality. Yet, once I say this, I'm sure that I've appeared as worthy of being written off as a lost cause who is unwilling to function in a rational discourse concerning his belief in God. If I may please be allowed to explain myself a little, I hopefully will be able to earn back your trust.

Clearly, a belief in God is irrational, I think we've established that. My only remaining hang-up is whether or not the belief is delusional. In my opinion, it's not delusional, but in your opinion it is. Continuing where I left off above, I wonder, if a belief in God is outside of rationality, can rationality be used to label it anything besides being merely "irrational"? I say this because delusional or 'delusion' involves a criteria of falsehood. Therefore, it would appear that 'delusion' is a word used to describe a belief that can be deduced in a rational schema as either true or false. I apoligize, I may sound like I'm repeating myself. But, I feel that perhaps delusional is a more correctly placed adjective among discussion concerning beliefs which are within the bounds of rationality. Although, this wouldn't be much of a deal, because there is a word that comes to my mind which seems to describe something that is outside of rationality, I think of words like crazy, hallucination, fabrication, etc etc. So, it appears like delusion may be a generous adjective to describe a belief in God.

Ultimately, I just don't feel like delusional is appropriate to describe a belief in God because a belief in God is based on irrational proof. Thereby, rendering a belief in God seemingly impervious to labels or descriptions that deal with beliefs that are within a rational probability, such as delusional. Let me know if this did anything to damage the delusional status of a belief in God. If it hasn't I can't say I wouldn't be surprised, it was merely my best effort to adress a specific nuance; I could very possibly have missed my goal.

 

Tilberian: I found this paragraph in your post most compelling and worth investigating:

I feel that you have pointed a broadly held aspect of Christianity, namely, that 'faith = truth.' Personally, I don't see this as the case. For myself, 'Faith = I have faith that it is True , but I realize it could be false.' This idea was what drove my argument that a belief in God is contingent. Granted, I do have emotional appeal to the truth of my belief, but fundamentally, I acknowledge that it is a contingent belief. I find this rather unsatisfactory though, because I only disagree with you based on my personal beliefs. On everything else you said, I agree with you concerning those who believe that Fatih = Truth. This (faith=truth) in my opinion, would therefore leave it completely open to say, "If you believe that x is true without proof of any kind, then x is delusional." The subtlety's of my personal beliefs may survive your arguments, but even then, I'm not so sure. Does my explanation of my own beliefs change your stance on whether a belief based on faith can be contingent or not?

And yeah, the non-falsifiability aspect of a belief in God is not very helpful either. Although, I would venture to say, that a belief in God could be falsified, if for example, a giant meteor was surely going to the Earth ending all life. I mean honestly, how could the bible reconcile that? Maybe that example and others like it, aren't ways in which a belief in God could be falsified, let me know.

Another thing I wanted to mention was in regards to what you said here,

I don't think it's out of bounds Quite the contrary, it is good to ask people for their justification. If there is none, then at least you have succeeded in pointing out that there is no rational justification behind their beliefs. In my personal experience, when I meet someone who believes firmly in their horoscope, I seriously want to question them about why they do. But, most often, I shrug it off and let it go because I don't want to offend them. Although, I wouldn't view questioning them as inherently bad thing to do, it's just something that makes things a little awkward for a while. But in the proper settings, questioning is all good in my book. And again, I find this answer unsatisfactory because there are many who feel differently than I do about these things, maybe they think it is a bad thing and you shouldn't do it. All I can say, is that I agree with you Tilberian, that a person who thinks that questioning is wrong, is quite seriously mistaken.

And lastly, God could arguably be something that has been made up by the imagination. A rather difficult possibility to overcome as a theist, revolves around ancient humans creating the idea of God to cope with the death of a friend or loved one. Or merely someone who was in your tribe. Death seems to be one of the impossible to ever doubt truths. Therefore, God could be a creation based on hope, desire, and longing for the one who you lost. I wish we could know for sure where the idea of God came from. Was it from God himself? Or was it imagined? Really tough thing to consider, because it is such a probable outcome that it was imagined based on our own imaginations today.

Theotherguy: Your specification of a personal God being delusional is quite interesting. Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, a belief in the existence of lobster in my backyard is merely irrational. But, once I think that the lobster is my friend, or does things for me, or hears my thoughts then I would be delusional. It's funny really, explaining it that way, I agree that if you believed in a lobster in my backyard is listening to my thoughts and caring about me, that would be a delusional belief. But, once I think of God hearing my thoughts and caring, I can't continue the same line of reasoning that leads to a delusional belief. I've explained a little of this thought process above, but nevertheless, I know that it is unsatisfactory that I cannot extend that same reasoning to God.

In conclusion, I realize that it appears I may have lost my attempts to argue that a belief in God is not delusional. I just want you to know that I apoligize for not being able to accept something that appears so simple and plain. I am not being closed minded, I am merely being difficult minded. I hope that my further attempts to argue my points weren't aggravating beyond tolerance. Thanks again for replying and I will be looking forward to your new replies.

very good read jread.  i just looked it up and that was some interesting replies.

is God the only thing that we believe to be true without physical evidence? 

I'm glad you see it that way, for that is how it is intended. Being an apostate, it does upset me when this is taken the wrong way.

Fair enough.

Agreed. I've made VERY similar arguments myself. I'm interested to see where you are going here

Wow, you're essentially using the same logic I use to shoot down theistic modes of thought like presuppositionalism. I keep waiting for you to try to turn things around, but you keep surprising me.

So far, I'm intrigued. 

 

This is a satisfactory assessment for me, I'm not sure why it is satisfactory to a person of faith, such as yourself. I want to understand that, and I don't think I ever will.

You can admit that what you believe is irrational, not based in empricism or science or things we can touch, test and discern about the universe - yet you can live your life around that.

I have to admit, even when I was a Catholic, I couldn't have done that. I believed in God, that something or someone was genuinely interested in me and the world around me, but at the time, what I believed DID make sense to me. I didn't see it as irrational at the time, if I did, I would have let it go - and in fact, when I finally DID see it that way, I DID let it go.

We may have to come back to this point. The process of beliefe is infinitely intriguing to me.

This will be interesting, as essentially you've said, "My beliefs are irrational, and I'm OK with that". I don't think I could do that, and believe me, I TRIED to.

Well, for the record, you can probably read it as "fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as irrationality". We tend to focus on religion, but if you read our irrational precepts, there are plenty of other things that bother us (psychics, new age medicine, etc).

Fire away. I do think irrational beliefs are delusional, whatever form they fall into.

Good point. VERY GOOD point.

The problem here is that, almost invariably, God belief entails belief in the supernatural. Christians, for example, believe a man was executed and rose from the dead three days later. This is CENTRAL to their faith - no Christ, and no resurrection means NO Christianity.

Yes, we do not know, and cannot know (probably) whether or not some mysterious master is looking after us or at least upon us.

However, almost invariably, when a believer attempts to describe thier god, they will spout something quite ridiculous and irrational - say a corpse being resurrected after three days.

I do think our comment IS geared toward people who make such claims, though it is not explictly stated. We do tend to deal predominately with Christians here, and perhaps the slogan reflects that.

I think believing that your saviour was raised from the dead or making claims about what said deity wants IS delusional.

A simple belief in a creator, say a deist, may not be delusional per se, but I'd still find it irrational and untennable.

I hope that clarifies how I see it, I cannot claim to speak for any of my cohorts.

That is the notion that it should leave in your mind. ALL of us are agnostic atheists. We see no evidence for a deity and therefore no reason to believe in one, however, we are open to the remote possibility that there may, one day, be incontovertible evidence of a deity. In such a case, given sufficient evience, it would be equally delusional to deny such a thing existed.

Just as we've no solid evidence of Bigfoot now, the day somebody drags the body of a Bigfoot in, you'd be nuts not to believe in Bigfoot. Until that day however......

The skeptic endeavors to run on the best available evidence. That's the best we can do, I think.

 

It's a horrible reson to believe in anything. It stifles us, holds us back in very real ways. 

 

Indeed it is. Just as my lack of belief in Bigfoot and Nessie are. ALL beliefs SHOULD be contingent on the evidence and change as new information becomes available. There's nothing wrong with this approach, this is the inductive method - it is what the vast majority of human knowledge rests upon.

Let's be clear here though. A guy 1500 years ago can be forgiven for thinking the earth was flat. A man, in this day and age, has to do some serious mental gymnastics to justify a beliefe in a resurrection or that the earth is but 6,000 years old. What is delusional does change as knowlege changes - as it should. 

 

 You're right. So what?

 There is nothing to rule out Bigfoot or Nessie or alien abductions or crazy government conspiracies either. Yet you and I still rightly call these people zealots and cranks and delusional. I simply don't see much of a difference between their beliefs and the beliefs of the vast majority of theists.

We do not need definative statements or eloboate proofs and evidences to determie what is and is not ridiculous.

 

Of course it can. Believing you've been abducted and probed by aliens, believing reptilian humanoids have taken over government and orchestrated 9/11 (I shit you not, people DO believe that), believing that the Cubs will ever win another World Series, etc...

We DO NOT need definitive proof that something is not or cannot be so to make informed and intelligent and rational conclusions about such. This is inductive reasoning.

You've essentially proposed an argument from ignorance, "We do not know definititely, therefore, any idea ought to be considered".

Look, I could propose that apples may rise, rather than fall, to earth tomorrow. I don't KNOW that they won't. I can do NOTHING to prove that they won't do exactly that in the future. Yet I WILL tell you with certainty that apples will STILL FALL to earth tomorrow. Could I be wrong? Sure. Now what are the odds of me being wrong?

I'm also willing to bet the dead won't come back to life tomorrow. 

 

Not exactly. I cite my alien abductess and Bigfoot enthusiasts in this case. We need not definititvely prove a belief is false for it to be delusional. We need only demonstrate that it would be perverse, given the current state of human knowledge, to believe in such.

And I want to make it VERY clear that I find your beliefs irrational, not you. I think you are an extremely well spoken, sincere and intelligent individual. At the same time, I find your beliefs, more or less ridiculous. I do hope that you can make that distinction. I genuinely like you, jread, I simply take issue with what you believe. If you could put it in your mind as an impersonal political disagreement, that would be good, becuase at the end of the day that's more or less how I see it. 

 I do apprecieate what you had to say. And I can hope you can recognize that we've more than a slogan on our home page here. Truth be told, we've had inumerable discussions amoung the group on the phrase you took issue with, no doubt, your post will spawn another. At the end of the day, it really is bait. It does in some senses reflect out views, but no one line can sum things up.

Truthfully, it is meant to entice, and it does. And truthfully, it doesn't fall far from what we really do believe, but as with anything, caveates, explainations, etc apply.

At the end of the day though, its a by-line. Judge us by our shows and activities, not a slogan, please. 

 I loved your post. Never hesitate to speak your mind here.

 

OK, then what if I were in Congress and I went on Meet the Press and told them that from now on I was making all decisions based on my horoscope. Those are beliefs that have been around a lot longer than Christianity. Does that make them valid?

Point to the aspect of the theist argument for God that is better supported than the green lobster. If you can't, why should we consider the green lobster silly and God not?

Sometimes a provocative comment is necessary in order to get people to pay attention. The RRS is an activist group. They need to be edgy or theists will simply say "poor lost souls" and turn away.

The point remains: on every other topic in society, we consider it invalid, erroneous and a sign of poor judgement to hold beliefs on irrational grounds. People who do so are considered delusional. Religion and religious people have been given a free pass only because the beliefs have been around a long time and a lot of people have believed them. Are these good reasons? 

fair answer tilberian.  i feel a little misunderstood but thank you for a strong response.  it answered a few other issues i had questions about.

Thanks, the feeling is mutual.

The mere fact that you are willing to explore these ideas openly says quite a bit about you. We all have our predjudices at the end of the day, and our preconcieved notions are difficult to set aside - but you seem to be making a genuine effort to underdstand where others are coming from, and I appriecate that. You also tend to be bluntly honest about your own beliefs, which is also refreshing.

 

Exactly. Nothing wrong with selling the controversy at bit - so long as there is a bit of meat and honesty under that shiny, shocking veneer.

Oh, I know how that goes, believe me

Honestly examining what you hold "sacred" is a very difficult thing to do - for anyone, regardless of belief or non-belief. I know dozens of "freethinking" non-believers who are willing to examine any aspect of the process of belief when it comes to religion, but who will bite your head off if you'd dare challenge them on their political beliefs or something equally trivial.

I personally hava never liked the term "freethinker" for a variety of reasons, but mainly because I think it denies our very nature. The real trick is not to fool yourself into believing you are completely open minded and have no predjudices - rather, I think the trick is to recognize that we all DO have such predjudices and realize how and when they are influencing you; only then can you even hope to move beyond them. 

 

Me too, that and I just really enjoy a good argument and debate. 

I agree and disagree. I've never been able to understand how a person can say, "I know what I believe is irrational, yet I'm going to use it as a core concept in my life". Still, I agree that there are a lot of people out there who have never bothered to examine what they believe and ask themselves the obvious questions. I'm having a conversation with Bronco in that regard right now. Regardless of belief, I think an unexamined life must be pretty shallow and hollow - to not even understand why you believe as you do just seems alien to me; yet there are plenty of people that fall, seemingly happilly, into that category.

Anytime, it's always a pleasure to converse with you.

 Faith is belief without evidence. Since the beliefs of science are never without evidence, there is no faith involved.

Length of time believing something merely on assertion does not make something true. For 3 thousand years the Egyptians believed that Ra the sun god was real, but he isnt and never was. So what makes any modern monotheism any different? Just because it is popular and people have believed it for thousands of years? The earth wasnt flat nor did the sun rotate around the earth, no matter how many people believed it or how long they believed it.

No one should be "insulted" if they are by what we say, that says alot about their insecurities. Insted, I'd suggest they get over their  fears, and try to understand insted of jumping to conclusions as anything being an insult.