These claims smack of broadbrushing and bigotry right out of the gate.

You find them insulting because they ARE insulting.

I don't know how to combat these claims except to simply state my disagreement.

Clearly, the bad acts of a few within, say, the Catholic Church, does not make all of Christianity evil any more than a bad cop makes all cops bad.

What's worse, the hatred of fundamentalist evangelicals, for example, is used by these intolerant few to smear any religion and any person not taking their side against all faiths.

I'd like to think that the more thoughtful and rational among us see some good in all faiths and a lot of commonality, and are not only tolerant but respectful of all other faiths AND of those who choose to be atheist or agnostic.

I don't know if there's any way to constructively engage the few who insist they're right and everyone else is delusional.

hurt.

Can you explain your rationale for doing that?

I had assumed that you were doing it to hit back against the statements about religious believers being delusional and that you didn't really hold those statements as true, but I could be mistaken.

...do not single out atheists but instead refer to people who spend time deriding others with whom they disagree and other, similar behaviors.

These behaviors are by no means limited to any particular group.

Bullies come in all shapes and sizes.

accurately.

And I think there is a lot of data to support some of the underlying pathology of bullies and bullying.

I would use the argumentation tactics of classical debate and nihilism.

1. Define terms. What is a deluded belief? Check to see if the definition is fair. For example, "deluded belief = any religious belief" would circular in nature, and similar to "the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true."

2. How should we use this definition to determine if any one belief is deluded or not? If this question is not answered, then call bullshit. If we do not have a system for a label, then the label is completely arbitrary. It won't even have the bias of science, which assumes there is an objective world.

3. Apply this definition to a variety of other beliefs. For example, slavery is bad, money has value, the POTUS has authority, a historic event has actually occurred, objects exist, you are not a brain in a jar, etc. This should be done thoughtfully.

4. You will likely expose the flaws, if there are any, in their arguments using this method, but very few people will be willing to clearly defend their position. Most people resort to insults and/or strawmen pretty quickly, in my experience.

Just my opinion.

Most of the time the comment is more along the lines of "Those that believe in things religious are delusional". So if I were the one making that statement and were challenged, my answers would be along these lines:

1. Delusional is believing in something for which there is not evidence, therefore anyone who believes in god, etc is delusional.

2. We will use the definition easily. If there is no evidence for something, then the person that believes in that thing is deluded.

3. There is evidence that slavery is bad, money has value, POTUS has authority, etc. There are some things for which there may not be evidence, like certain historical events. Those that hold tight to a belief in those things are delusional.

How would you respond to that.

4. I agree that when challenged, most everyone who makes this point resorts to insults, straw men and some rallying of the troops activity to support their indefensible position.

Thanks.

What is your evidence for this belief? Have there been any peer-reviewed studies stating this? Is this the opinion of major psychiatric organizations.

That is where I would begin. If they cannot provide evidence, then by their own definition, they are delusional.

Delusional actually means having a firmly held belief when there is clear evidence that the belief is untrue.

In the case of religious beliefs, there is no evidence that the belief is untrue, so the burden is on those calling others delusional to provide the evidence.

Which they can't do, of course.

So they often revert to a position that they are using delusional in a colloquial, not clinical, way.

The colloquial definition is a bit softer but it's really hard to make a case that they aren't essentially saying that the person has a psychiatric symptom.

I agree that someone that believes that all religious people are delusional are, by their own definition, delusional, but this point generally doesn't go over very well, lol.

Then point out they're are talking about themselves, as opposed to the religious people they are insulting. For example, if I say I hate water chestnuts, am I making a claim about water chestnuts or myself? Likewise, if they are using delusion in the colloquial sense, then they are talking about their own opinions. They are talking about themselves.

I would like to see this meme go away. It's hurtful and only used to demean others.

I appreciate your insights into the whole debate.

I run into this when arguing with creationists. They say, "Evolution is only a theory." To a scientist, the formal definition of "theory" is "an explanation that fits the known facts", and by that definition, the Theory of Evolution is properly called a theory. Colloquially, "theory" is a synonym for "guess".

I just move on.
I choose to believe what I want, and am comfortable enough that my choices are the right ones for me.

Others may prefer vanilla or caramel. while I prefer rum raisin.

Besides, I don't care to give the time and energy to shadow-box with people on the internet.
I've got too many other people to see and places to go (figuratively).

My answer likely doesn't help you, Justin, but there it is. Sorry

". . .I ask that no one come in here to argue for the religious people are deluded and mentally ill side."

Is it your contention that anyone who is deluded is mentally ill?

I'm not taking a position either way with this question. I'm only trying to get a handle on people's grasp of vocabulary, and on their willingness to conflate distinct definitions for the sake of argument.

You already stated your position:

usually.


And it looks like you have taken a position as shown by rug.

the viewpoints are distinct.

That's a good start. I would suggest that the pattern you describe usually arises from posts by members who deliberately muddy the waters by responding to the simple use of the word "delusion" with spurious accusations regarding the latter.

I don't waste my time with such posters, nor with those who have obvious reading comprehension issues.

But atheists generally use it as if not a synonym for mental illness at least a step along that path.

There are non-spiritual believers - but many believers believe that there is a spiritual world - there is a God to pray to for example in the example of mono-theistic belief systems. I believe that when I pray I achieve contact with my God - that there's a spiritual connection.

Atheists do not believe that such a connection is possible; and therefore a believer who asserts a connection to God is delusional. In some cases they go on to make comments about how a belief in communication with God is not really any different than believing you are receiving messages from a Dog or a Flying Spaghetti Monster or so on and so forth - pointing out that believing the later might well get one locked up in a mental institution.

Not always -and of course there are always "high-minded" atheists eager to defend the term deluded as not implying mental illness. This is one of the many phenomena that caused me to give up on the religion forum - you'd have one poster take all believers all the way to the nut house and then when you challenged that another would pop up to say "But of course delusion doesn't necessarily mean mental illness."

Bryant

Have us committed.

You really have no business in here. This is a safe haven and you spend a lot of time attacking religion and religious people.

There's a nice little place you can return to and resume calling me out and attacking me. I can't defend myself there, but that makes it even more fun, doesn't it?

It's also ignorant.

A delusion is a psychiatric disorder caused by a biological process. A person who has a delusion no more invited it than another person would invite a tumor into his lung.

It's also an inconsistent argument.

It is not caused by ignoring evidence, insecurity, a longing for a sky daddy or any other of the usual bullshit they peddle.

It's also rank dishonesty.

If they believe someone's opinion is wrong, first they have to recognize that it is an opinion, a religious opinion, not a delusion. Then argue it or discuss it.

It's also a low-grade bullshit tactic to prevent discussion.

That's the clinical definition in reference to a pathology. Most people aren't using it in that context. I've had it applied to myself, for non-faith-related reasons. I have also had occasion to use it myself in the context of definition 1:

in the second sense as well; it's not just that believers interpret it to mean mental illness. It's that some atheists clearly use it in the psychiatric sense (while others don't).

It's a sort of a catch 22 for believers - if we take offense at some atheists claiming we all belong in the nut house than we are lectured about what delusion really means - a mistaken or misleading opinion. On the other hand, it's very hard to read someone comparing faith to insanity and not to respond.

Unpleasant.

Bryant

That would be grounds for an alert. I've alerted on such thing myself.

A la hysteria.

I'm not going to debate insults but I will be happy to provide some when it is used. I'm happy you don't use it.

Because that while I agree it is generally used as an insult - it's also an accurate description of what many atheists believe. By the same token, I have respect for other belief systems, but I pretty much believe mine to be the correct one. If we are going to discuss beliefs and opinions on these matters we are inevitably going to bump against the fact that we have different beliefs; there are things we can concede but there are other things we can't and shouldn't be expected to concede.

An Atheists who is of the opinion that believers are deluded should be able to say that - but of course an atheist who uses the term as an attack or insult, should post in religion or another forum where such approaches are acceptable.

Bryant

It tends to set a few of us off.


But yes they shoukd be able to express their view on it.

You can say helpful progressive things - but you should steer clear of stuff that might cause controversy - which is fair enough.

I have to admit that when I started posting here I wrongly believed this to be a safe haven for believers where they could blow off steam in much the same way that another room serves that purpose for Atheists. But it became clear that in theory this is more what liberal believers would like the religion room to be - a room where different mindset and beliefs are respected even if they differ.

The problem is that there are limits to how far one can go in respecting beliefs one considers wrong.

Bryant

Every once and awhile we have an issue or two but it is a peaceful room.

It may not get the traffic as AA or religion but it is a good corner of DU amd I am glad you are a part of it.

can you nevertheless respect the believer? I think that's the crux of the matter. I think it's possible to express differences, even radical ones, respectfully. "I disagree with the conclusion that....." instead of "You're batshit crazy!"

He and I differ wildly in our religious beliefs, but we each respect the other and the other's beliefs.

I might mention that he and his wife and my wife and I went out to dinner (at a Thai restaurant) last month. As we were going back to our cars, a drunk threw up in front of us. I remarked, "Sometimes I think that the Prophet was very wise in forbidding alcohol." Ahmed replied, "I wouldn't be surprised if seeing something like that influenced him." We all agreed that drunks were annoying.

I do not agree.

Comparing religious belief to delusion and to mental illness is not an acceptable position on a forum such as this. Not only is it factually inaccurate, it is just insulting and cruel to both those with mental illnesses and believers.

Tolerance of this is short-sighted in my opinion, and that is why I always call it out when I see it posted in Religion.

But delusion does also mean any wrong belief; while it's most often used (particularly in the religion forum) to mean mental illness it doesn't always mean that. When someone like (name redacted) or (name redacted) uses the term, it's very clear what they mean by it, and anybody using the term in that way doesn't belong here.

But that doesn't mean that every atheist who uses the term means it in those ways.

Bryant

I am a non-theist. I would never choose the word 'deluded' to describe anyone in this forum, my parents, or my Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, pagan, etc. friends. I know countless other atheists, agnostics, etc. that would never use that word.

The only ones who use it on these boards mean to use it either as a definite attack on the religious irregardless of how insulting it is, or as a 'word' game to say the same thing but giving themselves an 'out'. Oh, I don't mean 'deluded' like in a mental illness.

They are not using it in a pejorative fashion or as a way to attack others.

And when they are made aware that the term is offensive and used by others to harm, they will generally accept that information graciously and with thanks and stop using it.

I used to use the word "gyp" until someone on DU explained to me why it was hurtful. I stopped using it.

It is those that persist and even go out of their way to use it even when civilly asked not to that are the problem. I agree that those comments do not belong here or anywhere on this site, actually.

There would be no acceptance of the use of the term to describe any other group that participates here.

The pathetic back-pedalling excuse that "Oh, I'm just using 'deluded' in the colloquial sense," is pretty much on the same level of dishonesty as the mewlings of racists that "'N----r' isn't a slur; it's just a regional pronunciation."

that they are using the word in a "colloquial" sense.

But there are some people who are not regulars and I have had productive discussions with some about this term.

It"s a conversation stopper that actually translates to "You're crazy, so nothing you say is valid."

I have said it several times before that anti-theists, in order to maintain their rage at the unfinished trauma experienced at the hands of authoritarian religious families and communities, have to be as literalistic and as fundamentalistic as those they are opposing. They have wood to burn so to speak.

I think it is impossible to combat these arguments with these particular individuals. They will say they are being logical and rational, and it is bullshit. They are being emotional.

Call them out for sure. Unfortunately that rarely works. They know they are being insulting and simply don't care. I had to put many of these worst offenders on Ignore.

Given my work, yes, I find it extremely offensive to both religious believers as well as those suffering from any type or form of mental illness.

argument that they are wrong.

It is hurtful though and I am not good at hiding when I feel hurt.

They are hurt. Their hurt may have validity. Their pain and anger are real. But when it leads to lashing out in rage in purposefully hurtful ways such as this, no it is not acceptable.

Don't hide that it hurts. Call it out. Don't rage yourself. Model a more mature response to hurt and maybe some will eventually get it.

I think you are describing a very small subgroup within the atheist community and, in particular, a very small subgroup of those that participate here.

I am reluctant to assign psychological explanations for their behavior. It makes me uneasy and is somewhat akin to what we are complaining about here.

Yes, I do agree that it is still a small subset. However, they are very vocal and they do insult and upset others with no empathy for what they are doing. That has bothered me since I first saw it on these boards many months ago. Furthermore, the number who believe this continues to grow here not diminish.

I would prefer to attribute their rage and lashing out in a bullying, insulting, and hurtful way to psychological explanations that are related to the real experiences of hurt they have expressed as having experienced rather than it being simply a facet of their innate personalities.

The former allows for understanding, empathy, and the chance to respond with a call out if necessary but not getting deeply engaged in the other persons own personal process. The later often leads to heated arguments, conflicts of personality, and miscommunications.

Listening to someone say, I have been hurt by Christianity and I am angry, and then watching them lash out at others at DU with rage and hurt and recognizing what is likely going on is not the same as saying religion = delusion = mental illness.

I don't think it's growing. Some leave and are replaced, but the number on my ignore list has stayed pretty much the same, and it's not a big group.

Where we will disagree is in whether it is ok to analyze that behavior and offer psychological explanations for it. Your explanation may be true for some. It may even be true for all, but I'm concerned that labeling them from a mental health perspective is not that unlike their using the term delusional.

They are who they are. How they got that way makes no difference to me. I'm not going to make a difference, I feel pretty sure about that.

I do know that I have my personal limits and I know when they have been crossed. I will not engage with those who repeatedly cross them. You have also expressed this very eloquently in the past, much better than I.

If someone actually says that they have been hurt and are enraged, then they have told you about themselves. But I think it pushes a huge red button when we tell others about themselves, unless, of course, they have requested that.

So I do see a similarlity.

I will use whatever personal and professional tools necessary to call out and deal with the bullying, the bigotry and the intolerance. I won't apologize for that. Doing so is not similar to what is being discussed.

It should not matter here if there is one or if there are 12. That is far too many. And if any believer said something similar, the fur would fly. If another member of DU talked about persons of color or homosexuals in a similar fashion, the community would deal with it.

My describing what I have experienced and witnessed no matter how 'psychological' it may be is not the problem. The problem is that a group of anti-theists label and disparage others by calling them mentally ill. It is tolerated by other atheists. It is tolerated by others as being their 'thoughts and opinions' which are fine to express. I disagree with that position.

I have been an 'atheist' (I prefer the term Ignostic) for decades. Until I reached DU, I have never, literally never, seen any other atheists or agnostics in a wide variety of social, professional, and academic settings ever say something so willfully ignorant and hurtful. Only those who have wood to burn and a forum to express it in anonymously venture to do so.

And I am with you 100% in calling out bullying, bigotry and intolerance. There is far too much of it and I don't think there is anything similar to what we see in the religion group anywhere else on this site.

Personally, I think people that do this crave attention and the most effective weapon is not giving it to them.

I did not mean to say that you had a problem, only that I have a different POV on analyzing or diagnosing people who are essentially not known to me. We get a narrow view, imo.

I had also never run into the kinds of anti-theists seen here irl. It is really foreign to me and not at all what I would expect from people who otherwise consider themselves to be progressive or liberal.

What they do runs counter to what this site is about. Since a large proportion of voting democrats are religiously affiliated, it makes absolutely no sense to attack them.

Sometimes there is nothing that could possibly be done to make a difference. Those people should be ignored, imo. But some people are worth of challenge and I think can change.

Some, not all, are worth the challenge and can change.

How then?

By pointing out some basic psychological realities. I am not doing in depth analysis on individuals. I agree that would be inappropriate. However, what I have shared it really anything that a layperson might read in a 12 Step book or a pop psychology book, namely that hurt and trauma lead to rage which is often displaced on those similar to the original source but are not the original source.

Until someone is willing to take responsibility for their rage and seek the source of the hurt directly, they do run the risk of displacing, being abusive & bullying, and of being intolerant and bigoted.

That is why I am OK with general analysis of a situation to attempt to bring about a chance for change.

Usually though I simply just have to put these types on Ignore.

say that it makes me uneasy and I am going to refrain. I clearly have biases and my own feelings and some overt dislike of some of the members that post here. I do not trust that I can be objective.

This has been my position iRL as well. I have had to draw some pretty bright lines between working and not working.

I do agree that there is some pretty overt pathology on display at times and that even a non-clinician could easily see what it is, but I also agree that in those cases, ignore is probably the best way to go.

In a topic of derision such as this one on mental illness, it does not violate my professional boundaries in the least.

With your last point, I definitely agree and use the Ignore function for those readily.

I'm not sure that the bullying will ever be eliminated, but I think that standing up to it can at least keep it at bay.

religion was not a mental illness, 7 said it was. The others never gave a direct answer. I, not sure the subset you refer to is all that small.

or regularly post in that group.

But it is a very small subset of atheists on DU and atheists in general.

7 -12 is just about the right number, imo.

who are angry, insulting and disparaging towards Republicans, and who label them as mentally ill (sociopaths, psychopaths, etc), must necessarily have suffered some deep and enduring trauma at the hands of Republicans? Will you apply these standards and judgement to them as well, or do you reserve your disapproval only for those who criticize religion? Do you have the empathy to consider that decent people may be angry for undeniable harm done to others and not just themselves? If so, you have carefully avoided giving any indication of that, and have focused instead on disparaging the mental state of people you've never even spoken to.

Last edited Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:56 PM - Edit history (2)

This post is about answering the ridiculous charge that religious peopke are deluded.


Please refrain from posting in this room due to your history of dislike of believers. Your posting here will upset some of those believers.

Skepticscott,

If you want to post in this group, you're going to need to take hrmjustin off IGNORE. He's a host in this group, and as such is responsible for enforcing the SOP here. If you can't hear the guidance he offers you, you might find yourself in difficulty.

Appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

but as "if-then" propositions that didn't point to any specific posters. And comparisons to attitudes toward Republicans are ridiculous.

Now, I suggest you take to heart the other suggestions recently made.

It's a very lame argument that is only meant to insult and demean others. It is used purposefully to provoke.

Those that use it have no interest in finding common ground.

Sometimes there is power in taking a word and claiming ownership of it. One thing to consider is to start using the word yourself, but make it into something fun!

BTW, I think the hosts should escort bvf from the room. He is not here to make nice and is one of the people that uses the word frequently and will continue to use it every chance he gets. He has already taken this thread to another group and called your comments a straw man and intellectually dishonest.

It's past time bvf was shown the door. It should.be clear by now that he's performing for his cronies, not making any attempt at honest communication

Perhaps he, too, will discover the joy of Crayolas.

taken seriously. I ignore and move on.

I find it interesting that some who are very much anti-organized religion (or more often, anti-Christianity) still "believe" in other things which cannot be proven, be it ghosts, spirits, reincarnation, crystal healing, et cetera. I'm not denigrating any of those beliefs. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of a few of the atheist camp.

Are views may seem odd to some but we are not deluded.

if he or she felt like these issues were worth dealing with he or she would; but it's clearly just to score points by mocking us.

Bryant

That's the game and he loves to play it. This is disruption in it's purest form.

Last edited Thu Nov 20, 2014, 06:44 AM - Edit history (2)

for saying this, but yes, you are.

Your fellows also seek to redefine the language for the sake of being able to feel persecuted, apparently. Some people think you're just wrong, quite usually through no fault of your own.

There's obviously been a lot of energy spent in this thread dedicated to circling the delusion wagons. I find that pretty telling. It's one of the benefits religion provides, as I recall.

Nobody's calling anyone mentally ill here. Intellectually lacking, misled from an early age, and incurious, certainly.

So, yes, this post is one of the most intellectualyl lacking posts I've read from you and "your fellows". That's saying something given the stiff competition for that status.

As to your early age, I have neither the knowledge nor the interest to comment except resorting to utterly umiformed suppositions is clearly the thing that's telling here.

Enjoy your martyrdom. Make sure to milk it for all its worth.

All the hosts agree with this action.

Wonder who will be sent over next?

I hate banning people and I did it 4 times in the past few days.

when they come into a group for the specific purpose of challenging the SOP and the safe haven.

I was banned from a group in which I had barely participated. The reason was because I quoted a well known troll who had posted in that group. My post was because he had dared someone to post something in the religion group.

Although the story has been distorted completely, one only has to look at my entire posting history in that group to see that I was not a disruptor at any time.

The bottom line is that the hosts of this room have a very, very high bar when it comes to banning people which other groups do not always have. It's a tough decision for you and your fellow hosts, but it should be a tough decision.

Those that ban without good reason completely diminish any credibility their group may have had. That's not you.

I think things should return to calm now.

there's not much else to be done.

BTW, I've neglected to mention that your thread title is perfect. The argument that believers are deluded is itself--er--deluded..

I think it should be quiet now.

In the meantime, the best use of straw is to build flames.

criticism of faith is not tolerated here.

I was merely trying to ask CSP how the term ad hominem applies here. The hypothetical scenario I employed was not critical of faith.

I'll gladly delete the post at your request if you think the question wasn't appropriate, or if you believe a request for an explanation of terms can be interpreted as some sort of attack.

But I fail to see the difference between belief in the goat and belief in ghosts, reincarnation, crystal healing, etc., all of which are supposedly open to discussion here.

This is a safe haven and those critical of religion and faith must remember that this is not the religion room.

This room was set up so that we did not have to hear that we were deluded or our ideas were wrong.

This is a "safe haven" group--it's one of the places where the mood and tone are supportive/sharing. There is a Religion group if you want debate.

for people who represent roughly 80-90% (so I'm told) of the population. Got it. Didn't mean to intrude.

with an emphasis on polite and positive communication. It does have a limited appeal, but that's kind of the idea--it's a "safe haven." The "Religion" group is the free-for-all area.

back for standing up to believers at DU.

Bryant

Continuing the meme that religious people are disturbed is really doubling done here.

What exactly is your goal?

this is exactly what MADem said in his post above:

So by your lights a support group is not a place of safety or refuge, nor is the mood in the latter supportive and sharing.

The only real distinction I see is that a safe haven can have as few as one inhabitant (possibly none), whereas a support group by definition would have to have at least two.

you're going to argue semantics. This is neither the thread, nor the place to do that.

Read our SOP. If you are having trouble understanding it, then ask a host for help.

to definitons and I assiduously followed them to understand your response.

Who's arguing semantics here?

Isn't that what you came here to argue?

Or am I missing something.

Bryant

by people who''s only goal is to insult and disrespect the regular members.

That doesn't make them a "support group" either.

I think the poster needs a few lessons in careful reading for full comprehension.

I didn't call it a support group, I called it a "safe haven."

You know what a safe haven is, I assume, or do I need to explain that to you as well?