jump to last post 1-50 of 50 discussions (392 posts)

Religion vs Delusion

  1. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 6 years ago

    I haven't posted on the forums in this section with a serious topic in a long time, but I'd like to get some of your thoughts.

    Please keep commentary on this topic to a discussion of ideas, bash the idea all you like, but leave personal battles and insults at the door.  Thanks!

    So:

    My husband and I were talking yesterday, he and my roommate have been reading/listening to Richard Dawkins books and interviews a good bit lately, and my husband made an interesting point based on his readings.

    The basic gist of our conversation came to a particularly interesting conclusion:

    To believe in something which cannot be seen or proven to exist is generally regarded as delusion, and is the sort of thing people are institutionalized for, but when it is in regard to FAITH, the belief is the same, yet applauded.

    Why is this?

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's only applauded by the people who believe in it. People believing in ghosts will applaud Spiritsm. People believing in aliens, applaud UFO information. People that believe in the Devil, applaud Satanism, and so on.

    2. 0
      sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because anyone who would start a thread with institutionalized or delutional is asking for a fight. If you think thats the case prove there's no God. While you're at it prove there was no Jesus. To ask this type question you must be sure of yourself so show us your proof then we can discuss our ignorance.

      1. 59
        foreignpressposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "show us your proof . . ."
        _________________________________________________________

        Obviously that is impossible. And everybody knows that, even those who follow Christ in blind faith. Unfortunately, this type of thread is nothing more than idle amusement. Nothing is proven. No one leaves convinced. This time would be better spent walking the streets looking for souls to save.

      2. 60
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You've been the only one fighting thus far. big_smile

    3. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      I think it has to do with the power of organized religion.  Even some individuals in the field of psychology believe in this delusion, so how could they diagnose something they can't see, because of their own delusion.  Other psychological professionals, who are rational, are, still, too afraid to diagnose the bulk of human population as delusional for fear of organized religions.  It's an insanity that has a virulent stranglehold on society.

      1. 0
        sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh finally the voice of reason! Give me a break! Gamergirl why did you start this? Are you just plain mean spirited? If you been here a while you should know by now that this topic just causes everyone to draw a line in the sand and then it's on. Next time try and pick a better topic , please.

        1. getitrite profile image80
          getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          Damn right! mine is the voice of reason.  And you have no response except to throw a tantrum like that of a brat.
          There seems to be many mental-midgets on the side of delusional faith.

          1. 0
            sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            We're only out done by the enlightened atheists.big_smile

          2. Pandoras Box profile image81
            Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It warps the brain.

            1. 0
              sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't even know why I bother trying to talk with you people.

              1. Pandoras Box profile image81
                Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Based on your plethora of insulting but meaningless posts in this thread, you don't.

                1. 0
                  sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't add lying to your list of faults.sad

                  1. Cagsil profile image82
                    Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    She wouldn't be lying, like you twisting the account of your own actions. You've not added any value to this entire thread. So, she has not lied. wink

                  2. Pandoras Box profile image81
                    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Were your posts not generally insulting and meaningless? Is that, um, part of your, er, lol, delusion? lol

        2. Pandoras Box profile image81
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Gamergirl your topic is just fine, and you can post about anything you wish that doesn't violate the terms.

          Some people just have a hard time facing reality, because of their delusions. wink

          1. 0
            sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Isn't it hair wash day or bake cookie day?

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Taco Tuesday?

    4. goldenpath profile image81
      goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Faith is much more a verb than an action.  One cannot have the faith without the action of nurturing it.  It's applauded because the fruits of faith can be proven through application and the nurturing of it.  Yet, this evidence is not known and cannot be seen by those who are not willing to consider the manner the evidence has manifest itself.  The common thought is that if you cannot taste, smell, see, hear or touch something - it just doesn't exist.  Science, itself, has proven this to be a shallow perception, time and time again, of the world around us.  Even with the senses listed above, there are varying degrees within each that one may detect something real but another cannot.  It boils down to application.  A dilusion cannot produce a fruitful result.  The application and nurturing of faith can, will and does produce such fruit which is the evidence of something real - yet unseen as of yet. smile

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Psst GP...a verb is an action...  smile

        1. goldenpath profile image81
          goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Very good point AND an embarrassing oversight. smile Faith is much more a verb than it is a noun.  The rest I stand by though.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            much like Love is both a verb and a noun and the action of loving is more important than the noun side of it. I agree.

            1. goldenpath profile image81
              goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Excellent analogy!  You and I now have a common foundation.  I hope all is well with you! smile  I'm ready for spring.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm as good as can be expected, and anxiously awaiting the springtime weather.  big_smile

                1. earnestshub profile image89
                  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Why are you guys waiting for spring? It is early autumn! lol

      2. 59
        foreignpressposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "A dilusion cannot produce a fruitful result."
        _________________________________________________________

        Did you mean delusion, or, as is written: to dilute? Either spelling would make an interesting hub in itself. Regardless, people here are toying with things well beyond their comprehension. They cannot see air yet they need it to live. Did God create a third humanoid-like being besides Adam and Eve?

      3. 60
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, that is delusion. Well said.

    5. 0
      SirDentposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      I guess I may as well put what I know out there. Faith, as defined by the Bible, is Heb 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
      The evidence points to what cannot be witnessed with the natural eye. It is the same as with forensics. They gather together evidence and form a conclusion about what happened.

      This part may be going off topic a little but only about 40 years ago, homosexuals were considered mentally ill or delusional. What might happen in the next 10 years or 20? it is possible that those who try to bite their face, (just using this as an example), will no longer be considered mentally ill.

      1. thisisoli profile image64
        thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think comparing sexual preference to self mutilation is rather bizzare.

    6. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Religions have been around for centuries, their doctrines have pervaded our societies to the point where almost everyone has been indoctrinated to believe in those doctrines as though they were our reality.

      This belief system is geographical in nature, if you're born in North America, the likelihood of you being Christian is very high, while the likelihood of you being Muslim is very high if you're born in the Middle East. It is this type of logic that demonstrates the lack of validity and credibility of any one religion.

      The society in which you were raised will determine your belief system and your god. It is from this foundation of belief we find the evidence for delusion. But, you'll also find that the applause for believing is only centered within those geographical areas, in other words, Christians won't be applauding Muslims for their beliefs and vice-versa. They will view each others beliefs as delusional, or even evil or blasphemous.

      The applause then is only within each denominational sect of any one of the thousands of religions and gods purported to exist, but does not echo from one religion to the next. Even with this, the deluded believe other believers are deluded because they don't share their beliefs, which demonstrates that religious delusion isn't just about what can and can't be seen.

      Believers will claim that reality itself is merely a delusion.

      Hence, we live in a world where everything can be considered a delusion, depending on the reference frame. If your reference frame is one coming from a religious belief system, everything that isn't part of that system is a delusion. If your frame is one coming from critical thinking skills, only that which can be seen is not considered delusional.

  2. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    well said Tantrum.
    as noted, by most leading clinical institutions, everyone, everywhere, believes in something unseen -therefore is termed to experience some form of delusion. i once read something regarding this with business which states the same thing:
    a person or group of people believing in a promotion, raise, creating a new product/service was classified as a type of delusion, until made tangible. interesting stuff.

    perhaps imagination is a delusion itself.

  3. premierkj profile image78
    premierkjposted 6 years ago

    When people are institutionalised, it is because they are unable to seperate reality from fantasy. Those who have faith in religions don't generally claim to have seen Jesus or whoever in the middle of the night. They believe without seeing or hearing. Crazy people think they see and hear things.

    I think the connection you are trying to make is almost completely non-existent, barring a few religious headcases.

    1. thisisoli profile image64
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Believing in God is a pretty big failure to define the difference between fantasy and reality!  It is a fantasy to believe that there is an omnipotent being looking over you.

      1. 0
        sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh great now the world is out on this!

  4. Ohma profile image80
    Ohmaposted 6 years ago

    I am sorry but I must respectfully disagree.
    Every Christian I have ever met claims that they speak to God and that he speaks to or answers them in some way. They also believe that God will cure your ills if you simply believe, some zealots even carry this so far as to refuse medical treatment that could save them because they are waiting for God to do it. If this is not living in the land of delusion then nothing is.

    1. premierkj profile image78
      premierkjposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes every christian prays to god and they believe that everything good in their lives can be credited to him. they believe good things happen as a result of prayer, but they do not claim he talks to them or gives them a sign unless they are indeed deluded. while i don't believe in it myself i can see how such beliefs are valuable as they generate a positive attitude. If someone has cancer and they believe god is helping them, they will be positive and have a better chance of fighting their illness. The power of positive thinking!

      Anyhow I think psychiatrists are better than any of us at determining who is insane and who isn't.

      1. Ohma profile image80
        Ohmaposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        This is exactly the point. Look through all of the religous threads here. Evey Christian in these forums has at one time or another claimed God has answered thier prayers, Or that God has told them to do this or that.

        1. premierkj profile image78
          premierkjposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Okay point taken. My argument in defence of religious people is based more on their belief without knowledge. They do not claim god has physically appeared to them or spoken to them directly. They believe in signs and stuff like that.
          I don't think they can be compared to people who believe they physically  see things and hear things that are not actually there. Religious people in the majority can seperate their spiritual beliefs from their everyday lives on earth. That is why they are not institutionalised.
          However, I really have to wonder why people who believe in aliens are generally deemed insane since there is a much greater possibility of the existence of aliens than god.

  5. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    ...why should one human so readily accept another humans 'man-made' cure, ideology, beliefs? they are both of the same mind & nature.
    one condemns the other for not partaking of faith or treatment.

    but neither can agree on nor escape that limitation.

    a zealots delusion? jeje, indeed. consciousness is a killer.

  6. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 6 years ago

    premierkj,

    The very behaviors you describe are the types of things that characterize delusions by definition.

    de·lu·sion
       /dɪˈluʒən/ [dih-loo-zhuhn]
    –noun
    1. an act or instance of deluding.
    2. the state of being deluded.
    3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
    4. (Psychiatry) a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

    de·lude
       /dɪˈlud/ Show Spelled[dih-lood]
    –verb (used with object),-lud·ed, -lud·ing.
    1. to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive.  Example: His conceit deluded him into believing he was important.

    Individuals who believe that an unproven supernatural entity commingles with their lives, for good or for ill, is operating under delusion, but yet the world at large is taught to take a "hands off" approach because it regards faith.

    1. 0
      JeanMeriamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I believe with these definitions religious faith cannot be proven to be a delusion, because it has not yet been proven to be untrue.

      If you have a delusion that a man follows you everywhere or that you are the king of England, it can be proven to be untrue by others very easily.

      1. thisisoli profile image64
        thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Have you ever seen k-pax, would you say he was deluded? there was no proof he was not from outer space, but I would still say he was deluded!

        There are some real life examples as well, peoples dillusions where people could believe aliens are reading minds, the government is made up of robots, and so on. There is no actual proof that these people are telling the truth, but wouldn't you say they were delusional?

        You argument is unfortuantely an old argument, an old argument that doesn't actually have any basis.

        1. 0
          sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You could apply what you just wrote to yourself.

          1. 0
            JeanMeriamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm confused. Does Oli think he's from outer space?

        2. 0
          JeanMeriamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you look at gamergirls definitions #4 -confrontation with fact.

          There is no factual evidence that can be given to refute the belief in a higher power. And it wouldn't matter if there were.Hmmm, easier for me to think this than explain, but I'll try. A scientist could find a spot in the human mind responsible for religious beliefs. Done. One side of the arguement will say "See it's genetic. It's all in your mind." The other side will say "Because God put it there."

          It's a hopeless unwinable argument for both sides. And we don't know. So why can't anybody just say. "I don't know."

          Neils Bohr "the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth."

          And K Pax was an alien ;-)

      2. qwark profile image60
        qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Jean:
        Religious "faith" is based 100% on "hope."
        Hope is just to desire with expectation of fulfillment.
        What is there to be "proved?"

        1. 0
          JeanMeriamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hmm you're right. I probably should have worded it that belief in the existence of God is not considered a delusion by most because it can not be proved that God does not exist.

          1. Cagsil profile image82
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I would have to disagree. The reason most people want to believe in "GOD" is because they rather just live their life on Earth and THEN receive a special reward for something they never should have, and the dumber thing is to base their belief in this manner, on 100% faith, which is biologically unable to happen, because every person needs some sort of proof, to form a belief, in the first place.

            Faith - is an unquestioned belief.

            Belief- is known to be true, real or fact.(at least that is what it boils down to, in order to remain sane)

            The only place 'faith' should be placed is in oneself and others.

            1. 0
              sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I missed the thunder and lighting when you spoke God.

              1. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You know, that statement is completely ridiculous and INSULTING to say the least.

                1. 0
                  sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh and I'm luxury-ating in the love you try to spread and your vast tolerance for your fellow man, wow.

            2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No

              Faith is belief without proof.

              Belief can be with or without proof.

              1. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                roll Any idiot who uses faith to form a belief lacks knowledge and understanding of life. wink

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Got proof? {in what you believe, right here?}


                  roll

                  1. Cagsil profile image82
                    Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    What proof would you like? You make no sense.

    2. premierkj profile image78
      premierkjposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Honestly I've lost the meaning of this whole discussion. If you follow the definition exactly then I'd like to see you find someone who hasn't been deluded at some stage. Ever believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? Only problem is... who's going to be running the outside world when we're all in the loony asylum? COMMON SENSE IS HARD TO FIND ON VIRTUAL FORUMS.

      1. Cagsil profile image82
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, when children are growing, but when you grow up and become an adult, then you put ALL fantasy/mystical garbage behind, because it interferes with living within reality.

        Common sense is HARD to find in the world, with a bunch of religious zealots running around with their supposed usurped righteous attitude and damaging society as a whole, simply because they each have an absolutely foolish belief in something mystical, which, should have been left behind or discarded when younger.

        Your specific agenda is what exactly? There are many things that can be discussed in a forum thread and this is one of them. If you don't like the fact, then I would suggest you clam up and leave the thread.

        Otherwise, deal with it the best you can and try to convey your message, the best way you can. If you're unable to do that with logic and common sense reasoning, for which, is obviously outside your grasp, then sit and watch and learn something new.

        1. 0
          sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Our world would be so much better without families just one big hedonistic dog pile! Thanks Caligula!

        2. 0
          sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hummanity at it's finest!

          1. Cagsil profile image82
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Are you responding to my statement to someone else? roll

            You're not too interested in staying out of other people's conversation....hmmmm. I guess that again proves what a selfish and self-serving person you really are.

            Thank you for your input. It always rings true when a religious view, as skewed as it is, looks at life. You're really sad.

            And, if you consider that an insult? Then I could say you're also weak-minded, but then again...that comes with the territory of having a mystical faith based belief, which was incorrectly formed, because you lack the knowledge and understanding of life.

            Again, Thank you for input. smile

            1. 0
              sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I bow to your insight and greatness!big_smile

        3. premierkj profile image78
          premierkjposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Cagsil you don't even know what common sense means. It has nothing to do with living logically or practically in the universe. It is finding the best way to live and tolerate the environment in which you live, and that means religions as well.
          If nobody believed that there is a god or an afterlife then the world would be very cold and anarchaical. There would be no rules, no warmth or tradition.
          You should keep living your very logical, meaningless life, caring about nobody except your precious facts.
          Meanwhile I'm going to keep believing in people's generousity, keep teaching my kids about Santa Claus and enjoy the story myself, I'm going to keep dreaming about being a rock star and hoping to play for Manchester United. If that means I'm dilusional, so be it I am happy nonetheless

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I disagree, religions are not responible for making people 'good' people.

            If religion did not exist at all there would still be just as many good people in the world that are self sacrificing and helpful of others as there are with religion existing.

            Religion can also be shown (proven) to be a powerful force for evil and the creation of evil deeds.

            religion doesn't make people good or evil, people do.

            1. gamergirl profile image60
              gamergirlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I heartily agree.  People are raised with religion (delusion or not) as a part - or non-part - of their lives as a mostly separate element from the morals and ideals they live by.  Whether a person chooses to attribute their deeds to religious lessons, religion is simply a catalyst for making personal choices.

              1. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                i honestly believe most people are never thoroughly taught by their parents, preachers, etc. By observation, most just 'go with the flow' of whatever. some get bits/pieces of it -mostly from media, while others are bombarded with those elements. But, seriously, can we name one person who understands the totality of any one belief system, science included.

                Back in the day, wrote a partial paper on: illusion leaning toward deconstruction. (no, not the Jane's Addiction re-band, though they were good. jeje) The delusion falls fast on every part of the spectrum. Which is both creepy and fascinating. If religion is deluded, then so is every other written item, doctrine or human principle because humans wrote and accepted such documents as basics, elements and/or proofs of their own ideas. Yikes!

            2. earnestshub profile image89
              earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Mikel, what went wrong? I agree with something you said! lol

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That means Hell has frozen over...  yikes

                1. earnestshub profile image89
                  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  lol that sounds about right! lol

                2. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh..let's go skating..

              2. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                smile

          2. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I agree with you that if there were no belief in the a God, or after life or reincarnation This life would be much much more chaotic than can be imagined. Something as bad or worse than that time period called the dark ages.
               When there is no hope hungry people are subject to be a whole lot meaner when they believe that they are only acountable to themselves. More people would think; If I'm  big enough to get away with it...  Why not.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              which is the definition of a strong man society.

              Though today it is smarts(the smarts to get the money) that determines which huMAN is strongest (richest), and therefore more powerful and able to take what ever they want.

              Do not be fooled(deluded) that is exactly the world society we live in. The rich/powerful do what ever they can get away with, and believe themselves entitled to do so because they have the money/power to 'get away with it'.

              The hired guns or swords are now called law-makers and lawyers rather than knights and nobility, but the reality is the same.

              As in all things there are exceptions to the rule and in this case that means there are 'good' rich/powerful people that do not believe themselves entitled to a better life than others, but they are the exception.

            2. Pandoras Box profile image81
              Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Would it be so awful if the rest of society was forced to pay attention to the plight of the hungry? I can't agree that society is better off because the masses of people have been so deluded into hope for the next life that they don't so much mind being exploited in this one.

              1. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I would have to agree with you to a point.
                Society does not need to have faith in any religion.
                   To believe that there is more going on in this life than we are aware of is not delusional. To believe in something more after this life is not delusional; in my opinion.
                    But to blindly have faith in man"s interpretations, and theories would be.
                    Science has proven many things that contradict the teachings of man concerning the creation theory.
                    And what is written in scriptures clearly contradicts much of the teachings of the church.
                    But these things do not negate the posability of a higher concienceness nor life of some kind after this one.
                    And it is unfortunate that overall, man has to be scared into doing the right thing. Fear of the consequences of one kind or another.
                  My opinion any way.

              2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I agree, religion and the dogma of 'self-sacrifice' has been twisted and used to get people to accept abuses they would not otherwise accept.

  7. Ron Montgomery profile image59
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    What does a former gameshow host have in the way of qualifications to speak about religion and philosophy?  I would think that if you really take this topic seriously, you would source a more.........

    Oh wait... That was Richard DAWSON.

    Never mind.

  8. 0
    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago

    And we're off! Why did you start this thread? Are you trying to pick a fight or have your ego stroked by the atheists? I suggest if you don't know about this topic do some reading, examnie the facts and there are plenty. If you start a thread like this you're asking for a fight. How do you feel Christians would take you calling them dillutional or psychotic. This topic has been beaten to death and all it's done is cause hard feelings between hubbers, so can it.smile

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Your faith once again seems rather fragile.

      1. 0
        sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Only in the eyes of the self righteous atheists, such as your self.

    2. gamergirl profile image60
      gamergirlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I did say something at the very beginning stating that I'd prefer the topic be kept on topic, and not become a personal insult match.

      There ARE ways to have a discussion on topics like this one WITHOUT fighting.  Please respect that.

      1. 0
        sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Remember you asked for it, no matter how polite you think it is.sad

    3. Pandoras Box profile image81
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      smilesmilesmile

      Devout christians -and various other nonchristian religionists- are definitely delusional.

      1. 0
        sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You're not helping.smile

      2. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ...with you on that.
        would add non-religious as well, by participation proxy.
        only the deluded would say they are not delusional. jeje big_smile

        After three months of reading the forums, both sides have exactly the same argument, basis and replies. multiply that by the number of threads.
        the deluge is falling faster...

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          AMEN

          the beliefs and supporting arguements are exactly the same on both sides. One side simply comes to one conclusion and the other the opposite.

          there is no proof, therefore either could be correct.

        2. 0
          sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hear!Hear!

          1. Pandoras Box profile image81
            Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So you agree then, Sneako, that christians and other religionists are delusional...

            So delusional in fact that one might be able to read what TwentyOne wrote and think it was in their support.

            1. 0
              sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Whatever.

            2. 0
              Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol
              that was the best reply to any of my posts, ever!

  9. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    The Wright brothers were said to be delusional.
    You might say that their delusion of a thing created it.
    Anything imagionable is possible.
    Yesterdays Sci Fi is todays reality.
    Human thought has creative/destructive .. powers or abilities
    Who can say to what degree.
    Who can say from where it origionates.

  10. C.V.Rajan profile image68
    C.V.Rajanposted 6 years ago

    A scientist experiments with something, proves it. Another scientist may verify it and re-confirm it. All others believe it saying it's proved. 99% of those who believe have no wherewithal to check and confirm personally what the scientists claim. Example: Mars has traces of water.

    A scientists experimented with something 20 years back and proved Something. Many people believe and accept it. Example: Coffee is not good for health. Today, someone else comes and disproves it by demonstrable experiments. What do you call those who believed the scientist all these 20 years?!!  Are you supposed to appreciate them or ridicule them?

    Likewise, a spiritual master experiments something deep inside him and gains some spiritual insights. If his experience is replicated by another spiritual person and is confirmed by him, then many people believe those religious percepts as true. 99% of these people neither have the inclination nor the capacity to undergo the spiritual rigors to personally verify the spiritual truths. They simply go by what the masters say. Example: "There is God and His will is always done."

    In what way then is a scientific belief superior and a religious belief inferior?

    CVR

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "In what way then is a scientific belief superior and a religious belief inferior?"

      -they are identical. though both claim opposition, totality and absolution. Both ARE deluded.


      ...consciousness IS the delude.

    2. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure where you get your information from, but that's not how science works.



      First of all, science doesn't "prove" anything. Science is a method for making predictions and following up with experiments. The results are there for all to see.



      That has nothing to do with science or the results of the experiment.



      Again, your not following a logical path, you're merely tossing out contrived scenarios.



      How exactly is that experiment conducted without bias? It can't be, hence it isn't a reliable experiment. Ever hear of the phrase "double-blind"?



      You haven't made a logical connection between the two as you've fallaciously defined the scientific method.

  11. Disturbia profile image60
    Disturbiaposted 6 years ago

    Well than, we must all of us on some level be delusional in this case, because certainly we all to some degree believe in things we can't see or that can't be proven. To have faith is not the same thing as being delusional. To have hope is not being delusional. To have love in one's heart is not being delusional.

    Like it or not, people are spiritual beings and faith in something greater than ourselves is comforting. Mythology has been a part of human existence for thousands of years and in every culture. We have always had our gods, our priests, our shamans, belief in some sort of after life, karma, reincarnation, we have our rituals and our celebrations and why shouldn't we? 

    I see the point you are trying to make and I for one don't buy into it for a second.  Just call me delusional.

  12. 0
    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago

    We're all still waiting for your proof so we can have our little discussion.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is more a lack of proof sweetie pie. We all know this is the new "I don't have to prove a damn thing - you dis-prove it!" argument that causes so many conflicts.

      So - how about you come up with some proof? 100% total lack evidence is enough to convince me. As it is for you when it comes to anything else. Or can you prove the Star Goat did not vomit us up? wink

      And I think you have sadly misjudged gamergirl's reasons for asking the question in the first place.

      1. 0
        sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh yeah! I misjudged this thread. C'mon Mark you're smarter than that, I hope. I have three books on this topic speaking to it's truth, what you got! Nothing ! The only thing you have is abunch of atheists saying those books are fantasy. Well we have the books and you have nothing unless you have some tangible proof you've failed to present, we both know you don't so let it go.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Dear me,

          Yes - I think you have misjudged some one and attacked them unnecessarily.

          But - let's face it - that is the Christian thing to do. You just added the spaceman stuff and the, Disprove it or it is True Because I sed so!!!!! rubbish.  lol

          1. 0
            sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well I know Gods a leap for the atheists. Just prove there was no Jesus. Now I've made it easy even for an atheist.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Sweetie pie - you are the one making the delusional claims - you prove them. Did god tell you into your head that Jesus had a time machine? wink

              1. 0
                sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I know what I know you're the one saying it ain't so. C'mon Mark you're the leader of the enlightened atheists so show us what you base your position on.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Several things really.

                  1. common sense
                  2. lack of evidence
                  3. a lifetime of experience
                  4. people like you

                  So - please prove me wrong and I will capitulate. Seriously. What have you got to back up your delusion?

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Several things really. (belief not delusion)

                    1. common sense
                    2. lack of evidence
                    3. a lifetime of experience
                    4. people like you


                    wink precious

                  2. 0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I have three books that are based on devine inspiration. Thats tangible proof you got nothing.

                    The existence of Jesus is proven by the impact one person in his short time here has had, an impact no other person or event has had.

                    Hitler, Stalin and Mao had a lifetime of experience as well.

                    Mark you know damn well we are polar opposites thats why we don't get along. So you're dislike for me is just your way of telling me to F___ off.

            2. thisisoli profile image64
              thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Prove there was a Jesus. smile

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well..prove there wasn't...smile

                1. thisisoli profile image64
                  thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  This was basically to make a point about the usual religion arguments on this subject.

                  I am not the one who is believing in God, I just trust my senses as to what is around me, and trust my own thinking to decide what is true based on the evidence available.

                  The existence of God contradicts nearly all modern evidence, therefore it is the belief in god which needs to provide a reasoned argument to the existence of god, not the other way around.

                  I am happy to be disproved on a subject, I have been contradicted,  and proven wrong, and I have changed my views in light of new evidence.

                  If anyone can actually give me an actual plausible argument of a god, then I may consider converting, until then most religious arguments are nonsensical.

                  1. 0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    The Mangod has spoken, wow.

                  2. cheaptrick profile image63
                    cheaptrickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Every one of human "Senses"have been proven to be a tiny point on a continuum.This fact has been proven by Science many times for hundreds of years.If you Trust your senses Only to determine your understanding you can only expand your reality to a certain point not much above any other species.

              2. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                If you would like to have this conversation, then I would suggest you visit the "Jesus Christ- Fact or Fiction" thread.

                However, Jesus was a real person. If you don't care to go anywhere or look, that's fine. But, don't claim he wasn't real or never existed.

                Not everyone then(when Jesus was alive) was completely stupid or ignorant.

              3. 0
                sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I know there was for one. Even the historians ackowledge his existence by using that as the benchmark of civilization. You are the one professing it's a load of crap, so prove it!

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No one accepts it as anything other than religious delusion. Admittedly - there is so much money to be made from this that it is widely accepted delusion, =but still.

                  Bench mark of civilization? Oh the witch burnings.........

                  1. 0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Your gripping Mark.

                2. thisisoli profile image64
                  thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually very few historians agree with the biblical account of a Jesus existing. There is very little proof behind his existence. I am not the one professing religion is a load of crap, you are the one professing a load of crap exists.

                  1. 0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Nice try! But go ahead and try again.big_smile

          2. thisisoli profile image64
            thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            There are plenty more books supporting Atheism than three.

            1. 0
              sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh yeah! And their written by clowns so you all should easily relate to them.

      2. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sweetie Pie???

  13. 0
    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago

    Don't insult us even if it's under the guise of a discussion and there won't be fight.smile

    1. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Sneako, even at your age, you still bitching about someone insulting you? or your belief?

      I mean, haven't you learned anything from you mystical belief in "GOD" and the supposed teachings you are to learn from?

      I am serious, get over yourself, if you find something considered as an insult, because it's against your supposed belief.

      You take a righteous tone everytime you speak, it's getting to the point where it is actually sickening.

      Every time you open your mouth, with a wise-ass comment non-related to any thread, and then you comment on threads like this, claiming to be insulted because your belief is in a mystical "GOD" figure.

      Get off your high horse.

      1. 0
        sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well they're all out now! Cags all you and the rest of the self-righteous atheists do is insult and try to demean what we hold as sacred. You know you're as guilty as Mark is.

        I don't care If you want to fight with me but you thinkers intentionally try to hurt the less aggressive and you know it.

        Your act is old. Just pray to yourself and be happy with your beliefs and leave the religious to theirs.

        My comments are my way of saying pull your head out. What you just said is rediculous.

        If you can't see the problems you cause with your anti-religious retoric then you're the one who needs to get off his high horse.

        You want an exchange of ideas then be polite and we'll talk. If you want to put down the religious here then you can stick-it! It's your choice, pick!

        1. Cagsil profile image82
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I can see you already have a problem sneako? First off, you're classifying me in the same group with Atheists. You must be completely foolish in this regard, considered you know damn well, I am not an atheist.
          Don't make claims you cannot prove. I don't hurt anyone and if someone thinks my words are hurting them, then they are like you....they need to get over their own righteous inclination. Nice try to twist things around. Yet, again you failed your "GOD" in doing what you were to supposedly learned.
          I would be glad to leave people to their beliefs, providing that they form their belief correctly. Until then, it isn't going to happen.
          I know what your comments are and they are the same as every other person who has some sort of religious belief....you don't give a damn about other people, and your actions prove you to be a ....
          I'm not anti-religion sneako. I don't want to ruin or dismiss real religions. However, those that are "MYSTIC" based are completely obsolete and useless in today's society.
          I find you attitude quite a bit selfish. Thank you for the proof religion is damaging the people who use it for their own advantage. hmm

          1. 0
            sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Bravo! Well at least you brought your best bull.

            1. Cagsil profile image82
              Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              And I can see that you offer absolutely nothing of any value to the conversation as per usual.

              1. 0
                sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No thats not the truth. It won't matter what I say you'll just insult me and the rest of the religious. Because you got nuth'in and you know it and I know it!big_smile

                1. Cagsil profile image82
                  Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, the REAL truth of the matter is you refuse to accept the reality of your own life and of those around you, so you can pray to a mystical entity, you cannot prove to exist, so you can prop up yourself and think yourself better. It's obvious in your self-righteous attitude, which carries in your words.

                  You look at things as insults, because you choose to. That's an insult on the rest of humanity or whoever you disagree with. wink

                  1. 0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You missed your calling! You should find a cave and hang up your shingle: Cagsil the Guru Extrordinaire!

  14. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

    Saying that a lack of proof of something proves it doesn't exist
    is ridiculous. All that means is you haven't found proof or it can't be proven.

  15. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    Hello Everybody... big_smile

    Delusion is an unprovable stance or perception of a person or group of people.

    Religion is a group of people that believe the same thing, it is an organized group of people with rules for being a part of the group. The beliefs of the group are sometimes unprovable. Which makes it fall into the same realm as delusion, or possible delusion.

    The reason Psychiatrists don't call believing in God or Gods a delusion is because of the general acceptance of the concept by a multitude of people. The generally unaccepted nature by large groups of people, of seeing ghosts and little green men, makes these concepts acceptable to be classified as delusional.

    The true delusion is the delusion of the Psychiatrists, they believe(without proof) that they can decide whether something that is not provable or disprovable is a delusion or not. When in fact all they are doing is classifying something that is unprovable, as popularly accepted and therefore not delusional, or not popularly accepted and therefore delusional.

    Delusional behavior such as the belief that one is the King of England is provable/disprovable. Because of this proof a delusional state is provable.

    Hearing voices of people that are not physically seen may be a delusion and it may not be...there isn't any proof that the person hearing the voice isn't hearing the voice. But because others don't hear the voice, the popular belief becomes that the voice doesn't exist and the hearer of the voice is labeled (without proof) to be delusional.

    Proof of things unseen, is not only empirical evidence, sometimes proof is in the feelings and experiences of the individual. Love could not be scientifically proven 1000 years ago, did it only come into existence after it was proven? I believe that love was around even when it could not be proven.

    {Faith is believing in something unproven, it is not believing in something that has been proven untrue. Delusion in religion is believing in the face of proof to the contrary.}

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with all I read..(I didn't read all of the paragraphs)smile

    2. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      So if I told you I was the King of England, you would declare me delusional, because you can disprove my claim?

      But if I told you I was God, you would say I'm NOT delusional, because you can't disprove my assertion?   True?!

    3. cheaptrick profile image63
      cheaptrickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Faith is an affirmation of hope which springs from desire.All can be applied to any number of mind sets from Ice Cream to god.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree with your definition of the word Faith. The bibles are not objective sources. That is why dictionaries were invented.

        1. cheaptrick profile image63
          cheaptrickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for the info on dictionaries.I shall purchase one and hopefully become as intelligent as you though I doubt I am capable of that.
          DESIRE;I Really want some Ice Cream.
          HOPE:there May be some in my fridge.
          FAITH:I shall resolve my"Hope"anxiety by Affirming that there is Ice Cream in my fridge.
          Weather the Ice Cream is there or not has nothing to do with Desire,Hope,and Faith.

          1. thisisoli profile image64
            thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            In that context, faith would be

            I know there is icecream in the fridge, even though I have never bought any ice cream.

            1. cheaptrick profile image63
              cheaptrickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              .Knowing that you usually purchase Ice Cream when you shop coupled with the desire for it is where hope that it is there comes from.there is no evidence either way as to weather it is or is not therefore you take a leap of Faith and affirm that it is.the notion that you Know you never bought it but hope its there is nonsensical.hope does not apply to what we Know,only to what we desire.

              In regards to religion,it is up to the individual to decide for them selves weather God is or is not.If one Decides that God is,they hope that God has certian qualities followed by faith that God does.Knowing has no place in the process.Aberrant religionists do not speak for or represent all.

          2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Hope and Desire have nothing to do with Faith...by that I mean one can have Faith and not desire anything. Faith doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hope either. If anything it is closest to trust, trusting in something that cannot be proven.

            Hoping that your Faith bears fruit is something else entirely.

            Faith is the act of believing without proof.

            (using your examples: I choose to have Faith that my roommates didn't eat all the Ice cream. I have Faith that they will be considerate enough to remember that I wanted some. Being Hopeful that the Desired ice cream will be there.)

            {infering, because I disagree with your definition, that I am arrogant and think of myself as smarter than you or better than you is a sign of poor self-esteem, your problem, not mine.}

            1. cheaptrick profile image63
              cheaptrickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I did not give a definition.I gave function.
              Informing me that they invented dictionaries is an allusion to my being ignorant of definition.There's only one way to understand that.My self esteem is just fine.Your analyzing someone you don't know and assessing self esteem from one statement brings into question your own possible superiority complex.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                roll

  16. Susana S profile image90
    Susana Sposted 6 years ago

    Gamergirl - everyone is subject to delusional thoughts - it depends on the strength of them on whether they are classed as mental ill health. It's the same with every other type of mental illness, we all experience them to some degree or another. For instance nearly everyone will have times when they are acting narcissistic, depressed, manic etc. it's really about how out of control they get.

    1. Susana S profile image90
      Susana Sposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      EDIT: I should add to this that there are clearly some religionists that are so deluded that they should be sectioned by the mental health act.

  17. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 6 years ago

    Thank you for the on-topic responses given so far.  The topic was raised by my husband, and set in motion thoughts in my own head, which is why I brought the topic here.

    Please feel free to continue contributing (or, as it seems to please some, not contributing, because that is entertaining too in an entirely different fashion.)

    smile

    1. 0
      sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Your sadistic behavior is unforgivable.

      1. Cagsil profile image82
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And like you are any better. roll

  18. livelonger profile image90
    livelongerposted 6 years ago

    My $0.02.

    A delusion is believing in something that is verifiable not to exist. If I tell you that there is a pink unicorn in front of us, but no one can see it except me, no machine can detect it or record its activity, then I am delusional.

    Faith is believing in something that is unverifiable.

    Atheists simply don't believe in something that is unverifiable. I'm not sure why anyone thinks there is something wrong with that. I think Richard Dawkins said that we're all atheist about something, which is probably true.

    I personally am not atheist (not Christian, either) and choose to believe what I want to believe, but that doesn't make me expect someone else to believe in something that can't even be verified.

  19. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 6 years ago

    Just as a side note - hate to break up the Mark vs Religious Folk argument - this is the book that started the whole train of discussion between hubby and I:

    http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion

    1. thisisoli profile image64
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would read some of the theologian and atheist books he uses for sources, Richard Dawkins is not much of a writer, you may find that reading up on both sides of the story, and then reading his books, makes it easier to form your own opinion on the subject smile

    2. Pandoras Box profile image81
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah it's a good book. If you haven't read it, you may want to when your boyfriend is done with it.

      1. gamergirl profile image60
        gamergirlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have never seen him so energized about a topic since reading this book, thus my interest in initiating a thread about it. big_smile

        1. 0
          sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wow. You went right to the source of information about life the universe and everything. So it must be true, duh.

          1. 0
            sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That doesn't speak very well of you.

            1. 0
              Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol.
              sneak, you, umm talking to yourself?
              i do it all the time, it seems...jeje

              1. 0
                sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah I tried to stop it before it got started but I failed miserably. I just don't understand people any more.smile

  20. thisisoli profile image64
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    For those debating that a delusion is when something proven not to exist is imagined to exist.

    Are the people believing that aliens are scanning their mind delusional?

    There is no proof this is not true, however I don't think anyone would argue it was a delusion.

    The only thing stopping religion being classed as such in most cases is that it is a mass delusion, too many voters get upset when they get classed as that.

    1. livelonger profile image90
      livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't necessarily call it a delusion. In the absence of any other aberrant behavior, it could be a faith.

      The "aliens are scanning my mind" folks usually demonstrate a long-standing paranoia towards everything, or they show other signs of mental illness, so it's easy to be skeptical of them.

    2. gamergirl profile image60
      gamergirlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Very good point!

      We are raised, particularly in the United States, to NEVER question or look with a negative eye on a person's religious beliefs, therefore supposedly making them untouchable from what would elsewise be called delusion.  This is not to say that being delusional is entirely negative, as there are plenty of people who live incredible lives while operating under the false belief that, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is coming after their "soul."

      But, as that is a religious belief, it obviously can't be delusion, because we are conditioned to think that no matter what religion a person subscribes to, their beliefs make their circumstances real for them.

      Interesting thoughts for a beautiful sunny day.  big_smile

      Edit:  I haven't yet cracked past the first chapter of the book in question myself, and consider myself to be a lifelong student of religion and religious history, so you can be sure I'll be checking into his sources - AND the opposing viewpoints.

      1. Pandoras Box profile image81
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Notice how it is supposedly impolite to bring up the delusion of faith, yet apparently perfectly acceptable to bring up the delusion itself.

        Never discuss religion, it hurts peoples' feelings. That's one of the things in which Dawkins points out the error.

        That's why the religious get so mad and start spitting vitriol. The conversation is changing, and now that it takes more than empty shared testimonies and great expectations, they don't have a thing to contribute.

        1. gamergirl profile image60
          gamergirlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I attempt most times to bypass the negative and oft-times hateful remarks.  I'm not here to have a petty argument, but rather to engage in meaningful (to me) discussions, to learn what others think/feel on subjects and maybe learn something in the process.  smile

          Of course, I can't really stop others from being mean for it's own sake.  They aren't my responsibility, my only responsibility is to and for myself.

          1. Pandoras Box profile image81
            Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            True that. The only person you can ever change or control is yourself.

  21. 0
    Madame Xposted 6 years ago

    IF

    (everybody sees the "IF" right? . . . good . . . )

    There is an almighty being,

    and that being created reality,

    Then by definition that being is beyond reality - outside of it

    and logic is a part of reality . . .

    then it is impossible to prove the existence of said almighty being through the use of logic.

    Just a (logical) thought . . .   smile

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, logic cannot prove or disprove God.

  22. Arthur Fontes profile image89
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    There are many people who believe in "Luck".

    I do not think there is any proof that luck exists.

    Anyone who believes in luck must also be delusional?

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ...and since there is no proof that luck doesn't exist anyone that believes that luck doesn't exist must also delusional? Because they believe in something that cannot be proven.

      If delusion is believing something that is unprovable, Then everyone is delusional because we all believe one way or another on the unprovable concept of the existence/non-existence of God.

      1. thisisoli profile image64
        thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Anyone who believes in luck as a physical being is delusional, luck is a way of describing beating a statistical advantage, it does exist, but only in a past tense.

        Continuing on a lucky streak in a casino for instance, is delusional, since there is no real favour for your odds.

        1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
          Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. Daniel Carter profile image89
            Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, it's more like they are what they believe. They create what they believe. Especially regarding intangibles.

        2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You missed the point of my statement and have gone off on a tangent.

    2. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would have to disagree. LUCK is a random phenomenon. smile

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
        Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I do not believe in luck.  I do not think that such a thing exists.

        If someone makes the right choices in life then possibly the person might appear to be lucky.

        Chance exists but it is not some mystical energy.  It is a case of numerical odds.

        1. Cagsil profile image82
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What you're not seeing is that humanity has defined what luck is. So, it exists, whether or not, you want to believe it. It is a phenomenon that is completely random. It is all a matter of making the specific "right" choice, at a specific time, for which, creates luck.

          Chance is just another definition created to explain something different. Chance and Luck are obvious not the same thing. Luck isn't a mystical energy. It just happens.

  23. Daniel Carter profile image89
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    I believed in God because I found evidence and clues that helped me perpetuate continuing to believe in a God. It's also about social norms. It's been pretty "normal" to believe in God in the western world for several hundred years or more. I think that's why a lot of people continue to believe. They see evidence that nonbelievers and atheists don't accept as evidence. It seems a matter of difference in perspective.

    I got the rug pulled out from under me. All the beliefs felt like lies. The evidence no longer added up. The clues about "believing" were gone. I didn't know what I believed.

    However, there have been times when I've been forced (after catastrophic losses) to be completely alone. It was very uncomfortable. After a time when calmness returned, I was simply "okay" and I no longer felt alone. I felt connected somehow to something greater than me. I have no idea what it is. Can't explain it. It's not anybody's "normal" definition of God. I don't think calling it God is the right thing. All I know is that despite everything that has happened or may happen, I'm okay.

    I don't think that feeling of being okay is about having a delusion.

  24. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    Madame X, Mikel, perfectly stated.

    consciousness is the delude which conjures the "If".
    beyond it is beyond 'logical' consideration or application in any stasis. the logic of any thing is simply the processing of information considered or dismissed. It is not designed to prove or disprove. Its function is just to do. It is (semantically) a task manager, a database, computer.
    Explains why humans are still struggling within it.

    1. 0
      Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The purpose of logic is more than proving or disproving internal consistency - internal consistency cannot exist without external referents.

      Logic does not exist in a vacuum.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        indeed. but it is that stasis between consistent and inconsistent that most live {consciousness/logic/reason}. Neither end will ever be satisfied or reach a conclusion. Neither actually wants to. To do so makes both obsolete and the 'process' complete.

        1. 0
          Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't understand what you're trying to say here

  25. Aya Katz profile image88
    Aya Katzposted 6 years ago

    People believe in a lot of things for which they have not seen the evidence with their own eyes. Both religious beliefs and scientific beliefs held by the average person represent a reliance on the wisdom of others.

    I am actually amazed at how non-delusional most theists are. Most have never seen God nor have experienced a miracle contrary to the laws of physics -- and they will readily admit this. They go on authority, as do most people when it comes to their beliefs about medicine, biology or physics.

    1. Daniel Carter profile image89
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's also interesting to note that a lot of scientific evidence is the result, first, of speculation. A clue is given, for example, of a smaller particle than a molecule. The problem is to prove its existence, based on a clue, or even just an idea. What is amazing is that in many cases there is tangible supporting evidence for these additional "break throughs" of information.

      Atheists and believers usually stratify and compartmentalize their arguments so tightly that they are like opposing ends of a magnet. What if they were both wrong? What if they were both right? We say that neither can be both wrong or right together, but as science has discovered, there are particles smaller than we thought. We find that light actually bends in places in the universe. Apparently everything we know isn't much at all.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Paradoxes exist. They by definition are not possible...and yet...they exist.

        1. Daniel Carter profile image89
          Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          True, that.
          And bumblebees fly for some damned reason.
          wink

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            exactly!!!


            big_smile

      2. Aya Katz profile image88
        Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes. But it's a fact of human psychology that it is easier to have a firm belief on any subject than to keep an open mind. ;->

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          extremely true... having an open mind requires one to accept that the beliefs that they hold most dear, may be completely wrong. And that's hard.

    2. Pandoras Box profile image81
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Where is the authority in the religious belief? What exactly is that authority?

      1. 0
        Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Personal experience

        1. Pandoras Box profile image81
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So personal experience has provided you with the justification for believing in your religion? How so?

          1. 0
            Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I realize it is not politically correct for me to say that I have an on-going personal experience of God, but that is my experience.

            It is ok to say that one prays TO God, but to have Him answer back, well, I must be delusional, right?

            Ok.

            1. Pandoras Box profile image81
              Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No, if you'll recall, my question was in response to someone stating that scientific authority was the same as religious authority.

              Okay, so your authority for your religious ideas is all in your mind then? Do you have any other religious ideas that did not come from your mind?

              1. 0
                sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Do you have any thoughts that aren't ridiculus?

                1. gamergirl profile image60
                  gamergirlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sneako, please.

                  I tried to plead with you via email to cease this rotation of negativity, but you keep going.

                  Please stop attacking others - for one, it's rude, and for two, it violates the forum rules.

                  1. 0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    One eye is not working. I'm done here I told you in the beginning this would happen but as with the others on that side of the arguement you just won't listen.

              2. 0
                Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                None of my experience of God comes from my mind. I have come to understand that God (for lack of a better term) is beyond the ability of the mind, and therefore an experience. Since that experience is beyond the mind it is impossible to use the mind to describe or explain it. But I know what it is for myself.

                1. Daniel Carter profile image89
                  Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I think one of the most difficult proofs about what you're saying Madame X, is that science actually sets us apart from whatever it is we are trying to prove. We prove those things independent of ourselves, but perhaps what you're saying is that proving something that is intrinsically a part of us from origination is not really plausible through strict scientific methods. And science does not know how to test and include "experience", perhaps.

                  In other words, it *could* be that experience in science is discounted in some tests whereas it *should* be included in specific instances, such as in metaphysical ideaologies.

                  I don't know, maybe I'm not making any sense. If not, somebody chime in with a good joke, please.

                  1. 0
                    Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh Daniel, music to my ears. smile

                    Are you familiar with the Hisenberg Uncertainty Principle? In a nutshell he states that you can know the position of a particle - OR - it's speed, but you cannot know both at the same time. The conclusion being that your observation alters the data because you have one perspective or another.

                2. Pandoras Box profile image81
                  Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Uh, okay, from your uh... soul, then. Your soul speaks to you, your mind processes what it says and you have your religious beliefs, all of which come from your soul, right?

                  1. 0
                    Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes.

              3. 0
                Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, I wasn't paying close enough attention.

    3. thisisoli profile image64
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is a difference between the authority of those who spend their lives researching facts, and the authority of religious figures.

      1. Aya Katz profile image88
        Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The problem with relying on authority rather than on one's own thinking and reasoning and experience and the facts one can independently verify is that it always requires faith in the honesty, integrity, intelligence and reliability of other people. In many cases, these are others whom we don't personally know or have never met.

        The testimony of expert witnesses requires a belief in credentials. But an investigation of the truth should be wary of all hearsay, even that of the experts.

        1. thisisoli profile image64
          thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Fortunately most authority figures in scientific areas back up their opinions with facts, which you can verify.

          1. Aya Katz profile image88
            Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That's true. Most scientists do back their opinions with facts. But most people who believe in established scientific doctrine don't bother to verify what they are told. In many cases, they are not even able to follow the reasoning that brings us from the facts to the conclusions drawn from the facts. Which brings us back to my point that many people who believe in science have faith in one authority, not all that different from the faith of believers in another kind of authority.

            Independent thinkers are scarce in both camps.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I agree, and this was very well stated.  smile

        2. Pandoras Box profile image81
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think that a relevant difference would be that we understand the nature of science. The entire approach is different, it is an ongoing search for truths, for what can be known, rather than a position of absolute truth in regards to things unknowable. We aren't surprised when things change in science, and we take findings with a grain of salt until the evidence mounts up nicely.

          In other words, science is regarded as it should be, by everyone pretty much except for students forced to learn it via uninspiring instructors and religious people who feel threatened by it.

          Yet religion, which is entirely based on hearsay and speculation, is treated by the religious as infallible ultimate truth which ought to have authority over every aspect of everybody's lives. It is not open to new discoveries, despite the existance of copycats like the mormons and the JW's.

          It's a pretty ridiculous argument I cannot help but think, that respect for science is the same as faith in religion.

          1. thisisoli profile image64
            thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well put!

          2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I could say that your statement is a religious faith based statement (atheist dogma) unless you have some empirical proof to back up your (i believe unfounded) statement.

            1. Pandoras Box profile image81
              Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Religion is based on the stuff other people are supposed to have said or reported to have happened, and speculation about what was meant by what they supposedly said, or indicated by what they supposedly saw happen.

              Hearsay and speculation.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                For me it isn't, my religion is my own.

                Perhaps instead of "religion" you should use the name of the particular religious branch your talking about, Christianity for example.

                Calling all water cold because in your experience while living at the south pole all the water was cold, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a place somewhere as yet undiscovered that had warm water...someplace possibly named 'The Emerald Coast'...just a thought...   smile

                1. Pandoras Box profile image81
                  Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You made up your own. It is based on your speculation, and it probably has a few roots that go back to things said -or supposedly said- by others.

                  Speculation and hearsay.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Speculation and Hearsay, got proof?

          3. Aya Katz profile image88
            Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            My argument wasn't about science. I respect the scientific process.  My point was about the average person's attitude toward science. Even if you believe in something that turns out to be true, how you arrived at that belief is a completely different issue. Most people cannot defend their belief in any scientific discovery except to say that credible people have told them it was true. That is called faith. There's no other way around it.

            But by the same token, most religious people's religious experiences are not nearly as vivid and direct as those described in religious scriptures. If they meet someone who has seen a burning bush, talked to a god directly, been healed by touch, or revived from the dead, most religious people treat that person as a freak. They don't really expect anyone to have vivid religious experiences, and they regard those who do as delusional.

            So the difference between the average religious person and the average non-religious person in terms of the way they acquire their beliefs is very similar. Neither group is delusional. Both groups are socially motivated. They live in a socially constructed reality.

            1. thisisoli profile image64
              thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "Most people cannot defend their belief in any scientific discovery except to say that credible people have told them it was true. That is called faith. There's no other way around it."

              The difference is however that if they so desired they could check the facts behind the science. For someone to become a credible source in the scientific industry they do not just stand up and say they have discovered something, they have to spend years proving what they say is true.

              Science is verifiable.

              The same cannot be held for religion.

              1. Aya Katz profile image88
                Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The point is that they do not so desire. Nor are they able, in many cases.

                The subject under discussion was not whether science is "true." The subject was whether one group of people is delusional while another is not. This means that how they acquired their information is what we are scrutinizing -- not how their sources acquired theirs.

                1. Pandoras Box profile image81
                  Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  A delusion is believing in something in spite of evidence that proves it to be untrue. If the scientific community produces evidence that shows a prior theory to be untrue, then what is believed to be true changes. The new evidence is incorporated into our understanding, not dogmatically denied.

                  Merely thinking that something is probably true because scientists have produced alot of evidence to support it and there's no reason not to believe it correct is not faith, nor is it a delusion. it is not reflective of delusional thinking.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    actually it is dogmatically denied for quite some time just like religion, when finally enough people are swayed to the new idea then it becomes embedded in the 'laws of science' and is just as hard to correct later on if it turns out to be untrue.

                    I state the scientific belief that the world is flat as proof. That the Earth is the center of the universe. That the Sun revolves around the Earth. That women are dumber than men because of the smaller brain. That homosexuality is a mental illness...

                    all of which were at one time 'proven' scientific facts and many continued to believe the old scientific concepts even after the proof was presented, making 'scientists' just as delusional as religiously faithful people that cling to outdated ideas that have been proven false. As proof of this I list my theory and proof of the incorrectness of Newton's third law of motion (read the Hub I'm not arguing that point in the forums again), since I don't have a name scientists are dismissing the proofs out of hand, and are not examining the actual facts of the theory. Science is suppose to be objective, a measure of facts and stats only, but it isn't... It is a club of people that only listen to people in the club.

              2. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                science is not verified unbiasedly.
                Any proof is arguable, therefore no fact is possible.

                All information, proof is arguable. Therefore no 'pure' fact or evidence is possible in either science or theism.

                Human logic is finite and therefore deluded -since it considers itself an entity by bringing things to light (using either process).

                so long as there is consciousness, there is delusion.

              3. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                so you have personally proved (tested) every scientific discovery that you believe is true?

                Or did you just 'take it on faith' that Einstein's theories were all correct, because other knowledgeable and wise scientists said it was so?

                {science, is also run on faith. Faith in knowledgeable people that understand more than we do.}

  26. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    Can anyone prove for me what proof is.
    Is proof not an assumption of a fact?
    One piece of fact might be said to be proof for both sides of an arguement.
      So it seems evidence affected by bias is only opinion.
    Opinion based on a fact accepted by the majority is considered to be proof ???  But is it?   just a thought.

  27. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

    For those who do not believe in God...
    Where are your premises and correct conclusions?

    Premises are assertions at least two joined to come to a correct conclusion.

    If you can use two premises that bring a correct conclusion that there is no God. .I will convert to atheism.

    From my textbook

    Faulty Premise/Conclusion

    P.1=John has facial hair
    P2=All people have facial hair
    C.=John is a person

    Correct Premise/Conclusion
    P1.=John is a person
    P2.=All people have facial hair
    C.=John has facial hair

    1. 0
      Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ah, how refreshing. Your first example is called a sophism - seems to be a lot of that around these days smile

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How do you figure this? No answer so you are saying I am trying to deceive..ah typical of those who have no answer.

        1. 0
          Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm agreeing with you Deborah - sorry if I didn't sound that way hmm

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Deleted

            1. Pandoras Box profile image81
              Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Debbie that's exactly what she was saying. The first example in your textbook that you posted.

            2. 0
              Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Your first example . . .

              Faulty Premise/Conclusion

              P.1=John has facial hair
              P2=All people have facial hair
              C.=John is a person

              is a sophism.

              I was commenting in general on how I sometimes see faulty logic smile

              (but not from you smile )

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                .....My mistake....

                1. 0
                  Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No worries smile I enjoy your posts very much smile

  28. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 6 years ago

    http://www.toontowncentral.com/gallery/data/619/feedtroll.gif

  29. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

    Madame X
    Sorry, Now I know what you were saying. You were speaking of the first two premises...Sometimes my head ia hard smile

  30. Daniel Carter profile image89
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    Okay, shoot me if you need to on this one, but I've been reading all the banter, mild insults, etc.

    A relationship *with* God is *supposed* to ground believers and provide them with that inner security and acceptance that they know how to live a life of peace and contentment.

    A relationship *without* God, that is, as an atheist, is *supposed* to ground nonbelievers and provide them with that inner security and self acceptance that they know how to live in peace and contentment.

    How far off base am I, here?

    1. Pandoras Box profile image81
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Personally I wouldn't agree with the second. My sense of self or peace and contentment -whatever the phrase you used- doesn't stem from my lack of belief in a divinity.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No it comes from a belief...a belief that your point of view is correct. Your point of view being that God doesn't exist.

        1. Pandoras Box profile image81
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh Mikel, I'm sorry. Do you know more about me than I do?

      2. Daniel Carter profile image89
        Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But that's not my point, really. Sorry if I didn't provide it clearly.

        You are okay and at peace *regardless*. Does that make more sense?

        The biggest point I'm trying to make is that the claims believers and nonbelievers often make are at the root, either similar or the same, but the claim is that one side says it's *because* there is a God and the other side says they have the same feelings regardless, therefore there is no God.

        So then, I dot my "i's" and you draw little flowers where the dot goes—so to speak.
        wink

        1. Pandoras Box profile image81
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes. I'd say that's pretty true.

          1. Daniel Carter profile image89
            Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm so relieved.
            smile

            1. Pandoras Box profile image81
              Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Of course, we'd probably interpret it differently. wink

              1. Daniel Carter profile image89
                Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                It's because you're smarter than me.
                If you'd turn it into a song lyric, I could write a bitchin' tune for it.
                lol

  31. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

    God can't be proven to those who can't see anymore then we can prove the wind brushed against our faces.
    We experience the wind but have no way to prove it......

  32. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 6 years ago

    Thank you for agreeing to step back and cease your insults, sneako.  I appreciate it.

    smile

  33. 0
    Madame Xposted 6 years ago

    "That's a lot of psycho-jumbo, but hey, I've even convinced myself!!"


    If you can't rely on your own personal experience, what do you have left ?

    smile

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      the respected view and experiences of others.

    2. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Reality.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        reality is a perception. so also is reality delusional? Hmm.

        X would argue and say Y, by a priori perceived is deluded, only because X has its own a priori perceived. the conflict of human consciousness is its reality -by definition.
        X + Y = Z

        Z being reality?
        Hence the conflict.

        { Reality = energy³ necessary }

        1. 60
          (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The deluded have another perception of reality as they imagine another realm of angels and demons constantly swarming and swirling around them forever in spiritual battle for the souls of the earth.

          Yeah, that's reality. roll

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Believing in something that has not been unproven is merely Faith.

            Delusion comes into play when there is proof that the held belief is false. So... until someone can provide proof that angels don't exist, believing in them is not delusional, it is an act of Faith.

            1. 60
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Your flaw is believing that faith ISN'T delusional.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well said.

                I totally agree.

            2. Ron Montgomery profile image59
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well said.  I totally agree.

          2. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            'another' perception? hmm.
            that is interesting, considering no human knows the origin of any perception. Therefore any and all a priori / posteriori are relationary.

            One's concept of perception of 'IS or IS NOT' is arguable.
            Being arguable, no pure fact or evidence exists.
            Therefore religion is as any other perception - deluded.

  34. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    I know... It's ok.

    1. Daniel Carter profile image89
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This sounds serious.
      Should I be sorry, too?

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol

  35. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    Religion vs Delusion?
    Religion and delusion are the same thing aren't they?

    1. C.V.Rajan profile image68
      C.V.Rajanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Religion = illogical delusion
      Science = logical delusion!

  36. thisisoli profile image64
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    I disagree with the concept of God, I deny the existence of God.

    While people may say there is no proof to deny the existant of God, there is a huge amount of theory which goes against things such as heaven, hell, and an omnipotent, omnipresent being, who decided to pay more attention to human beings than atoms, despite the omnipresence factor making them both equal.

    There is a lot of science that would disprove god, if it wasn't for theists turning around and saying, 'ahh but god is omnipotent, you cannot catch him out with your science' or similar.

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed. There is enough empirical evidence against creation to sink a ship! lol

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        if it is empirical evidence then it is demonstratable...  Where is this proof?

    2. Pandoras Box profile image81
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      When reality is denied for the purpose of clinging to one's viewpoint, that is evidence of a delusion.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        again... I agree keeping a 'Faith' in the face of proof to the contrary, is a delusion. The non acceptance of proof because it goes against a belief based in faith is not being faithful.

        Faith is believing in something without proof, it is NOT believing when there is proof to the contrary.

  37. gamergent profile image60
    gamergentposted 6 years ago

    As the initiator of this thread, after a fashion, I feel inclined to chime in.

    In order to have a clean discussion we need to quickly sum up some terms, as regards the statement my wife made.  Simply put, some of you are going about this in a misguided fashion because of a confusion of terms.

    Belief is defined in this case as, "3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence" from Meriam-Webster.com. 

    Faith is defined in this case as, "2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust".  Primarily b(1), a firm belief(conviction of truth) for which there is no evidence.

    It can be confusing utilizing synonym's in tandem, I agree!

    Delusion might be better re-phrased as "illusion" but it lacks certain connotations which we're attempting to impart.  As such, we'll suffice by using "2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs"

    For consistency all definitions were pulled from Meriam-Webster.com.  I'll admit to some cherry picking of particular shades of meaning, but as the originator of the discussion I feel some accommodations might be made.

    Now, on to the meat of the discussion.  In order for me to substantiate this claim I'll have to provide some pretty strong evidence against a "God", yes? 

    I came prepared.

    For clarity lets ascribe certain traits to this "God".  (For note, "God" does not imply sarcasm or condescension so much as a polite refusal to target any particular divinity)

    According to M-W.C again, "1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind " specifically 1(a).

    A Being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.  More commonly we might describe such a being as "all powerful, all knowing, all good."

    Disregarding such chestnuts as "Can God make a rock so heavy...", we can make some pretty good progress against "perfect in power" as an impossibility in conjunction (stress on this) with perfection in power and wisdom.  Even factoring in free will.  I'm going to take a shortcut and just aim you at a primer for this.  Evil?
    Similarly, regarding Free will

    In truth these all fall under the umbrella of Incompatible-Properties

    Which is to say, any specific interpretation of a "God" is in direct opposition to perceived reality.  We're not going to currently touch on ideas like Qualia and the questions raised therin about our perception of reality.  Let alone all the Brain in a Vat discussions we might later foster.

    Back to the matter at hand, we're left with this basic statement.  If we define "God" as a perfectly powerful/wise/good being and then seek to apply a dogma or practice to this belief we have not just a Faith, so much as a Faith in an Illusion.  Which is to say, to specify "God"'s nature we must hold as true something which flies in the face of evidence we are presented with.

    Now, there are an entire mess of assumptions about this that can be made, have been made, and will continue to be made.  Counterargument range along the lines of NOMA, and all the exciting denials incumbent upon it.  Further, many people will make value judgments about Faith/Belief/Delusion.  That is not to the point of this discussion, so much as it's an observation as to the consequences in one way or another, as the discussion falls...one way or the other.

    Now the clever among you will note that "Delusion" applies only to things about which there can be no doubt!  Without hesitation I applaud your astute observation, however I regret to inform you that there is nothing which can not be doubted.  Brains in Jars, again.  So we need to append a minimal threshold of doubt, or perhaps a maximum threshold of certainty before we can apply these labels. 

    I will be humble enough to say, that at this point in my life I can't set those sorts of boundaries but that we are having this discussion does indicate, to me, that there are similarities between Faith and Delusion.  Minimally I'd advocate that we strongly examine Faith in light of reason and evidence to be certain that we are not delusional.  I'm fairly certain that we can agree that no "Perfectly Good" being would advocate (allow?) torture, rape, genocide, purposeful impoverishment, ignorance, neglect, abuse, or the long litany of horrors that Humanity visits on itself. 

    In closing, I leave it to you the reader to determine whether a person with whom you speak has "Faith" or is following a "Delusion".  My personal stance is fairly well indicated by Gamergirl, I only hope to have been impartial in my explanation.

    Editors Note:  Wikipedia links used exclusively for consistency, as well as relative security as re: computer virus.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      the definition of God is not necessarily the 'Christian' definition.

      I believe that the definition of God is the supreme being.(the mostly highly evolved form of life in existence.)

      It does not include all the possible powers and abilities that christianity wants to lump into the definition.

  38. cheaptrick profile image63
    cheaptrickposted 6 years ago

    Oxymoron:Is there such a thing as an Unprovable Fact?
    Question:Do Thoughts Exist?
    Can they be Proven?

  39. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 6 years ago

    Mikel,

    Though it may be easy to assume that my husband (gamergent) refers only to Christianity - as most atheists are typecast as only rejecting Christianity - please let me assure you that his outlook is the same for every other religion, including my own.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I only refered to the christian definition of the God concept because the definition that your husband listed IS the christian definition of God.

  40. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 6 years ago

    Can you please point specifically in his post to the definition in question, so I can re-read it? Admittedly, while I did read his post (and discuss it with him briefly), I'm not sure what you're referring to, since the post itself is fairly open-ended as to which "God" is being referenced.

    Edit:  Nevermind - I found it.  The definition in question does have an a. and b. - the secondary portion of the definition is, of course, what you're referring to.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I am refering to this entire definition---->  According to M-W.C again, "1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind " specifically 1(a).

      A Being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.  More commonly we might describe such a being as "all powerful, all knowing, all good."


      I will admit that most dictionaries have this as the definition of God. The influence of Christianity I believe is the reason why. I reject the Christian definition, and for me at least the definition of God is simply: The supreme being, the most highly evolved form of life in existence. The Creator of existence.

      1. gamergent profile image60
        gamergentposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Mikel there are some serious incongruities with your statement, but for the time being I'll leave them lay.

        To the discussion at hand, my Wife posted the initial statement, and I further refined it to target monotheists, primarily believing in an Abrahamic "God".  You come across more as a Deist or possibly Pantheist.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you likely don't believe in a "Personal God", which is to say that it's not involved in day-to-day affairs, holds no converse with it's creations, and possibly lacks anthropomorphic properties.  In which case you're in exceptionally good company, many of histories brightest minds were themselves Deists.

        The issue however is that your current personal "belief in the definition of God" is not of consequence for that particular discussion.  If you find yourself falling outside that narrow band of definitions, you are for the moment spared.

        Now on to the issues I hold with your definition of "God".

        "... for me at least the definition of God is simply: The supreme being, the most highly evolved form of life in existence. The Creator of existence."

        Based on this statement I can point out a few causal issues right off.  In order for a being to have evolved it must have at some point not been what it currently is.  That is evolution, change over time.  So in order for your god to be the most "highly evolved for of life in existence" it would have to at some point been "not-God".  This puts some serious doubt on it's capacity to have created existence.  If this seems confusing then our feeling is mutual. 

        You hold also that "God" is the "most highly evolved form of life", this brings to mind a few questions.  "God" as a form of life, in taxonomy where do we place this, the "God" kingdom, from which it's myriad sub-lifeforms do dwell?  Or do you mean to say that "God" is a singular most highly evolved type of some other life form?  From what evolved "God"?  Certainly nothing in this existence as "God" created it, according to your Faith. 

        I'll refrain from all the crazy n-dimensional time discussions for now.

        Another issue I have however is the particular use of "highly evolved".  As compared to what?  How do we define "highly" evolved?  Greatly changed from it's base state?  More adapted than any other type of life?  Having more transitional states?  Perhaps the opposite!  Maybe the most highly evolved life simply sublimated from base organics to supernatural in one majestic leap!

        I'm unsure as to the particulars of your beliefs, or rather your Faith.  However the way you state them is either poorly done, or poorly understood by yourself.  Far be it from me to ridicule you, I am asking the questions above sincerely.  I have an honest curiosity in where comes this Faith, it's particulars and what sort of evidence you can muster to accommodate calling it belief rather than Faith.  I will be most saddened if you default to "intuition" or a "feeling" as you otherwise seem like a very clever person.

        ~M

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          There are  no incongruities in my belief and definition of God. I see God differently than most or maybe anyone I have ever talked to about God. I have Many many hubs explaining how I see God. But to put it in a very brief nutshell for you, I'll say this:

          At some point in history there was absolutely NOTHING...and then at some point there was EVERYTHING, now since this new thing was also the only thing in existence, it was the pinnacle of evolution, the supreme being. This new thing may have only been a microbe...but it was everything.

          As things progressed this thing evolved, it was always the most highly evolved thing in existence, because it was the only thing in existence. Eventually it evolved to a point where it had the power of creation.

          At some point 'it' created something else, this something else was less than itself 'it' named this new something 'Light'...

          God is not a stagnet being, God continues to evolve and grow, but God is always reaching heights never before attained, because of that there is no life form greater than God.


          that is what I believe God is.

          1. 60
            (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Notice how that statement contradicts your original claim. No charge in pointing that out to you. smile

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              what original claim?

              1. 60
                (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You sure have a short memory. This claim:

                "God is not a meaningless word. It is a word with an agreed upon definition."

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  ok semi-agreed upon defintion...


                  better?


                  But all words have the same only semi-agreed upon attribute, what is blue to me may not be exactly what you say blue is. What I define as cold may only mean chilly to you and so on and so on...so by saying it is an agreed upon term I was actually as accurate as human speech allows.

                  1. 60
                    (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    How about, everyone has their own personal definition of a god, which are as dissimilar as finger prints.

  41. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 6 years ago

    Mikel:

    Please let me clarify for you again, the definition presented that you take issue with is in TWO parts.

    According to M-W.C again, "1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind " specifically 1(a).

    A Being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.  More commonly we might describe such a being as "all powerful, all knowing, all good."

    -----------------------------------

    The bolded section is the very next paragraph in his post, and a point of further clarity from the source.  The bold italic is the first indicator as to which of the two definitions he referred to.

    With somewhere around 33% of the world's population assigning themselves the religious affiliation of Christian, it is no small wonder that the Christian definition of God is present in dictionaries - after all, a dictionary is a literary tool serving as the compilation of all accepted definitions of words as they are used in language - or it should be anyway.

    Anyhoo, I just wanted to clear that up.  smile

  42. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    Now regarding faith.
    for most, they consider faith an action of logic, sensation.
    It is neither. It is not a perception.
    The stasis of faith exceeds both -has no handicap- not needing.
    Any Belief or System is lacking, needy.

    Faith supersedes any necessity and is called upon by all necessities. Logic, equation, search or revelation, discovery need faith, not the other way around.

    Faith is outside the delusion and its parts/parallels.
    Faith does not consider a question nor its opponent, an answer.
    The delude comes in one, the other or both attempting to include faith in that perception.

    Escape the perception, you have only faith.

    1. gamergent profile image60
      gamergentposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What are you trying to say?  You're being exceedingly cryptic here.

      If you are saying that all experience is subjective and thusly we operate on a Faith that our perceptions and reality are actually linked...

      Then what?

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        quite the opposite.
        humans generally reside in the parallels of necessity -any necessity. A need is a perception. To operate "in" faith is to call upon faith or include it, as to be part of the perception.

        Any consciousness is a form of perception, meaning thinking.
        That thinking is threefold -projective, absorptive & reflective.
        It is limited to itself, much like synthetic a priori.
        Also with consciousness is sensation -which is actually apart of logic, though highly disputed- taste, touch, smell, etc.

        So then, any parameter within consciousness is needing. If needing, then is lacking and requires Faith to participate with it. Else humans would not perceive things as they do. They logic, equate, discover those parallels in order to satisfy the need.
        Else, they must live in Faith -better said- be faith.

        The delusion is the need, the perception, the consideration.

        1. gamergent profile image60
          gamergentposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Still not following you, try being more direct, less profound.  Sentences like, "If needing, then is lacking and requires Faith to participate with it." are terribly constructed.  I might go so far as to call them meaningless.

          Lets see if my second take on this is any closer to what you're trying to state.

          1.)  Humans need things.
          2.)  Needs are perceptions of something lacking.
          3.)  Consciousness is perception.
          4.)  Consciousness is lacking. (From 2 and 3)
          5.)  Therefore Faith.  (From 3 and 4)

  43. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    gamergent,

    first, nice to meet you.

    second, my apologies for cryptic.
    here goes:

    need = perception = consciousness

    humans try to incorporate Faith into their own logic/sensation, because in doing so, they 'think' they will have a clearer understanding of things and are free to justify both logic and lack of -ironically- Faith itself.

    consciousness is simply the parameters of the Need To Know otherwise known as thought. Every human thought is a parallel.
    So, as long as any person remains living in any expression of thought, they are always caught in the parallel.

    faith is not against the grain of human thinking, perception. It is beyond it. Which is one reason people cannot explain it, another is they have never actually experienced faith itself, only a perceived notion of faith.

    To experience faith is to no longer consider -meaning no longer thinking, perceiving, assuming, searching, discovering. This is why I said faith has no need.
    This is where the delusion comes in to play.

  44. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    gamergent,

    Give you an example of the delusion in action:
    someone in the forum stated:

    "Faith is the act of believing without proof."

    This statement is incorporating faith as a means to secure a thought (logic/sensation) -to justify itself. That thought is a parallel within the consciousness : thinking (organic a priori)

    In another place someone said something about science acting by faith -to some degree.

    Both are needy, both are lacking. Both include faith as the 'leveler' of their perspective/position/thinking. Thus to some measure agree and justify that instance.
    What they both neglected to understand was that both are deluded.
    Both are project,absorb, reflect actions or instances. They are questionable, arguable.
    Even still, faith superseded both -because both instances called upon this entity Faith to explain themselves.

    1. gamergent profile image60
      gamergentposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Still too cryptic, I'll concede whichever point you're attempting to make.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yea I'm not understanding anything beyond him calling me delusional...  (I am the 'delusional poster' he is quoting)

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Mikel, nothing personal & no offense intended, only borrowed your comment to explain things.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            this is the first of your posts in this thread I actually understood.... big_smile

            and though I disagree with your opinion on my definition of Faith, I have no hard feelings. If I'm wrong and that can be pointed out to me in a way that brings me new understanding, then I'm all for it. In this case however, my definition is accurate and is not delusional at all.  tongue


            big_smile

            1. 0
              Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol
              thanks?!


              yes, many definitions can be applied to the USE of faith.

              consciousness: thought (logic/sensation, reason)

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                21days said: "all consciousness is a delusion so long as people remain slaves to it. faith is beyond the consciousness.

                consciousness: thought (logic/sensation, reason)"


                so all thought,logic/sensation,and reason is a delusion so long as people remain slaves to it?? Faith is beyond thought,logic/sensation, and reason???

                I have to disagree, I think you are trying to put too much into too little.

                1. 0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  certainly and am glad you disagree. proves the point.

                  consciousness is its own perception.
                  consciousness is thought
                  thought a parallel.

                  a question (a priori) a perception.
                  logic (the priori itself) a collective perception
                  an answer (posteriori) a perception.

                  neither is conclusive. both are lacking, needy, futile while engaging constantly. Both are relationary parallel of the "NTK".
                  A delude.

                  faith has nothing to do with either. Faith is drawn into the parallel by either or. Faith has no need.

                  big_smile

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    your right back to making no sense to me at all...

                    First off priori means a language or statistics of populations... which is pretty vague...

                    according to Wiki:

                    A priori may refer to:

                    A priori (languages), a type of constructed language
                    A priori (statistics), a knowledge of the actual population
                    A priori and a posteriori, used to distinguish two types of propositional knowledge
                    Apriori algorithm a classic algorithm for learning association rules


                    so your use of a priori here baffles me.

  45. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    grr. i can't simplify it anymore than that.


    this is a basic as i can explain it:

    all consciousness is a delusion so long as people remain slaves to it. faith is beyond the consciousness.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      define consciousness.

  46. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    Isn't self awareness only a perseption of self ?
      Is not any perseption subject to some degree of delusion?

      Just asking.

    1. gamergent profile image60
      gamergentposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think any perception is subject to some degree of assumption.  Even "I think, therefor I am" is subject to some skepticism.  The issue of delusion comes about when you extend less and less skepticism to more and more exceptional claims.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The issue of delusion comes about when you extend less and less skepticism to more and more exceptional claims ??
        But if one extends less skepticism, they assume more of the claim. As well as the opposite.

        wouldn't both be equally deluded? Just in a seemingly different perspective/perception.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          they would be deluded only if the belief were proven false...???

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            which is impossible given the nature of thought -a parallel of a priori. even a collective of it. thought is limited to itself. that is its purpose to do, not to be.

            'believing' is simply the posteriori i mentioned, the accepted or assumed conclusion. when there can really never be such within the parameters of thought. therefore belief and anti-belief are identical -delusional.


            { ps, i have to say this is been the best dialogue of this forum i have ever had. sorry to interrupt }

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I guess you enjoy talking to yourself, cause your the only one of the two of us that understands anything your saying...

              I have no clue what your trying to say. The bits and pieces I almost understand I don't agree with.

              Belief and anti-belief are opposites they are not identical.

              What paradox are you trying to put into words? I have a couple hubs on those that might help.

      2. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I do see your point. and agree. 
           Any idea should be considered in it's simplest form and
        analized  with an open mind. 
           But as is true with an algebra problem  one person's incorect procedure might develope the correct answer. He recieves a failing grade as he should.
           This does not prove the answer wrong, just the process in which he came to that conclusion.

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      'perception' is defined as: the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information.

      so yes it can have something to do with ones self-knowledge, but it is not in itself the knowledge of self.

      delusion has to do with belief in something that has been proven incorrect. You may percieve yourself to be fat, when in fact that is a delusion as the doctor has examined you and found that to be untrue. The Doctor's Proof and your unwillingness to believe what the Doctor has shown you would be a delusion.
      So I guess one could 'percieve' something that is a delusion, but perception itself is not necessarily delusional.

      IMHO

  47. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    bingo!

    perception is the process of attaining (further) awareness or understanding of sensory information.

    this is logic/reason aka consciousness.
    consciousness is awareness of.

    now we're gettin` somewhere, maybe.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't agree with your definition of consciousness either....to me it is:(dictionary.com)

      Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind.


      it is not the same thing as thought,logic/sensation and reason. Though they play a part or are tools in it's arsenal.

      one can be conscious and not think. one can be conscious and not logic/be logical, one can be conscious and not reason/be reasonable and finally one can be conscious and yet be numb to sensation.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        all of these are internal parameters. thus equal.
        the sum and substance of them is consciousness.

        sleeping is stated as unconscious, yet the mind works, brain functions, causing us to breathe, move, dream. though we are not immediately aware of it. subconscious -if the term is actually valid- would be the depth of knowledge within the consciousness itself and subject to the same limitations/abilities.

        this is why i am a firm 'believer' that consciousness is finite.

  48. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    lol
    ouch.

    no seriously, they are the same, as is all parameters within.
    all are apart of the 'collective consciousness'
    consciousness =logic/sensation/reason. (the three "a priori").

    the paradox is "the Need To Know".
    Delusion is the NTK, and all parameters within.

    Faith, is way beyond it.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ???

  49. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 6 years ago

    Wait..

    When was Newton's Third Law of Motion proved false?

    1. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Mikel claims to have proven Newton's Third Law false. Of course, he doesn't understand those laws, so his theory is laughable, at best.

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have a hub with my conclusions in it. Read it and see what you think. I have sent it to M.I.T. but as Q or Mark or Jeffrey will be quick to point out they may have simply thrown it in the trash. As I haven't heard anything back from them.

      {EDIT in the comments section you'll find a post from Q or Mark or Jeffrey, showing that they think F=MA is the third law of motion and not the second...  roll}

    3. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

      From the Miriam Webster online dictionary empirical means:

      1 : originating in or based on observation or experience 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

     
    working