Erk. L’esprit de l’escalier.
The mortality rate between climbing K2 and stabbing yourself with a knife may be similar, but the goal is very different. It’s not merely cultural - when I go out to climb K2, I don’t do so wanting to hurt myself and die, I do so with every intent to come back alive and well.
I don’t see how. Those Icelanders that sincerely believe in trolls, are they delusional? Sincerely held belief in the total accuracy of the bible or Koran, even where that goes dead against observable facts? is that delusional?
It is entirely possible to be sincere in your belief even when that belief is contradicted by evidence to the contrary or backed-up by no evidence at all. That’s pretty much the definition of deluded. Something doesn’t become a fact just because you really, really believe it.
I think you are falling into a trap that Douglas Adams described some time ago.
That’s very different from teaching (or allowing to be taught) deliberate bullshit, which [creationism as history] or [creationism as science] is.
Teaching mistakes because you don’t know any better, is not the same as deliberately lying to your students. And creationist teachers are in fact all deliberately lying to their students.
I’m going to take an atypically friendly stance towards theists here, given that I’m generally the sort of atheist who thinks that theists are all demon worshipers.
To me, to rate as delusional you have to either be perceiving things that aren’t there, or not be unable to perceive normally-perceptible things that are there. Most theists, even devout theists, don’t do this. Many of them misinterpret the things they perceive - good feelings from praying/meditating or group singing/chanting become the unwashed finger of god touching them. Some do go further than that - hearing voices, seeing visions, and so on. But it’s hardly necessary to hallucinate to be devout.
As for things like rejecting science or evolution, that’s not something I would define as delusion. That’s rejection of new information based on skepticism. Unfortunately their thought processes by which they weigh the credibility of evidence aren’t unbiased, but at the basic level it’s not materially different from how a skeptic casually dismisses claims about spirit guides made by ditzy spiritualists. A biased person rejects evidence as they like in accordance with their biases, and they can be wrong, and they can be ignorant, and they can be stupid, but as long as they’re not literally unable to see dinosaur skeletons or something they’re not delusional, in my opinion. There are many other useful terms to label their errors with but “delusional” isn’t one of them.
I freely concede that I may have an atypically constrained definition of the word.
A devoutly religious man talks to God. A delusional one hears God talking back to him.
Culture has (mostly) nothing to do with it. A delusion is a persistent, false belief in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Certainly many cultures believed some pretty fucked up shit. Didn’t make it true.
Religion is generally not a “delusion” in that (in my limited experience) it is mostly presented in the form of stories designed to teach life lessons or provide a sort of morality framework. In many ways IMHO, not much different from the way people view Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. No one (sane) believes those stories to be “real”. But people can take away certain lessons or ideals from the characters and stories.
It’s when people go and decide to murder their neighbors in the name of God that they have crossed the border into Insanityland.
While there certainly are people who have religion-related delusions, I think think they form a tiny minority. Most of the people with religious delusions are obvious raving nutcases, and the rest are covert raving nutcases.
However, letting the good people dismiss them as “crazy” plays right into the hands of the real problem with religion: the systemic and systematic abuse and deceit perpetrated in the name of God. Lying to children about the origin of the world is in itself not particularly scary, but it’s just the tip of a much more sinister iceberg.
I wouldn’t want laws that ban Muslims from the US, as I don’t think that religion should be a condensation for such things.
Though I do not agree that religious belief should get your out of military duty, either, as I don’t think that religion should be a consideration for such things. I mean, I don’t want to kill other people any more than they do, why does their belief get them out of it, but not me?
Why? Because Congress shall pass no law respecting the infringement of the free practice of religion, to paraphrase. It’s America- guns and God, man. Congress May pass a law drafting your atheist ass into the army to kill the enemy, just the way it is.
I think a better answer everyone can accept is, “Silence is the language of the gods.”
I’m now in the weird position of being in a theocratic tyranny with no specified specific religion on top.
This isn’t exactly new - atheists have long been treated as second-class citizens. You really threw into relief though.
‘Silence is a language like bald is a hair color.’
Except that it’s not just atheists who are drafted: merely being Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., doesn’t get you out. And yes, you can get C.O. status if you’re an atheist:
Granted, religious beliefs in an established religion make this much easier to establish.
Also, while few people want to kill, many more understandably don’t want to get shot at, and CO status often doesn’t preclude that possibility. I know two CO’s who served in Vietnam, one as a medic, the other as a chopper pilot. The former has PTSD. The latter was shot and wounded in action.
Personally, I wish everyone on both sides got CO status.
That should be easy enough.
Prior to making this claim, I have never killed anyone at all.
We don’t have a draft anymore, so it’s sort of a moot point.
I got this from Wikipedia:
Belief in an external power or “being” or deeply held moral or ethical belief, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent, and which has the power or force to affect moral well-being. **The external power or “being” need not be one that has found expression in either religious or societal traditions. However, it should sincerely occupy a place of equal or greater value in the life of its possessor. **Deeply held moral or ethical beliefs should be valued with the strength and devotion of traditional religious conviction. The term “religious training and/or belief” may include solely moral or ethical beliefs even though the applicant may not characterize these beliefs as “religious” in the traditional sense, or may expressly characterize them as not religious. The term “religious training and/or belief” does not include a belief that rests solely upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, expediency, or political views.
— Department of Defense, Instruction 1300.06[3]
IOW, conscientious objector status does not require specifically “religious” beliefs. It does require some demonstrated equivalent moral or ethical belief on the same level of intensity though.
I see what you did there.
If we go to war with Iran, the draft will return.
I doubt it, but I would be willing to support a bill or even amendment that requires that during times of war, we have an active draft.
Wars don’t cost us enough these days.
Essentially right, I think.
I don’t believe religion is bullshit; I believe that where science and religion clash, religion must give way, **inside of ** the religion. That all must modify their own religion to suit science.
Interesting coincidence that in my thread list this morning, this thread was juxtaposed to this one:
Water is older than the Sun–agreeing with Genesis Chapter One
That is now a closed thread and to save you the trouble, there are 260 posts. Many are the OP (of that thread) providing instances where biblical accounts tend to agree with science, and drawing the conclusion that therefore the Bible is true and God’s existence is proven. Many more are objective facts that show that the OP is talking out of his ass. Then there are the ones that are merely sarcastic, and a few that are dismissive without adding to the discourse. (Surprise, surprise.)
In the context of this thread, this statement is an example of delusional speech.
Maybe we can all agree that if a religion requires human sacrifice it probably has crossed the line. Even if you’re only sacrificing unbelievers. That being said…
What exactly does “Inspired by God” mean? And an evangelist of any faith telling me “God told me”? I’ll believe the evangelist SAID God spoke to him. Maybe he believes it too. Unlike the late Oral Roberts, I don’t believe in a god who threatens to kill a pastor unless he can come up with some amount of millions of dollars. Did Jesus really tell that guy he needed to buy a new gulfstream to replace his old one to do His work?
But it’s all based on faith, which I define as “belief without proof”. I got stuck in a drivers’ lounge with this fellow who was convinced the US government was murdering and executing people who were critical of it left and right. His proof? Because there was NO EVIDENCE! It has to be a cover up starting from the highest level. Otherwise there would be bodies and/or reports about missing people.
The extremes of religious delusion are pretty easy to recognise. If someone has just crossed the line or not, that can be tricky.