Is this a statement you make when amongst those who believe as you do, or do you save it for times like these-when people question your beliefs?
Fact: No one to date has provided verifiable evidence for the existence of any gods, despite wide belief in said gods, thus the proper default position is that until evidence to the contrary comes in there are no gods.
Any interaction with the natural world has to involve time in some sense. I’m only talking about an omnipotent and omniscient god who in some way interacts with us. If you are talking about a God walled off in a timeless continuum none of this is valid. And it is not meant to be.
My model however allows a timeless god to interact with us in time. What is wrong with it?
I’ve always said that the requirement to prove God does not exist is meaningless unless a specific god to be disproved is defined. YoungKusher, to his credit, did this and I have been showing that this definition of God is logically inconsistent. Nothing I say invalidates Zeus or Odin.
So, which God cannot exist? All I know is that no human defined god with any interaction with us has decent evidence to support it, and most would have been falsified if any reasonable amount of logic is applied. So it is reasonable to have as a working assumption that no gods exist. For all I know the real God cares about a race which arose 8 billion years ago in a galaxy far, far away, and we’re just living in the debris of the universe created for them.
Of which there are none.
Ancient theologians had two tracks for demonstrating the existence of God. The first was using the natural world. If we found something not explicable except through divine intervention, or found that the natural world backs up a religious story, then God, if not proved, is at least demonstrated. All of us except creationists know that this approach has reached a dead end as science explained much of what was unknown, and the stories in the Bible shown to be untrue. Some retreat to the gaps, but we can ignore them.
The second is far more interesting. I think there are good arguments against all proofs of god. In any case, this is the area I’ve been talking about. So, I’ve been saying that not only is a bi-omni god not necessary, he is not even possible.
BTW, maybe you can say something about a God outside of time. I’ve been thinking about it, and while we can talk about the concept it seems incoherent to me, unless you posit some sort of meta-time. Actions imply a change of state, and changes of state imply time, so a timeless God would seem not to be able to act.
Thanks for “strawmanning” the shit out of me and showing your own lack of understanding of what’s been going on here as a whole…
It’s not my fault a couple people have chosen to portray me as contrary due to their biases, when in fact I’m just discussing ideas. Just like you still seem to think I’m part of a church or am a ‘believer’ when it is pretty clear I’m not. I think the phrase, “I;m agnostic,” is pretty clear. In fact I have found a common ground, or a form of agreement, with most. The only place I haven’t found a common ground with people is on matters that can only be decided by “opinion” because there is not enough scientific evidence to claim to “know” the answer. The reason I have been telling some people that something is their opinion is because they are claiming it is some sort of truth.
Thanks again for being… confused… and basically making stuff up about me…
Any point you might have had is totally lost in your hypocrisy…
It’s not clear at all, given how you’ve been talking just like a Christian and pushing an essentially Christian God while handwaving away anything non-Christian as a “red herring”.
You clearly don’t understand what ‘bias’ is - it simply means that a person may be predisposed to one side or the other - there is no requirement for the bias to be false or irrational.
They may be due to ‘delusions’ - but a bias in and of itself does not mean any of the things you just said.
Commonly - if someone claims “you’re biased” - its because they disagree with the opinion the other party holds - that does not make the ‘biased persons’ opinion wrong or delusional.
and again, you are simply wrong.
In a purely logical sense - I cannot prove something “does not” exist - nor is it my requirement to do so.
You make the claim that something is true or exists - the onus is on you to provide the evidence to back it up.
Failing that - the assumption that X does not exist or is not true is valid.
I’ll just let you think you won something here - from now on, I’ll make sure not to use complicated acronyms in conversations with you - that ok?
The flood was just one example of what ‘bible literalists’ take as hard fact - you’re attempt to white wash the biblical story by saying “it really means” is just a smokescreen to avoid the obvious truth - that the ‘bible’ has plenty of examples that “current well informed persons” hold to be “god inspired” and truth - that are simply false and fly in the face of modern knowledge.
There is no evidence to suggest that any aspect of the flood story from Genesis is based on an actual event in that or any time period.
You clearly do not get what I think -
I have been abundantly clear in my meaning - that bible and god believers prefer fantasy over fact and are often delusional in their faith.
To take that and spin it to “live in a delusional fantasy world” is to take it to the pathlogical extreme - and it twists what I am saying well beyond the point.
Believing in a deity are what push people to the delusion that that deity gives a squat about them and that they only have to do x, y or z to gain favor.
Depends on what they experienced and how far they take it - there are certainly lots of subjective experiences that science can’t explain (why you had the dream you did, etc) - but when a person ‘crosses the line’ to not accept that it was, in fact, a dream - that they become delusional about it.
IOW - its how far they let that belief affect thier lives.
Which deity? what evidence do you have for said deity?
a “core belief” in a deity is not really the issue here - it is where that belief takes you that can make a person “delusional” - and that is what we have been discussing.
Given time and enough data, yes. Doesn’t mean that there are not still some mysteries out there that will take substantial time to understand.
Until there is objective evidence of any deity - belief in said is a delusion - as there are no facts to support it.
THat belief in these unseen, subjective “deities” has any impact on a persons life is what makes it especially troublesome - as clearly, being purely subjective, there is no consensus as to the deities wishes, etc - and that is what leads some to persuade others on what was “revealed” to them - which is the biggest delusion of all.
To what end? has she deciphered some secret meaning that hasn’t been done a gazillion times already? is there something more to the “good Samaritan” story that we really need to know?
Regardless - if she dedicated that same amount of time at a “stop smoking” clinic helping others deal with breaking the addiction - her time (and experience) would actually help a great many more people.
Now - lets drop talking about your mother.
Define “wholesome” - why does going to church automatically make you more “wholesome”? A great majority of the church goers I have contact with are liars and hypocrites - while the people I meet outside of church are honest - so, where should I go?
Why are people that go to bars automatically “bad” or “worse” than those that go to church?
Must be that devil brew they drink.
You have a pleasant day - I don’t see you coming back with anything worth responding to.
If you’re without belief in the existence of any gods you’re an atheist.
So what? Most of the people you’re debating with aren’t claiming to “know” any answers. Being without belief for an incredible claim sans sufficient evidence is what’s reasonable.
Lord, I’ve tried to be very tolerant in this thread. Really, I have.
YoungKusher, the quoted post violates severl rules of the SDMB. You insult others, you accuse others of lying and in general your tone is dismissive and unhelpful to debate.
I’m giving you a warning for this. If - in the future - you feel compelled to continue posting in this style the BBQ is only a few forums away. There you’ll find that many insults and strong language - though not all - is tolerated.
I understand perfectly well what it means. Yes I’m stretching the general idea of a bias to the extreme to make a point, but in order to have a bias, you have to jump to a conclusion based on incomplete or subjective evidence. I’m not talking about simple biases that are just more of a preference, I’m talking about biases on matters that genuinely don’t have substantial data to make an assumption about and they should have just that.
As with many of your points, this seems to reflect a very narrow portion of the whole.
Here is the definition of a bias(which looks strikingly like a delusion):
Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective and a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, or a political party. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.
Isn’t the bold part a core aspect of delusional beliefs as well? Yes it is.
I’m not asking you to prove anything so I don’t know why you keep pleading that you can’t. What I have asked for in regards to a couple things is some statistics that will back your statements. You keep talking about “bible literalists” and how bad they are, but you have refused to acknowledge that they are a minority and are of little significance to the topic as a whole.
That’s a key problem with this discussion and me. I’m not claiming anything is true or exists. I’m refuting the people who claim that “no deity exists” with the simple fact that they don’t know that for certain. Logically speaking, they are leaping to a conclusion that is not wholly there.
I suppose so, but per pretty much everything I have said, it is an assumption, not scientific truth.
You know you could have just told me what it meant and not turned it into something else.
I’m not white washing anything. You think I’m refuting something that I really am not. My point all along has been to find out just what you mean by “bible literalists.” That is all. You have jumped to many conclusions about what I have meant and it is really distracting. My point is that bible literalists, extremists, and pretty much everything your not bound to run into on a regular basis is irrelevant.
Like I have said before, I agree that religion is bad for them, but they don’t reflect the majority.
What makes you say this? I provided a good source that shows evidence to the contrary. There is much evidence showing that a lot of different great floods could be the basis for the story. Do you reject the source and the scientists on the leading frontier who have acquired the evidence?
Bolding mine. Okay so you basically agree then… Psychological health depends on many factors, faith not being shown to be generally positive or negative in any definitive way.
Or it’s just an assumption based on known evidence that any individual person might acquire through life experience. I hardly think it’s fair to call people of faith delusional (in a general sense that is) when many people have very good reasons. Reasons so profound that they cannot be communicated through words or science.
That may be, but it cannot wholly be shown to be unhealthy. Much of religious activity is fulfilling many basic needs those people have. To say that they are better off fulfilling those needs doing another activity is a personal bias.
IDC where you go. Clearly you have evidence that is good enough for you to make your own decisions, as do I. BTW, I haven’t been to church in years because I can’t take it seriously… Must seem like a paradox to some people in this thread.
Although, my next door neighbors are devout, one works for Faith Ministries, at least I think that’s what it’s called, and the other is a stay at home mom. Lovely people, quick to lend a hand, give us home-baked bread, and have never once mentioned anything religious except when I asked the man what he does for a living.
lol… devil brew. 
Honestly, is this a serious question? I have spent many a night in bars with my buddies and have met more jail-bound people there than I ever did in my church-going days. As far as wholesome goes, I think if you are much less likely to get in trouble with them, then that’s a start.
And just to be clear, I think you are blowing this out of proportion. Sorry if I offended you. Obviously, nobody is automatically worse. Nobody said that. But statistically speaking, which is what I said before, people in bars have surely committed more crimes and are more likely to participate in frowned upon activities (on average) than those at a church. I shouldn’t even have to say this, but I guess I have to for you: Not all bars and not all churches will fit the above statements, but on average, they will.
Pretty much every section and subsection of atheism and agnosticism has been defined in this thread.
Atheism in it’s purest sense holds that the non-existence of any deity is a truth.
Agnosticism in it’s purest sense holds that the truth of the above statement is unknown.
Both Der Trihs and Simster have made assertions that certain things are false, that they cannot know are false. And have done so in aggressive or dismissive ways. That’s what.
In its purest sense? It sounds like you added a qualifier to make the definition something you want it to be. Atheism is without theism. If you are without belief in the existence in any gods, you’re an atheist.
Yes, agnosticism is about knowledge and not belief. Which is why atheism and agnosticism aren’t mutually exclusive.
I used “know” in quotes for a reason. I know (using an everyday definition of know) that little plastic army men don’t come to life when I’m sleeping. Then there’s the absolute knowledge definition of “know” that theists like to use in debates like these. Using that definition, I will admit it’s always possible that plastic army men come to life, I’m really asleep when I think I’m awake and that I’m a brain in a jar and only I exist. They know that impossible gods that can do anything like break the laws of physics don’t exist the way I know that plastic dolls don’t come to life when we’re not looking.
The universe is in existence, so there fore something had to be there before that, or the universe wouldn’t exist.
If God was existence then he would be everything that exists. God would be beibg instead of "A"being.
a rebuttal is not necessarily an answer.
Or…the universe came into existence at the same time as the “place” where the universe is came into existence. The very same time, simultaneously, without any pre-conditions.
You’re making assumptions, and then arguing on their basis. But your assumptions are not proven fact.
He could be both.
True. And your assertions are not proofs. You are saying, “It has to be this way,” but you neglect other possibilities. You’re making a basic philosophical error: you use words to try to conclude facts about the universe. But the words aren’t necessarily true of the universe.
God might very well have existed before the “place” where he exists came into its own existence. You just don’t know for sure that this isn’t possible. No one knows. The terms are beyond the ability of our language to describe, let alone to define.
Your argument is ultimately vastly too simplistic. It partakes far too much of medieval proofs of God’s existence. You can’t simply speak a few magic words and make God real…or prove he isn’t.
This. I know that God doesn’t exist the way I know that all sorts of other things don’t exist. I just refuse to use a special standard for God* that I don’t use for other beliefs. If I say that there’s no such thing as a giant a mile tall, people aren’t going to say that I “can’t prove they don’t exist”; they’ll just agree with me and move on.
*And to further underline how blatantly tailored this standard is for “God” debates, note that very few people who use it are willing to apply it to gods, plural. “God” is supposed to be treated as plausible, but not Zeus or Odin or Anu. It’s used as an argument for the Abrahamic God, not any other kind of god.
I’ve never quite seen someone be quite so biased about wht bias is.
The bolded (by me) above is why you are failing to make your point - and secondly, there is no requirement that a ‘bias’ be due to jumping to conclusions or anything of the sort.
A bias may be due to those things - but that is not the only reason to have a bias .
A bias may be due to a delusion - but it is not a requirement.
No - its not - it may be a core part of having a bias - but it has zero to do with it being a delusion.
[QUOTE=Bias | Psychology Today]
A bias is a tendency. Most biases—like preferring to eat food instead of paper clips, or assuming someone on fire should be put out—are helpful. But cognitive shortcuts can cause problems when we’re not aware of them and we apply them inappropriately, leading to rash decisions or discriminatory practices (based on, say, racism and sexism). Relying on biases but keeping them in check requires a delicate balance of self-awareness.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not “pleading” anything - it is a simple statement of logic and of science - its called the “null hypothesis” or a “default position” - it is not so much an assumption as it is a beginning position that is ‘falsifiable’ . It’s also a very simple concept to understand that the onus is on the person claiming something exists to provide objective evidence for it.
As to the “bible literalist” and your continued request for “how many” - I’ll remind you that I have been using them as an example for when these individuals start letting ‘faith’ determine ‘reality’. That you keep stating they must be a mnority is only a smokescreen and is functionally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Add this to your constant twisting of my statements from something simple (“prefer fantasy over reality”) to your “looney tunes” - and it shows that you have a hard time following the very simple points I have been making.
and here again you miss the entire point of the statement - and just to re-iterate it FOR THE LAST TIME to the bolded (by me) statement.
IF there is no objective evidence for a deity - then there is no reason to believe it exists.
Subjective evidence is useless in this fashion.
and yes - this is more than just an “assumption” - it is a starting point - see the previous response again.
Provide any evidence to suggest the story in the bible is equivelant to a real world event OTHER than saying “yeah, floods happen, they may have been talking about this one”.
The reality is the story recounted in the bible is a myth - that there are “floods” and even “great floods” is not in question - but the story itself? never happened.
I’ve been saying this all along - that it is how well the individual is able to maintain a balance between faith and reality - and then I showed examples of people that are unable to.
There is no doubt that there are enough people that can’t keep the balance that they suggest and fight for teaching creationism in school, against teaching evolution, fight against SSM (you know what that is now) , etc - that they are clearly a very vocal majority - and yes - those things are detrimental to all.
If they cannot tell reality from thier experiences - objective reality - then they are to some degree deluding themselves. It really is that simple. It does not take away from some aspect of thier experience - it might even be life changing - but if they can’t keep reality in focus - then they are delusional.
Not really - again - what “new” thing has your mom taught someone thru the activity? Is there other things that she could be doing that would objectively help people in a more profound way? What ‘basic need’ is being learned by all this bible study?
I’m not talking about helping herself - or paying debt to her ‘god’ - I’m talking about what she could be doing to help others.
Reality is - you’re limiting what she is capable of.
Here - you show your bias quite well - are you delusional, per your statement at the beginning of your response?
That’s why there are subsections that I mentioned. Agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, a regular atheist (pure) and a regular agnostic (pure). Majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, but some are pure atheists who assert that science has convinced them that there is absolutely no possibility of any deity. This causes them to dismiss any claims that some one has contacted a god on some level. In other words they dismiss an estimated *50%? of the world’s population as being highly delusional/liars. Assuming that not all religious people have indeed gathered spiritual proof I think 50% is a fair assertion.
Yes they are not mutually exclusive in general. But, clearly, my POV and the two people’s POVs I mentioned are mutually exclusive which has essentially created the debate.
Agreed. That is a perfect definition and use of the word “know.” The difference is, they are claiming to “know” what goes on in other people’s heads and lives and are dismissing them as delusional, believing in fantasy, and my personal favorite, “ridiculous and blatantly obnoxious.”
It’s just mind-boggling to me to imagine dismissing *88% of the world’s population as delusional… Sounds a little arrogant to me. I mean I’m only 23. I should be dead a hundred times over, but I’m not. I’ve seen and done things that are unbelievable. Imagine all of the things that have happened to people to cause them to believe in a deity. My point is to raise the question: How can you dismiss all of those billions and billions of years of life experience as delusional? Some of the most brilliant scientists, who surely have a better working knowledge of many of the topics being discussed, STILL believe in a deity. What makes people think that they know better? I really don’t know.
Source for world’s population believing in a deity is a 2005 Cambridge study so it might be out of date(best I could find): http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/11/is-the-new-atheism-really-affecting-peoples-belief-in-god/
They are…and most of them agree, they just think that it’s all the other believers who are the delusional ones. To quote my signature:* “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you’ll understand why I dismiss yours.” *-- Steven Roberts
At any rate, not only are all the various religious sects equally baseless, but since they contradict each other the great majority of them have to be wrong.
As opposed to believing in God, which is immensely arrogant. Someone asserting that despite all the evidence and all logic, they know the Truth about the one-and-only creator of the universe (who just happens to be exactly what they want it to be and who agrees with them on everything) is extremely arrogant.
They were told to believe by adults when they were children. That’s virtually always the reason why.
Because what they believe is impossible and blatant nonsense; wish fulfillment on their part. And because plenty of things have turned out to be false that were believed in by most people. And because since those “billions of years of life experience” disagree with each other, most of those billions must be wrong.
And your opinion is the only one? A lot depends on how one translates the word God. According to the Bible God is a Being. It is a male being and has sides? He is called all knowing, but in spite of that he created a monster he knew was a monster, knew ahead of time the humans he created would do the things he knew they would do but punished them because they acted as he knew they would?
What you said that I responded to:
You were clearly saying that you are not a believer but an agnostic as if being an agnostic said something about what you believed and nor what you think can be known.
You’re making up your own phrases with your own definitions here- Regular atheist equals pure atheist equals gnostic atheist.
Science has convinced them? Cite?
WTF? So the agnostic atheists don’t dismiss the claims of contacting gods?
You estimate that 50% of the world’s population claim to have contacted a god based on what now? That didn’t make a lick of sense.
You’re really not making any sense here.
A lot has been learned regarding why people believe strange things. They’re just stating it on a message board. Claiming “to know” that the stories in religious texts are fantasy isn’t a stretch. Read the last part of my response in post 430 And Der Trihs’ in post 433 again. What they are claiming to know is entirely reasonable.
“outlook to present or hold a partial perspective and a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view.” and " a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." sound nothing alike? Many significant biases are delusions of sorts. Often times, the “alternative POV” has superior evidence to the contrary of a certain bias.
Then why do you make claims as if it is unfalsifiable? You regard theists as if they are delusional and/or are making stuff up just because you haven’t experienced it?
No it’s not a smokescreen. I have already agreed that that there are certain aspects of religion that need to be abolished. Honestly how are bible literalists and suicide-bombers relevant other than highlighting situations where religious delusions are at their worst? As for the “topic at hand,” bible literalists are functionally irrelevant because at the core of most bible literalists, is a poor education. Like I’ve said before, it’s not necessarily religion, it’s the people.
And there is also no reason to claim it does not exist and that people who believe in it are delusional. You have made assertions beyond this above statement, so no, I am not missing the point.
If you want to quantifiably prove that a deity exists, then yes, it is useless. But that’s not the point now is it. The point is that you have called all theists delusional and/or that they are basically lying about their personal reasons for faith. Who are you to say that the billions upon billions of total years of life experience is false?
Uhh why? I already said that any notion of “the flood” story being entirely true is based on antique ignorance. As in: eastern civilization didn’t realize that the Americas existed until a few hundred years ago… so when the story is said to have occurred (5-7 thousand years ago)… it would have been perfectly reasonable for that ancient civilization to think that when the Black Sea flooded that it was the entire world… Thus it would also have been perfectly reasonable for the writer’s of the bible 2000 years ago to have assumed the story/myth to have been true… Any modern person who still thinks the story is entirely true down to every detail, is obviously delusional, and I have not been implying anything different.
What part of my first statement on the matter did you misunderstand?
“Just curious, what do you mean by “the flood?” I thought it was fairly substantiated by fact and science that a great flood actually occurred. Whether or not Noah did what he did is another story. Obviously he didn’t fit 2 of every animal on the ship, but it’s possible this occurred in a reasonable manner. Say, every animal that Noah was capable of fitting[and knew existed for that matter].”
What on earth has made you think I’m trying to assert anything more than the idea that “the flood” story is inspired by real events, and that the majority of believers aren’t going to believe the bible word for word? OBVIOUSLY it’s not entirely true, but it clearly could have happened in a practical sense. Oh wait, you’re assuming the conclusion: deities don’t exist therefore they don’t communicate with anyone so story X is automatically not true regardless of YounKusher’s real point.
I’ve been looking into this (for my benefit and yours) and have discovered something I think you and I both would find highly interesting. In the article I found, it basically shows this: 30% of Americans believe the bible to be literally true, and 49% believe it to be God inspired truth. 30% is larger than I thought it would be, but also is not the “clear majority” like you just said. I have implied, when I say “the average believer” would be a rational-thinking person, that most believers would not take the bible literally, and that is clearly reflected in this article(62.5% of all american believers think the bible is merely god-inspired). The most interesting piece of this article is this: the correlation of education and belief is highly significant. Nearly half of the people with a high school diploma or less believe the bible to be literally true.
Here in lies another point of mine. It is not religion itself that is bad, it is the people that are bad. The US, other countries, and everybody in this thread, would obviously be better off focusing on education, rather than directly on religion.
What does this have to do with the part you quoted? The life experience I’m referring to is rational and based in reality, it is just not something that can be fully communicated for the purposes of “proof.”
Okay, I purposely used the word “they” to dissociate this topic from my mother, per my agreement with your request to do so. So, why are you still talking about her? I don’t appreciate you implying that her faith is somehow my fault, or that it is a detriment at all for that matter… Drop the trash man, I don’t know what your trying to pull here…
Also, the topic is specifically about people helping themselves with their activities, not helping others.
As for basic needs: social stimuli, refreshing perspective, creative application of “good” to one’s own life (and others around them), the list goes on.
Your point is essentially pointless because these bible study activities are already far and above what the average person might spend that same time doing: watching tv, going to the bar, indulging in less productive hobbies, the list goes on.
I am technically delusional/biased in assuming my conclusion, but the fact of the matter is, I’m sure there is real data to back my delusion that doesn’t require dismissing the majority of the world’s population.
It’s clear you’re never going to get it - in the first statement, “both” sides could be accurate and have all the same informaton - but disagree on the conclusion.
in the second - it is clear that one side is ignoring the evidence -
Again, clearly you are still not getting the concept - answer this -
Can you objectively prove that something does not exist?
is “God Exists” a falsifiable statement ?
and where do you think the people get all these ideas? they don’t come up with them on their own (by and large)
I’m afraid you are -
For belief in a deity to not be a delusion - you have to be able to prove that said deity exists objectively.
‘Billions and billions of years of life experience’ do not prove that there is a benign (or malignant) deity - if anything - it proves that there is not.
It’s unreasonable now - yet there are still people that believe it - you said that “some aspects happened in a reasonable manner” - there is no evidence for that other than “fanwanking” the bible.
bolding mine - so, you’ve just backed up my assertion that the majority of people that believe in the bible believe it to be literally true - that they have been deluded - by what? by religion that teaches the bible to be true.
Even if we just to go to the “god inspired” portion - its still a significant portion - and that is where you start getting into the infighting and debates over what ‘parts’ are literally true. They by and large believe the “good parts” version and ignore the parts they don’t like - and yet claim it all came from the same ‘source’.
You don’t quite understand what rational (in this context) means, do you?
I have not used the word ‘proof’ - I’ve specifically used the term evidence for a reason.
I slipped back into your mom’s example - was not intended, its how I read your response - my apologies - but there was no “trash” in the response.
substitue ‘they’ for ‘her’ in my response - I never said " her faith is your fault’ - I said you were limiting her by not encouraging her to move beyond the limitations of the bible and religion.
You’re taking umbrage where none was intended.
But isnt the true test of whether or not a delusion is healthy is how it impacts your life and the live’s of those around you?
None of those things are unique to the bible nor is a “fresh perspective” going to be gained by relentlessly studying a 2000 year old text that was written for a different culture.
Unless you are trying to show how culture has and has not changed in between.
How is it “far and above” what the average person would do? I’ve given a concrete example from your story that would be far and above what that bible study is providing.
and you’re asserting that studying the bible is better than those activities - you have yet to show evidence that it is, other than your clear assumptions (or bias) about what makes a “wholesome” activity.
I’ve not ‘dismissed them’ - I’ve simply said they were deluded in all of this ‘god belief’ - its led to countless wars and death due to disagreements over what this ‘god’ wants.