While I no longer suffer from the disease, I don't really know how I recovered. It happened over a period of time and used no drugs.

but many people cannot tolerate reason.

That's why religious proponents make every effort to indoctrinate children.

It's even in Proverbs. I'm on my phone so won't bother to log out and look it up, but the verse basically says your child will adhere to your teachings for life.

Proverbs 22:6

Than discussing this.

there you are.

What I think you mean is that you don't want anyone to discuss this, so you tried to cut it off before it began.

three comments about inanity.

Just gets more fascinating as we go.

And in harmony.

So Christian.

I am using the scientific method of observation and analysis.

My apologies for the error.

But getting an apology from you is greatly appreciated, even if it's dripping with contempt and trademark Christian love.

Understood.

Confirmation bias is one of those some things.

It's not magic, I assure you.

But just because you feel you are correct about an issue does not constitute proof.

Thanks.

What I post is always my opinion, as I state in my signature line. You're welcome not to share that opinion. We can discuss that, on a case-by-case basis, no?

I wouldn't want to make you uncomfortable.

Hard enough to defend your positions as it is.

Or a sceptic?

You exist, and you know the actual answer, therefore the answer is knowable.

I do exist, or so I feel.

Meanwhile here you are in this thread.

Interesting. And predictable.

It's not. In fact it's a perfectly good thread for this group.

As always, thanks for your comment. I can always count on you to reply to me, whether we were having a conversation or not. That way, I know you're OK.

If your neighbor thought your satellite dish was transmitting mind control beams into his home designed to corrupt him, you'd probably think he is insane or at least highly irrational. Meanwhile the exact same belief happens with some religionists about homosexuality and society views them as rational people.

Quite often people in this group focus on the belief in one or more deities as the issue. That's not really the issue. Religion makes numerous unsupported incredible claims that go far beyond belief in one or more deities. The issue is what they believe their invisible overlord is telling them to do. That's where the real delusional behavior begins.

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.”

Meanwhile that same presidunce couldn’t differentiate between god or Dick Cheney telling him to invade Iraq.

...cuz I stopped growing at 13.

What about the self deception of those who feel they are competent to declare others to be deceived when speaking of unprovable matters?

Discuss? Hardly.

Or not.

...please discuss.

If so, the answer is obvious.

...what 'name' did I 'call'? I don't see it, so please be so kind as to highlight the specific text, the 'name' I called. Or, failing that, please explain why is this triggering such a vehement response from you. Does this represent something personal, something deeper, for you?

Perhaps the reason for your post is rooted in something from your past.

Or it might be that because this article validates your own view, you feel it must be correct.

..., and therefore, I sense I have 'hit a nerve', so to speak.

Confirmation bias is an interesting topic, is it not?

You asked a question. A question isn't an answer, by definition.

...it is my hypothesis, I'm not into self-validation and circular references.

I asked for discussion, not validation.

Thank you for revealing so much, intentionally or not.

...yes, ouch, that was/is my method. Touche'

As usual.

He’s made the same lame ass allegation before, and will insist ad nauseum he was called a name, even when he can’t manage to figure out what name he was called. Funny how that works. Sounds kinda familiar.

On a certain level.

You must have read that into the post, between the lines, or something.

Or something.

but so far, I haven't seen you post anything about religion. Instead, you are making snide comments to other posters here. I'm not sure what the usefulness of that might be.

So, do you have a religion topic you would like to discuss today, or will you spend your brief time in the group today simply posting vague attacks on others here?

And yes, I do have something to post about.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218316104

It is not included in my OP. You can search the text until the last black hole has evaporated from the universe and you won't find it, so where did this word come from?

It is a product of your mind, and it is curious that you should openly post it here.

Is there something deeper there, in your mind, that you need to explore?

Please link to it.

No need for a link.

In the OP, there are several possibilities. While there is NO actual name calling, some terms can be twisted into descriptive designations.

Self-deceptor
Mind-virus owner
Willfully ignorant (by definition)
Putting quotation marks around faith and faithful is highly offensive.

I agree that the language is a bit more aggressive than therapeutic.

Though it caught my attention...

Maybe there's a place for a "Dr. Phil" intervention in the Faith community?

Personally I very much like the content here. Though for myself I like to generally pursue a more calmly reasoned approach.

Still? It's a democracy. Let many approaches blossom?

To be sure, I might say that if a contributor is going to advance a view as calm therapy, he's going to have to explain any use of aggressive language.

Maybe Neo Green should be introduced as using "Dr. Phil"-style therapy?

Framing the majority of humans as the victims of a virus as a way of elevating those who are not subject to this supposed virus.

We're just trying to help. We recognize the virus. Many of us suffered the same thing. You are wrong in saying we do this just as a self aggrandizing conceit.

Not that there’s any sense trying to hide what was always a transparent tactic.

Your cherry-picked definition from a website of ONE meaning of the word doesn't change that, no matter how desperately you wish that were the case.

unprovable as in, absolutely no evidence at all?

Yeah, that is worth discussing.

The delusion of lack of evidence for, and evidence against existing, means "faith is being tested."

It's the logic of a schizophrenic.

reasonable to me. Before I'd finished reading, I thought most people's faith could be chalked up to its being socially acceptable within their niche. As far as Christianity is concerned, faith is now the buzzword for being Christian rather than modeling one's thoughts and actions on Christian teachings. As James wrote, you can't have one without the other. Faith-Christianity is not a true religion, at least as far as the original communities felt.

It's their last and final word. When they run out of cognitive arguments, they throw out the word "faith" to signal that reality and logic have no place in their ideology.

Inherently understandable. An appeal to instinctive Reasonableness?

Some theologians like Aquinas or Augustine referred to the "rational soul "

I've made the argument too that the "word" or "logos," relates to our English cognate "logic."

Though he usually uses it unfortunately, just to attack reason and logic and science, as just more faith.

But Guil? What if we turn it around? Religious faith was just an early version, prescience, of Logic?

It may be that there are no "presuppositionless inquiries." But given that, the provisionally best grounded studies, those advancing the most likely convincing results, "fruits," would be Reason, Science, Logic.

Or for religious folks, the "rational soul."

interesting - thank you for posting!

There was one aspect of your post that I wanted to ask your opinion about, specifically: When would it be appropriate for someone who is non-faithful to "expose and discuss the roots of the deception" with someone who identifies as a person of faith?

Obviously I'm talking about outside of this group - since the purpose here is to discuss such issues - but in society as a whole, should this engagement only take place when a person of faith tries to convert someone who does not believe the same as they do or (worse) the person of faith insults or condemns someone because they do not believe?

In other words, do you see this sort of engagement initiated as a reaction to people of faith who overstep their bounds or should this engagement be a proactive step by non-faithful individuals to try to help cure the faithful of this disease?

Thank you again for posting!

Wishing you well and peace.

Tim

And by "delusions" and "false spirits."

So there is a useful biblical language, precedent, to describe delusions even in very religious people. Even those "Christians" who think they are following Christ, may be following a "false Christ."

To your point, if there are Christians who may be following a false Christ - and it is viewed as a symptom of a disease (i.e, self-deception) - would it be more appropriate and/or effective to be reactive or proactive when initiating engagement to address/counter a person of faith?

Thank you again - wishing you well and peace!

Tim

Christians are privileged, and not used to very direct criticism in general though. And that has allowed them to live with far too many illusions, unchallenged, for far too long.

So SOME criticism is in order. When, is a matter for individual judgment.

First of all, thank you again for taking the time to respond to another of my posts.

If I may ask another question - in your opinion, should ALL illusions held by a Christian (such as myself) be challenged and criticized? For example, as a Catholic, I believe in the Trinity as well as Transubstantiation - so I can understand and respect why someone who does not believe as I do would find these beliefs worthy of challenge and criticism. On the other hand, are there certain aspects of faith (again, in your opinion) that should be celebrated?

I ask because I think that the way I try to live my life is a byproduct of my faith - not to avoid being sent to hell or to bargain my way into heaven (if either place exists), but rather because I believe that the love of god is to be shared by and with everyone - regardless of their belief or unbelief - and that I can best share that love by offering comfort and support where I can, especially among those who are less fortunate than myself.

Of course it could be argued that I might still try to live my life that way even if I was not raised Catholic (others certainly have), but the fact of that matter is that I was raised that way...so perhaps even if others do not agree with what I believe, I hope at least that my actions and deeds (inspired by my faith) have a positive impact on others.

I imagine that we will not agree on most topics concerning religion and/or faith, but I greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you.

Wishing you well and peace -

Tim

But at some stage, we hope you will see some bad effects coming from religion too.

Who will teach tolerance if there is no religion? Maybe the Constitution; Liberalism.

Liberal Christianity has a few, albeit problematic, overlaps with atheist liberalism.

Some say we are religious as children; cf. St. Paul. But we add to, modify that, as we become adults.

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2019, 08:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I absolutely agree that there are other ways to teach tolerance outside of religion - and I also agree (and acknowledge) that there are some bad effects that stem from religion.

I think that discussions like this are helpful for both sides to understand our differences, and see if (perhaps) there are areas where we can find agreement.

Thank you again - wishing you well and peace.

Tim

Without realizing it I think you've made the point as to why faith should not be celebrated. It requires people to suspend critical thought.

This is perhaps the #1 problem with organized religion. It posits ideas as divine and inarbitrable. That's why we can't seem to pry away ideas about why it's a good idea to hate based on oral tradition from the stone age.

First of all, if I gave the impression that ideas about my faith are not worthy of challenge and/or criticism...that was not my intent, and if my post conveyed that message, then the fault lies with me, and I apologize for not being more clear.

The point that I wanted to make, was that there ARE certain aspects of faith which lend themselves to discussion/debate/challenge/criticism (such as belief in the Trinity or Transubstantiation) but I also wanted to ask: If a person of faith lives their life in positive service to others based on their faith, should that also be challenged or criticized? In other words, should the belief itself be challenged/criticized or should just the actions resulting from those beliefs?

That was the gist of my initial response to Bretton Garcia - I hope that I was more clear in my response to you.

Thank you again for the opportunity for discussion - wishing you well and peace.

Tim

Assuming this is what you are saying, it’s not all that surprising. It’s pretty hard to envision religion without dogma, and Christianity is certainly no exception. What I’m pointing out is this is the inherent flaw of religion. Whenever any idea is exempt from criticism, corruption is the inevitable result. This is true with many things besides religion, but is especially true in that instance.

Actually, I try to be open to criticism and debate on most topics, including issues of faith (that's the only way one grows and learns) which is why I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you and others.

If I stated that there was a particular idea/belief that I thought was beyond criticism, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Thank you again - wishing you well and peace!

Tim

How else does one define faith?

I think on this point we are in agreement - as a person of faith (specifically a Catholic) there are certain ideas that I accept and believe, including the Resurrection, Transubstantiation, and the divinity of Jesus - but why should having these beliefs shield me from dissenting views and criticism?

These are my beliefs (not yours), so you should have every right to disagree, criticize, and (if so desired) mock me for these beliefs.

It is my hope and goal, however, that these beliefs guide me in treating others fairly and with respect, but if they don't, then you have every right to call me out for my actions.

Again, I appreciate the discussion - wishing you well and peace

Tim

Are there aspects of faith that should be celebrated?

My answer is no for the reasons given which have nothing to do with how you view your faith on a personal level. Regardless of what potential you think faith has for benevolence, in practice it has even more potential for malevolence. Either way it’s still a dishonest way of behavior modification. I can really see nothing worth celebrating.

answer to that question, as well as your right to question and criticize my beliefs.

Obviously we see this differently and will not reach agreement on this issue, but I greatly appreciate your well thought out position/comments and your civility in discussing this with me.

Thank you again - wishing you well and peace.

Tim

...Thanks for your reply, I will do my best to address your comments and questions.

When would it be appropriate for someone who is non-faithful to "expose and discuss the roots of the deception" with someone who identifies as a person of faith?

In other words, do you see this sort of engagement initiated as a reaction to people of faith who overstep their bounds or should this engagement be a proactive step by non-faithful individuals to try to help cure the faithful of this disease?

That makes perfect sense.

If I may ask another question - in your opinion, if an individual (like myself) who claims to be a person of faith is self-delusional in this regard, would it be possible (or even likely) for me to escape the "faith trap" on my own if I see that faith as being beneficial?

For example, as you may have seen in a recent post of mine, my father died last Tuesday:
https://www.candlelightfuneralhome.com/notices/Tom-Lynch?fbclid=IwAR34Q7Emcxxl-pLx8VXkk2T6Fl4OUKIdIt7zLJWMbzB3CV98YJPvolrIkVc

During his life, my father was a very devout Catholic, and that faith not only gave him great comfort, but (in my opinion) it also helped shape his worldview and the way he treated others - with great compassion and love. My mother also shared this faith, and that faith gave her great comfort during the time he was dying - not to mention the words of support and comfort the priest provided at his funeral.

To that end, not that I think that you or anyone else in this group is trying to dissuade me from my own personal beliefs/faith, but for the sake of discussion, do you think faith is always a trap, when (for some) it may be the only available means of solace, support, and comfort?

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this with you.

Wishing you well and peace.

Tim

... my response(s):

Although I'm relatively sure that we will not reach agreement on this topic, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you.

Thank you again - wishing you well and peace!

Tim

...

I don’t logically believe in god, etc, but I envy my parents’ resolute faith. Without it, life is meaningless. Believers do have an advantage over the rest of us.

Without religious faith, "life is meaningless"? That is simply not true.

One perspective:

https://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/corymarkum/life-without-god-meaningless

It really is no substitute for the belief in afterlife. If religion is the opiate of the people (it is) I’m not sure a benevolent god or dictator would not prescribe it for the benefit of mankind.

I'm sorry you think life is meaningless without religion, but not everyone does.

In my opinion, the fact that one does not adhere to a particular religion and/or set of beliefs (such as I do) does not make their life meaningless. It may, in fact, give MORE meaning to their life, and to the lives of those they love and cherish.

Wishing you well and peace.

Tim

those who do not have faith, or that we who profess a certain faith have any sort of advantage over those who do not believe.

For example, my father recently died (on June 18) - and while I can personally say that my faith offered me comfort, I can also say that I found comfort in the memories of my father, as well as seeing his legacy live on in his children and grandchildren, not to mention the friends he made, and all the good he accomplished in his life.

Those things are independent of faith, and can be shared and celebrated by all of us...so I definitely can see how faith is not necessary to find comfort in such situations.

As far as compassion is concerned, I would bet that many of the people who took care of my dad during his last illness probably did not believe in god...yet their compassion to him and to our family stemmed from the fact that they were simply good, caring people, not because of what they believed or did not believe.

Anyway, those are just my personal thoughts on this issue - I welcome the opportunity to continue this discussion with you and others.

Wishing you well and peace

Tim

"A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities." If a person's religion isn't causing him/her significant distress in his/her important activities, it wouldn't be classified as a mental disorder.

...I was using an analogy to express a hypothesis of an idea. The analogy is not the idea itself.

Also, please consider, the idea is, at its base, a suggestion focused toward people who do not claim 'faith', not the other way around.

Plus, I merely suggested that 'faith' is a form of self-deception and then noted that self-deception is a symptom of mental disorders.

I did not say that 'faith' = mental disorder. You reading too much into the hypothesis.

If you cure me of my self-deception, am I better off? Are you?

...before 911, wouldn't they have been better off?
The other passengers?
The citizens of the US?
The world as a whole?

THEY on the other hand, ended up no worse than they would have, had they lived exemplary lives, loved mankind and cured cancer. They still end up dead and going into nothingness.

They died, however, thinking they would get into heaven. As a wartime advantage, score one for bin laden. If society needs soldiers, the believers have an advantage.

...don't have "Gott Mit Uns" imprinted on their belts.

The overall advantage is with the secular society whose service members are not deluded with irrational ideas and hold to the idea that: "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

If I’m forming an army. Patton was good for motivating the anti-believers, though.

...as we are now.