I tend to be more sympathetic to a theistic point of view than an atheistic one, not because I am a believer but because they believe in something, right or wrong. They don't define themselves based on the fact that something doesn't exist. What an odd sort of self-identification. — T Clark

But can't the atheist view be easily rephrased as a positive belief? It's a vision of nature in which nature is unconcerned with humanity.

Atheists vary, and some may call themselves agnostics as a matter of taste. But perhaps the essence is that non-human reality is indifferent to humans and also that death is the end. These are 'positive' beliefs that are acted upon. To deny God and afterlife is to affirm nature's indifference and genuine personal mortality --and the reverse. So theism can be framed as a denial of death and cosmic indifference.

But can't the atheist view be easily rephrased as a positive belief? It's a vision of nature in which nature is unconcerned with humanity.

Atheists vary, and some may call themselves agnostics as a matter of taste. But perhaps the essence is that non-human reality is indifferent to humans and also that death is the end. These are 'positive' beliefs that are acted upon. To deny God and afterlife is to affirm nature's indifference and genuine personal mortality --and the reverse. So theism can be framed as a denial of death and cosmic indifference. — dog

I get it. Yes, there are plenty of robust ways of understanding the world that don't involve God or any supernatural agency. If I were to describe the view of the world that fits me best, the subject of God probably wouldn't come up. I find that I often do end up talking about God because I think there are important areas of common understanding I have with theists and I want to emphasize that.

But that's not the way atheists, or more correctly anti-theists, do it. It seems like the fact that there is no God is more important to them than what there is. It really seems like the hatred of religion came first and the philosophical/scientific superstructure came later.

But that's not the way atheists, or more correctly anti-theists, do it. It seems like the fact that there is no God is more important to them than what there is. It really seems like the hatred of religion came first and the philosophical/scientific superstructure came later. — T Clark

I hear you.

One of the reasons I like anonymity is because I don't want to broadcast my own worldview to just everyone. I don't think I'm wrong, but I also don't think whether I'm personally right or wrong is helpful or important to others. The implicit social contract here is that members may be exposed to ideas that are even dangerous to them. I mention this because I think I share your sense of distance of evangelical atheism or anti-theism. I don't think that any particular 'ism' will 'save the world' by catching on. Our problems/challenges seem to run deeper than any conscious ideology. (So, for example, I don't want to be Mr. Anti-evangelism either, since that has to be evangelical if projected as a universal solution. I'm a sinner and fool, and I suspect that (in some sense) we all are. When we feel our oats, our favorite ideas sometimes look like the all-purpose cure.

Yes, you're right that false beliefs are not *sufficient* for delusions. You can have false beliefs and not be mentally ill or deluded. My point was that false beliefs are *necessary* in order for a person to be deluded. If you think you're being followed and you *are* being followed then your belief cannot be taken for a sign of illness.


T. Clark: "So, being wrong means you're crazy? That doesn't make much sense."

I would say in the case of believing in God it does. Personally I believe in God and I'm a Christian. If it's a bunch of hokum, as some believe - a delusion, according to Dawkins - then I'd say it's a pretty crazy belief. It's often been mocked as such - the 'flying spaghetti monster' argument. It's a risk that theists take. Whether it adds up to a clinical diagnosis, I'm not qualified to say.

The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background. — Harry Hindu


You said it. Not me. — TheMadFool

First, I didn't say it, Wikipedia did.

Second, I didn't bold that particular line, so it doesn't even come into play.

Third, and finally, if a delusion was an idea that is out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background, then that means that every new denomination or sect of an existing religion that forms is a delusion. This means that Jesus was delusional because his ideas were out of keeping with the social and cultural background he found himself in.

Obviously, thinking differently isn't a symptom of a delusion. It is thinking illogically on purpose, and only in a particular case or for a particular belief, in order to avoid the logical truth, that is a delusion.

Think, people, before posting your comments.

It is interesting that the list of symptoms does not specify that the belief is false.

Suppose someone is being followed by the secret police in a country where such things happen and where nobody dares talk about them for fear of persecution. He would probably have all the symptoms listed. But he would not have a delusion. — Cuthbert

Every time that it mentions the word, "delusion", it is implying that the belief is false. That is what a delusion is - a false belief.

So, I'm still genuinely confused about the agnostic, tolerant position you guys seem to be advocating.

I think that Idolatry is really bad for humanity. I think this primarily because it encourages people to absolve responsibility for moral judgements to someone else and I think that leads people to accept acts that we would almost universally see as immoral because they presume 'someone else' must have allowed it and it's not their place to judge. This obviously makes me extremely anti-religious because religions are almost universally forms of Idolatry which advise absolving moral judgement to another agent. Now, I'm perfectly willing to concede that I might be wrong about this, there's very little hard evidence either way and in common with all philosophical theories, it's based on axioms which, if not true, would undermine the whole thing.

But...

The consequences if I'm right are a society which allows immoral acts with relative impunity. We do, indeed have something approaching such a society, where some people are allowed to starve to death while others buy a third sports car. I really don't want anyone to have to live in such a society, I really want a better one.

The consequences if i'm a bit wrong (there's no problem with Idolatry, but there's no God either) if pursue my goal to abolish idolatry with vigour, is that some people get offended, and presuming I succeed, people abandon a comforting (but ultimately wrong) practice of moral absolution.

The consequence if I'm really wrong (there's no problem with Idolatry, in fact it's entirely necessary because there is a God and he knows what's best for us) is that some people will make mistakes in moral judgement which could otherwise have been avoided, but by and large the 'good' moral decisions which we all applaud are considered 'good' by theists and atheists alike, so I can't see how this could matter much. God might get annoyed that we've all abandoned him due to my excellent advocacy for atheism, but I'm sure he can handle it.

Obviously I could also be wrong about all these consequences, but then what would be the consequence of me being wrong about them and acting vs me being right about them but failing to act... and so on...

Basically, what I'm saying is how are you reaching your conclusions that, in the face of uncertainty, the best course of action is to not act with very much conviction on any of your particular beliefs. To me it seems, like any other risk assessment, to be not only about chance (uncertainty) but also consequence. Those risks with a dire consequences are mitigated with more vigour than those with minor consequences even when the uncertainty is high in both cases.

It takes a bit of hubris to think you can explain the motivations of billions of people with whom you disagree in a single dismissive sentence. To think that you're right and most everyone else is completely wrong sounds like a delusion to me. I'm not a theist but it's clear to me you are wrong in your assessment. — T Clark

It is you that is being too dismissive because you don't understand my background and my experiences.

I used to be a believer. I was raised by a religious family. I was surrounded by like-minded believers. As I reached my late teens I began to see inconsistencies and began to realize that I wasn't always right in my thinking and beliefs. I realized that getting at the truth would mean that I would have to put my emotions aside and simply go where the evidence leads me and without trying to expand on any explanation without a good reason for it (Occam's Razor).

It was scary at first. It meant that my existence might be finite, and if that were true, it made me a bit depressed, because I really didn't want to cease to exist and I wanted to be believe that my dead loved-ones still existed somewhere where we'd meet again. There was also the fear of eternal damnation.

What I began to notice was that religion itself tended to scare you into not thinking differently - that to do so would be punishable by eternal torture. I think it was the inconsistent morality of God that really got me questioning things. I also began to realize that there were many more competing religions and ideas, and that human beings were wrong about a great many things and tended to use "group think" (mass delusion), and accepted the beliefs from the culture they developed in, without ever questioning why they believe it.

I asked a lot of questions of my family and friends and received no good answers that made any sense. I explored other religions and other ideas and eventually found that science provided the best explanations and even admitted that it was wrong and accepted alternate explanations that were even better and were consistent with the rest of what we know.

When I questioned the existence of God to other believers, they would respond with questions like, "Well, what happens after we die?" and "Then, how did everything get here?". By asking these questions, they are exposing their premises that they expect to live forever, and that their loved-ones still exist, and that the universe must have a creator and therefore a purpose for it and them. There is also the fear of eternal torture that is brought up. Religion scares people into believing it and it allows a small group of people to more easily control a larger group of people. Religion is a mass delusion.

Science has begun to get at these questions and even questions about consciousness. But these explanations aren't good enough for the theist because it doesn't make them feel important. Many people correlate their having a grand purpose with their importance as an individual. They want to matter in the grand scheme of things and to the greatest entity to exist, God. God's existence proves that they have a grand purpose and that they are more important than being a collection of cells that will eventually die.

Just look at the responses to the non-belief in the supernatural and God on these forums. They are often met with statements equivalent to, "I don't like that idea.", as if the truth is beholden to what they like, or how it makes them feel.

We are not emotionless, unfeeling computers. We are human animals with sometimes irrational, emotional, imperfect brains. Acting as though holding a belief that brings one joy or peace in this world full of suffering and pain is a mental illness shows both ignorance and a lack of maturity.

To be honest, though, you're misrepresenting theists in the first place. Who are you to say why all theists hold their theistic beliefs? That's an extremely egotistical claim to make, that you know why all of these people believe this silly thing (which you, of course, don't believe because you, of course, are not silly like they are). This, again, shows ignorance and a lack of maturity. — JustSomeGuy

I was a theist, and my family are theists, so I know I'm not misrepresenting them because I've asked them and many others. What is egotistical is to claim someone doesn't know what they are talking about when you don't know where they've come from and what knowledge they've acquired through life by asking the necessary questions, as I explained in the above post.

Of course we are emotional, and that is when we are irrational. That is my point - that when we consult our feelings rather than the empirical evidence and logic, we become irrational, and irrationality doesn't get at the truth. It only makes you feel better.

I was a theist, and my family are theists, so I know I'm not misrepresenting them because I've asked them and many others. What is egotistical is to claim someone doesn't know what they are talking about when you don't know where they've come from and what knowledge they've acquired through life by asking the necessary questions, as I explained in the above post. — Harry Hindu

It's egotistical to claim that your singular life experience hasn't shown you an objective representation of billions of people?
I'm sorry, but claiming you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of billions of people because you think you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of a handful you've talked to is ridiculous. I'm surprised you don't see how irrational that is. In fact it's much more irrational than the belief in a deity.

You seem to be one of many people who have a bias against religion because you were raised religious and as a youth rebelled against it. It's very common for people who go through that experience to stay in that "rebellious" mindset for years, and indeed some never get past it.

That is my point - that when we consult our feelings rather than the empirical evidence and logic, we become irrational, and irrationality doesn't get at the truth. It only makes you feel better. — Harry Hindu

You made the claim that belief in a deity is mental illness. Now you are implying that what you've been saying is that belief in a deity is irrational. By using these term interchangeably, you imply that they mean the same thing. Are you really saying that "irrational" is the same as "mental illness"? If so, we are all mentally ill.

Basically, what I'm saying is how are you reaching your conclusions that, in the face of uncertainty, the best course of action is to not act with very much conviction on any of your particular beliefs. — Pseudonym

On the contrary, I believe with great conviction that none of us knows what is best for humanity, or whether or not a religion is true. It takes great hubris to think you know what would be best for all mankind. We cannot say what the world would be like without religion, but to view it as having a net negative effect so far is ignoring so much of what religion has done for the development of our societies and cultures.

I believe with great conviction that none of us knows what is best for humanity, — JustSomeGuy

I gather that, but humanity cannot simply stagnate, paralysed with uncertainty so we have to act. You have your own beliefs on which you will act.

But each of our actions affects others, so each person's beliefs will affect you in some way, and your beliefs will affect others, because we act on our beliefs.

I would also argue that inaction is no different to action in the extent to which it affects others (I'm not talking about a moral distinction here, just a pragmatic one)

So what I'm saying is that by failing to act in such a way as to discourage religion, you are expressing your sincere belief that it is at least OK to have religion in the world. You're not withholding judgement, nor being agnostic on the subject. Whatever effect religion has on your society you are deciding with conviction that you are happy to allow that effect to continue, by your failure to act against it.

To put it another way, we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences? How is "none" any less valid an answer to that question than "some" or "loads"? No answer can claim to be more agnostic than any other, each person answering can do so with great hubris or with great humility, what they think the answer is has no bearing on the extent to which they consider themselves to be right.

to view it as having a net negative effect so far is ignoring so much of what religion has done for the development of our societies and cultures. — JustSomeGuy

I'm not sure you're understood the meaning of the word 'net'. It means taking all the good things and weighing them against the bad. What is it about that process that you think ignores the good religion has done? Are you suggesting that you've already carried out that weighing excersice and anyone reaching a different conclusion to you must automatically be wrong regardless of what arguments or evidence they bring? Doesn't that sound a bit like the great hubris you've been vigorously decrying?

It is you that is being too dismissive because you don't understand my background and my experiences. — Harry Hindu

Rereading what I wrote, I wasn't dismissive of your thoughts at all, I just disagreed with them. When I said you were dismissive, I was referring to the fact that you called theist's beliefs "delusions."

Your explanation of how you got to where you are now in terms of belief was well written and clear. It describes an intellectual quest you seem to have followed with determination and persistence. That is an admirable thing. I don't fault the conclusions you have come to, I only disagree with them.

When I questioned the existence of God to other believers, they would respond with questions like, "Well, what happens after we die?" and "Then, how did everything get here?". By asking these questions, they are exposing their premises that they expect to live forever, and that their loved-ones still exist, and that the universe must have a creator and therefore a purpose for it and them. There is also the fear of eternal torture that is brought up. Religion scares people into believing it and it allows a small group of people to more easily control a larger group of people. Religion is a mass delusion. — Harry Hindu

This is more of the hubris I mentioned. It is infuriating to me when someone tries to explain my actions or beliefs in terms of their own preconceptions without knowing me. I'm not saying I'm angry at you, I am not a theist so your opinion here doesn't really apply to me, but if I were, I probably would be.

Science has begun to get at these questions and even questions about consciousness. But these explanations aren't good enough for the theist because it doesn't make them feel important. Many people correlate their having a grand purpose with their importance as an individual. They want to matter in the grand scheme of things and to the greatest entity to exist, God. God's existence proves that they have a grand purpose and that they are more important than being a collection of cells that will eventually die. — Harry Hindu

Science's explanations aren't good enough for me either and, as I said, I am not a theist. I'm an engineer who loves physics.

I gather that, but humanity cannot simply stagnate, paralysed with uncertainty so we have to act. — Pseudonym

I never said anything about stagnation. Humanity has always acted, and always will act. Nothing that you or I believe or do will affect that.

But each of our actions affects others, so each person's beliefs will affect you in some way, and your beliefs will affect others, because we act on our beliefs — Pseudonym

So you agree that this "action" you speak about is a collaborative action between all of mankind? Which means you, as one individual, have virtually zero effect on anything.

I would also argue that inaction is no different to action in the extent to which it affects others — Pseudonym

I'm arguing that inaction is no different to action (in the case of you as an individual) in the extent to which it affects the religious beliefs of all of mankind.

Whatever effect religion has on your society you are deciding with conviction that you are happy to allow that effect to continue, by your failure to act against it. — Pseudonym

No, I am deciding that I cannot say one way or the other that my society would be better off without religion, and that nothing I personally do will have any effect on it anyway.

To put it another way, we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences? How is "none" any less valid an answer to that question than "some" or "loads"? — Pseudonym

You're not understanding what I'm saying. This is exactly the kind of hubris I'm talking about. You think you have the power to allow/encourage religion in your society. You don't. Clearly you've been trying to, based on what you're saying right now. But considering that around 85% of humanity has some kind of religious faith, it seems you aren't doing a very good job. Apparently you need to try harder.

I'm not sure you're understood the meaning of the word 'net'. It means taking all the good things and weighing them against the bad. — Pseudonym

No, I understand the meaning. You just didn't understand the point I was making.

Are you suggesting that you've already carried out that weighing excersice and anyone reaching a different conclusion to you must automatically be wrong regardless of what arguments or evidence they bring? Doesn't that sound a bit like the great hubris you've been vigorously decrying? — Pseudonym

My point was that without religion, we would not be living in the world we are living in today. It has shaped nearly every aspect of our various societies. But at an even more foundational level, religion is the origin of our morality, and I don't think it needs to be argued how integral morality has been in developing our societies.

My point was that a rational person, looking at all of the evidence and the history, could only conclude that religion has been a net benefit thus far. This is something that is widely agreed upon by historians and philosophers. So concluding otherwise shows either an ignoring of some of the evidence and history, or a lack of rationality. It seems to me that you are one of many people who allow your personal experience with religion to cloud your judgement.

Science has begun to get at these questions and even questions about consciousness. But these explanations aren't good enough for the theist — Harry Hindu

You need to be very careful not to trade one God (God) for another (science). Many former theists do just that, and fail to see the irony and hypocrisy.

Accepting science without question is just as irrational as accepting the Bible without question.

"The Thinking Atheist." Mhmm. Do they also have any bridges to sell?

I would say in the case of believing in God it does. Personally I believe in God and I'm a Christian. If it's a bunch of hokum, as some believe - a delusion, according to Dawkins - then I'd say it's a pretty crazy belief. It's often been mocked as such - the 'flying spaghetti monster' argument. It's a risk that theists take. Whether it adds up to a clinical diagnosis, I'm not qualified to say. — Cuthbert

I've thought about religious belief, trying to be objective. Is it a crazy belief? I don't think it's any less plausible than the big bang or quantum mechanics, keeping in mind that I accept the consensus of physicists as our best current understanding of how the world came into being.

My point was that a rational person, looking at all of the evidence and the history, could only conclude that religion has been a net benefit thus far. — JustSomeGuy

My god, you're prepared to accept that someone might rationally believe that a man walked on water, returned from the dead, parted the seas, but if someone dare suggest that some historians might have reached the wrong conclusion about something as ambiguous as the net value of religion they must be irrational! This is insane, I've nothing left to say to you.

To put it another way, we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences? How is "none" any less valid an answer to that question than "some" or "loads"? — Pseudonym

This is a pretty extraordinary statement. Do you really believe that we should forbid people to believe certain things. If so, how are you different from ISIS? How do you enforce your edicts? Inquisition? Reeducation? Are you from the US? What about the First Amendment? Is it time to toss it out?

The things you are saying make you seem like more of a zealot than any Christian I've met.

You really seem to have issues with misunderstanding what people say.

This is a discussion on theism. Theism does not imply any of the examples you give.

But even beyond that, you have misrepresented what both you and I have been saying this whole time, so if you want to end the discussion I won't object. You seem to be an irrational fundamentalist, and there's no use arguing with fundamentalists.

This is a pretty extraordinary statement. Do you really believe that we should forbid people to believe certain things. If so, how are you different from ISIS? How do you enforce your edicts? Inquisition? Reeducation? Are you from the US? What about the First Amendment? Is it time to toss it out?

The things you are saying make you seem like more of a zealot than any Christian I've met. — T Clark

What makes him different from ISIS? Are you kidding me? He is clearly just vocalizing that we should discourage religion and express our issues with it. It doesn't mean walk door to door telling religious people they are wrong, let alone killing every religious person.

Why shouldn't we be able to express why we think religion is wrong? How are you different from ISIS? How do you enforce your edicts? Inquisition? Reeducation? Are you from the US? What about the First Amendment? Is it time to toss it out?

What makes him different from ISIS? Are you kidding me? He is clearly just vocalizing that we should discourage religion and express our issues with it. It doesn't mean walk door to door telling religious people they are wrong, let alone killing every religious person. — SonJnana

Here's what Pseudonym wrote:

how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society — Pseudonym

He is clearly proposing that we do not allow, that we forbid, religion in our society. That means significantly more than walking door to door.

Why shouldn't we be able to express why we think religion is wrong? How are you different from ISIS? How do you enforce your edicts? Inquisition? Reeducation? Are you from the US? What about the First Amendment? Is it time to toss it out? — SonJnana

Where did I say you shouldn't be able to express your opinion about religion? I just pointed out the clear implications of what Pseudonym wrote.

If Pseudonym is saying we should be intolerant, then I don't agree with that. But I'll let Pseudonym defend that rather than possibly misrepresent Pseudonym's position.

If Pseudonym is saying we should be intolerant, then I don't agree with that. But I'll let Pseudonym defend that rather than possibly misrepresent Pseudonym's position. — SonJnana

Makes sense to me.

If Pseudonym is saying we should be intolerant, then I don't agree with that. But I'll let Pseudonym defend that rather than possibly misrepresent Pseudonym's position. — SonJnana

Based on this...

To put it another way, we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences? — Pseudonym

...as well as many other things Pseudonym has said, the attitude of intolerance seems to be very blatant, to me.

When you're talking about whether or not to allow people to hold personal beliefs that you disagree with, I don't see how else that could be interpreted.

Of course, we're sort of getting into the "should we tolerate intolerance?" paradox now.

So, I'm still genuinely confused about the agnostic, tolerant position you guys seem to be advocating. — Pseudonym

I'm not advocating, though. I am aware that I am conversing with a few individuals. I don't think such conversation will have much of an effect on the world at large. So I'm tolerant of difference here in this little space designed for airing out one's preferences.

I'm sometimes envy those who have the mission of saving humanity from its ignorance via their own wisdom. In retrospect, I'd call that the general structure of religion. It's the confidence and self-importance of the generalized evangelist. I'm not preaching against it. I'm describing it from the outside to share consciousness with a few other word-mongers like myself.

If I thought my posting here really affected the world at large, I might not post. Because I'm not sure what's good for the world at large. It's complex as hell.

Seems like a really bad analogy. The specifics of religion are clearly cultural. People aren't born Christians or Muslims. People do seem to be born homo- or heterosexual. — T Clark

"Reminds me of" is not "is analogous to".

It just means that I subjectively sense the same vibe in both cases. Both are creepy to me.

I read that quote as if Pseudonym is saying we should not allow religion when it's degrees of consequences have reached a point that is intolerable, like say ISIS for example. It is our duty to not allow that. While we should discourage in other cases. That was my interpretation, but I acknowledge that it was not my quote therefore I may be misrepresenting.

like say ISIS for example. It is our duty to not allow that. — SonJnana

I agree with that, of course. But Pseudonym has so far only referenced Christianity, and he has specifically referenced it.

As you say, though, we're all just going by our interpretations, and any one of us could be wrong.

If I thought my posting here really affected the world at large, I might not post. Because I'm not sure what's good for the world at large. It's complex as hell. — dog

You're a dog. It must be very complex.