When Does Religion Become Just Silly?

abaddon said:
I feel I must insert a moments thought in this convo drift.

Arth is a genuinely nice bloke. An honest bloke. He has a shed load of empathy for others.

I am not dissimilar.

Nevertheless, we often disagree. Neither of us gets bent out of shape over it. It is "grown up discussion". Difference of opinion happens. We are not all clones. If Arth is wrong, I will point out why I think Arth is wrong. If I am wrong, Arth will point out why he thinks I am wrong.

This is all good.

But it seems to me that here is an unhealthy "gang up on Arth" thing happening.

I have no fondness for that.

Argue on the merits, or don't.

Arguing on the person is for the birds. Grow up.

ETA: Not singling you out, Thor, just an observation of a trend I do not like.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your moments thought abaddon. Like yourself I sense the empathy in arth's writings. One must be allowed to disagree with another poster however without being accused of ganging up on said person. I was just asking for arth's opinion about expanding on his deranged definition in the former post.
 
I love it when people who mostly agree argue. This has been fun to watch.

As an ex-Christian I've struggled with how to express myself with believers. This is not easy. I want to get along with others. But I want to make it clear that religions are silly. Christianity is very silly when you look at it intellectually.

I don't want to offend people, I believe in many of the teachings attributed to Jesus. I think we are our brother's keeper and should turn the other cheek as well as forgiving others when it is possible. That we should be humble and understand that our accomplishments are not necessarily because we are better than others. Still, the idea we should live our lives by the goat herder's guide to the universe is silly.
 
ynot said:
Exactly! It was my use of the word “insane” that you originally objected to. Mental health is obviously your personal “sacred cow” and you object to anyone using certain mental health terms colloquially. Well this is an obscure forum with many lay person members that aren’t being (or even trying to be) medically correct or contributing to official medical papers. When we use words like insane or delusion we aren’t straying into mental health territory at all. We’re merely straying into your sacred cow.
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
No worries, it was. I agree with you that the emphasis he's taking his his rebuttals is missing the mark, and he's explained why that's probably the case.
Click to expand...
*sigh* You may be right. Yes, it's a bit of a sacred cow for me, and I feel that the misuse of the language of mental health can contribute to stigmatisation, and I'm against that. Don't get me started on the misuse of the word "triggered". I'm serious.

I'll back off for now, with the understanding that I think we all have now that when posters here say that religion is "delusional" and "insane" they're not intending to refer to it as an actual mental health condition, and that if someone digs in and says that they are, I will object to that.
 
Just one more thing.

Thor 2 said:
I was just asking for arth's opinion about expanding on his deranged definition in the former post.
Click to expand...
Deranged? Are the World Health Organization and the American Psychological Association deranged too? Because once again I remind you that the definition I was using was theirs, and not mine.
 
Sometimes the relative insanity of chosen rituals is what helps keep a person relatively sane in regular society.

My boss is in AA, once as a guy with a problem and now as a councler and guide to his own group. He keeps his little images on the shop wall and kinda admits Christian versions of history don't make a lot of sense. Yet identifies as Catholic without doubt.

Him leaning on AA and the church has made him much better at running his shop and being part of his family again. Positive changes in real life for believing in the woo.

He isn't alone by far. But in others that same woo will take them out of society because they know only they get salvation, no need to mess with those bound for hell. I know a few like that too.
 
Heck for a majority of religious people I know - perhaps all of them (I don't know very many) religion has been a positive force in their life. I have mentioned before that I have a friend who is a worship leader in the Uniting Church (worship leader is like what other churches call a pastor) who is a very active campaigner for LGBTIQ+ interests in the church and in society as a whole.
 
8enotto said:
Sometimes the relative insanity of chosen rituals is what helps keep a person relatively sane in regular society.

My boss is in AA, once as a guy with a problem and now as a councler and guide to his own group. He keeps his little images on the shop wall and kinda admits Christian versions of history don't make a lot of sense. Yet identifies as Catholic without doubt.

Him leaning on AA and the church has made him much better at running his shop and being part of his family again. Positive changes in real life for believing in the woo.
He isn't alone by far. But in others that same woo will take them out of society because they know only they get salvation, no need to mess with those bound for hell. I know a few like that too.
Click to expand...

Has it now? How do you know this? Because he says it has? Maybe he attributes his sobriety and being a better person because of the church, but that doesn't make it so. I certainly don't believe either of those results have to do with a made up daddy in the sky.
 
arthwollipot said:
Heck for a majority of religious people I know - perhaps all of them (I don't know very many) religion has been a positive force in their life. I have mentioned before that I have a friend who is a worship leader in the Uniting Church (worship leader is like what other churches call a pastor) who is a very active campaigner for LGBTIQ+ interests in the church and in society as a whole.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this - I was going to post this a while back. None that I know would be so pretentious to suggest that their faith is a requirement. I also know religious folk whose deity is ‘lean’ - not a heavy handed pray to for everything.

Besides that I don’t know anyone, and never heard of anyone, who doesn’t have and act on silly beliefs.
 
arthwollipot said:
Just one more thing.

Deranged? Are the World Health Organization and the American Psychological Association deranged too? Because once again I remind you that the definition I was using was theirs, and not mine.
Click to expand...
I read it like that initially as well, but then I realised he was referring to the definition of the word deranged, he wasn't saying your definition was deranged. At least I think that's what he meant. :)
 
I don’t think you can call religion a delusion in any sense of the word.

Most modern cultures were built upon older cultures and their religions. There is no argument: Christianity is huge part of the fabric of Western culture. How can a member of a culture be delusional when all they are really doing is carrying on the norms of the culture they are a part of?

The same holds for Eastern cultures. Would you call a devout Muslim in Yemen delusional? Maybe from your non-religious perspective but in his society and culture, he is perfectly normal.

Societies evolve. Norms change. But as much as that happens, our societies have not become cultures of pure science and logic. Until that happens, I don’t think it’s fair to say that a religious person is delusional.
 
xjx388 said:
I don’t think you can call religion a delusion in any sense of the word.

Most modern cultures were built upon older cultures and their religions. There is no argument: Christianity is huge part of the fabric of Western culture. How can a member of a culture be delusional when all they are really doing is carrying on the norms of the culture they are a part of?

The same holds for Eastern cultures. Would you call a devout Muslim in Yemen delusional? Maybe from your non-religious perspective but in his society and culture, he is perfectly normal.

Societies evolve. Norms change. But as much as that happens, our societies have not become cultures of pure science and logic. Until that happens, I don’t think it’s fair to say that a religious person is delusional.
Click to expand...
If they believe in things that are not true, or contra to what we know to be true and persist in that belief regardless of the evidence what else is it but "delusional".

A couple of examples:

Snake/serpent handling
Speaking in tongues
 
xjx388 said:
I don’t think you can call religion a delusion in any sense of the word... How can a member of a culture be delusional when all they are really doing is carrying on the norms of the culture they are a part of?
Click to expand...
That's exactly why definitions of psychological terms tend to come with an "except for religion" clause. The very same wacky nonsense that would mean you're crazy if you came up with it is not if you got the idea from listening to all the other people around you, because accepting the beliefs of the other people in your life is one of the things your brain should do and is supposed to do. That's the output of a brain that's working properly, not a malfunction.
 
How about "deluded" for mistaken beliefs and "delusional" for the more clinical usage, the latter implying some organic reason driving the false beliefs?
 
calebprime said:
How about "deluded" for mistaken beliefs and "delusional" for the more clinical usage, the latter implying some organic reason driving the false beliefs?
Click to expand...
Does the word or terminology matter?

One of examples I gave above serpent handling, they believe they have the holy spirit in them and therefore are immune to snake bites and poisons.

How would you define that belief? In their community it is accepted as the truth, the folks around them don't think it is mad to hold such a belief.

The idea to me of "lots of people share delusion X" means it isn't delusional seems to rather miss the point. A delusional belief is delusional regardless of the popularity of that delusion.
 
I just note ongoing confusion between the way psychiatrists use words like: "delusional" "word salad" "depression" "inappropriate" and the way the general public uses them. And sometimes that confusion actually has consequences, as when people think that they're depressed when they're just sad, etc.

It's always useful to have easy ways in language to distinguish between commonplace customary wrong beliefs and what's actually driving psychotics: some kind of brain malfunction.
 
xjx388 said:
I don’t think you can call religion a delusion in any sense of the word.

Most modern cultures were built upon older cultures and their religions. There is no argument: Christianity is huge part of the fabric of Western culture. How can a member of a culture be delusional when all they are really doing is carrying on the norms of the culture they are a part of?

The same holds for Eastern cultures. Would you call a devout Muslim in Yemen delusional? Maybe from your non-religious perspective but in his society and culture, he is perfectly normal.

Societies evolve. Norms change. But as much as that happens, our societies have not become cultures of pure science and logic. Until that happens, I don’t think it’s fair to say that a religious person is delusional.
Click to expand...

Normal maybe. But that doesn't make it any less delusional.

When you see and pray to non-existent beings you're being delusional. That we give it a pass because the delusion is actually taught and coerced to us doesn't make those imaginary friends real.

What I find ridiculous not to mention despicable is how those of us who use our brains and apply critical thinking are portrayed by the religious as evil. Yet I'm not the one telling children that if they don't worship their imaginary boogey man they will be tortured for eternity.

Religions are cons, nothing else. They prey on the weak minded. They create an us vs them mentality.
 
Darat said:
If they believe in things that are not true, or contra to what we know to be true and persist in that belief regardless of the evidence what else is it but "delusional".

A couple of examples:

Snake/serpent handling
Speaking in tongues
Click to expand...



If the culture places a value on faith (belief in something though it has no evidence), then I wouldn’t say it’s delusional. Western society as a whole does place such a value. It’s why, for example, a US Presidential candidate has to play lip service to God...and it better be the Christian one.

Mistaken. Scientifically wrong. “Delusional” has a negative connotation that I don’t think is fair.
 
acbytesla said:
Normal maybe. But that doesn't make it any less delusional.
Click to expand...
Only “normal” as in “common”. With god beliefs however we are specifically talking about “normal” as opposed to “paranormal”, not “abnormal” (“uncommon”). God beliefs are purely paranormal/supernatural beliefs, and as such are a delusional form of insanity (aka - stupid, mad, crazy, bonkers, silly, etc.).
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
If the culture places a value on faith (belief in something though it has no evidence), then I wouldn’t say it’s delusional. Western society as a whole does place such a value. It’s why, for example, a US Presidential candidate has to play lip service to God...and it better be the Christian one.

Mistaken. Scientifically wrong. “Delusional” has a negative connotation that I don’t think is fair.
Click to expand...
Argumentum ad Populum fallacy
 
xjx388 said:
If the culture places a value on faith (belief in something though it has no evidence), then I wouldn’t say it’s delusional. Western society as a whole does place such a value. It’s why, for example, a US Presidential candidate has to play lip service to God...and it better be the Christian one.

Mistaken. Scientifically wrong. “Delusional” has a negative connotation that I don’t think is fair.
Click to expand...

It's totally fair. Delusion means just that. You're seeing things that are not there. It may seem cruel to point out to the kid in the 4th row he got the wrong answer, but that doesn't make it unfair.

That society as a whole would put a value on faith shows just how stupid mankind can be.

Faith is not a pathway to truth. It's a con man's answer. "Believe because I tell you it is true." You wouldn't accept that for anything else. This is what religions rely on. Because they don't have anything else to go on. This is how they profit. This is how they wield power.

Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good answer. Because if they had a good answer, they wouldn't appeal to faith. It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
Faith in religion is vapid and baseless. That is clear.

What it does is give those without better ideas or an inability to deal with not knowing something, anything to lean on and stay calm as we blunder through a lifetime. For that it holds value, if dubious value.

We all have a certain faith in something as we go through life. Even if it isn't religion it could have been your parents or a trust your world won't crumble away today.
Depite the fact one cannot control all the factors involved. Its part of being human.
 
8enotto said:
Faith in religion is vapid and baseless. That is clear.

What it does is give those without better ideas or an inability to deal with not knowing something, anything to lean on and stay calm as we blunder through a lifetime. For that it holds value, if dubious value.

We all have a certain faith in something as we go through life. Even if it isn't religion it could have been your parents or a trust your world won't crumble away today.
Depite the fact one cannot control all the factors involved. Its part of being human.
Click to expand...

FTFY.

I get what you're trying to describe and I use to think the same thing. But no, we don't have faith. At least not in the way religious people describe it. We have reasonable expectations based on clues all around us.

Take money for example. I like this analogy because I use to use it to make the point you are making. I have say 100ea $100 bills in my pocket and you are selling your car for $10K. You could argue the only reason you would exchange a working car for 100 pieces of paper is that you have faith that you can exchange those 100 pieces of paper for other goods and services. If not for that faith, the system would collapse.

Except that's not faith. It's based on history, knowledge and reasonable expectations. It's not something as silly as in Hebrews 11:1, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

If I look at a concrete bench as opposed to a rickety wobbly chair and decide to sit on the concrete bench, it's not faith that made me make that choice. I followed the clues. It's not faith that made me believe my woman loved me. No, it was the kisses and hugs and the tenderness she displayed. I also know she stopped loving me when she stopped.

It's not believing despite the evidence of the contrary as so many religious people do.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
FTFY.

I get what you're trying to describe and I use to think the same thing. But no, we don't have faith. At least not in the way religious people describe it. We have reasonable expectations based on clues all around us.

Take money for example. I like this analogy because I use to use it to make the point you are making. I have say 100ea $100 bills in my pocket and you are selling your car for $10K. You could argue the only reason you would exchange a working car for 100 pieces of paper is that you have faith that you can exchange those 100 pieces of paper for other goods and services. If not for that faith, the system would collapse.

Except that's not faith. It's based on history, knowledge and reasonable expectations. It's not something as silly as in Hebrews 11:1, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

If I look at a concrete bench as opposed to a rickety wobbly chair and decide to sit on the concrete bench, it's not faith that made me make that choice. I followed the clues. It's not faith that made me believe my woman loved me. No, it was the kisses and hugs and the tenderness she displayed. I also know she stopped loving me when she stopped.

It's not believing despite the evidence of the contrary as so many religious people do.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Faith based on no evidence isn't the same thing as reasonable expectation based on some evidence.
 
ynot said:
Exactly! Faith based on no evidence isn't the same thing as reasonable expectation based on some evidence.
Click to expand...

Anyone who takes their current set of interpretations, even when based on evidence, as non faith, or a better faith is a fool. Especially the condescending and snobbish posts such as the last few.
 
LarryS said:
Anyone who takes their current set of interpretations, even when based on evidence, as non faith, or a better faith is a fool. Especially the condescending and snobbish posts such as the last few.
Click to expand...
Define what you mean by "faith".

I don't take my "interpretations" as being any form or value of faith.

Even if "faith" is defined as being "a reasonable expectation based on some evidence", that isn't the same faith as the faith that a magical, invisible, paranormal, supernatural, sky-daddy for which there is no evidence, actually exists. Only a conned, deluded innocent or fool would have such faith.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
Anyone who takes their current set of interpretations, even when based on evidence, as non faith, or a better faith is a fool. Especially the condescending and snobbish posts such as the last few.
Click to expand...

Who's being condescending? Seriously, I'm not mocking people. I am saying people don't use "faith" as an epistemology for pretty much anything other than religion.

I'm sorry you're offended, but I see appeals to faith as a con man's tool. It is not a pathway to truth and knowledge.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
Anyone who takes their current set of interpretations, even when based on evidence, as non faith, or a better faith is a fool. Especially the condescending and snobbish posts such as the last few.
Click to expand...

WTAF?

Are you actually claiming that faith based on no evidence at all is somehow better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom