Hypothesis: faith, is a sub-set version of Self-Deception...

[NeoGreen]

...and a symptom of a medical condition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception

Self-deception
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth (or lack of truth) so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception.

(snip)

Medicine
Self-deception has a prominent role in several medical conditions, such as borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and histrionic personality disorder.

i.e. faith is a symptom of a medical condition, a type of disease, specifically a disease of the mind, or by analogy, a mind-virus. Consequently, when a non-faithful individual engages with an individual who claims to be a member of the ‘faithful’ they should have the mind-set that the 'faithful' person is, metaphorically, infected with virus.

The non-faithful should fully acknowledge that a person expressing ‘faith’, who may be willfully ignorant (by definition) as a symptom, is not necessarily otherwise cognitively challenged. Therefore, they should be approached with robust logical arguments against the ideas they express and not be treated with personal derision, condescension or disdain. Such responses are not helpful, instead the non-faithful should focus entirely on the ideas themselves, that is, expose and discuss the roots of the deception as the problem. Also consider, furthering the mind-virus analogy, most ‘faithful’ were 'infected' while they were children, a time where the ability to effect skeptical review of bad ideas is almost non-existent, and their ‘faith’, their ‘disease’, so to speak, was implanted and took root early and was not/is not the result of a conscious/deliberate/informed choice on their part.

The overall hypothesis is that the 'faithful' should be treated/approached with the same empathy and compassion as someone who has a physical disease or some other mental condition.

They are not stupid and it’s not their fault. Their ‘faith’ is a symptom of a disease they were generally exposed to as children and they should be engaged and approached as such.

Discuss.

[Cartoonist]

1. No known cure

While I no longer suffer from the disease, I don't really know how I recovered. It happened over a period of time and used no drugs.

[FiveGoodMen]

42. I think reason cures faith

but many people cannot tolerate reason.

[Bretton Garcia]

60. Maybe a few simple reasons?

[trev]

119. Reason has to be taught.

That's why religious proponents make every effort to indoctrinate children.

It's even in Proverbs. I'm on my phone so won't bother to log out and look it up, but the verse basically says your child will adhere to your teachings for life.

[FiveGoodMen]

120. Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Proverbs 22:6

[trev]

121. That's the one. Thanks,

[SCantiGOP]

2. I really can't think of a bigger waste of time

Than discussing this.

[Act_of_Reparation]

3. Yet here you are.

[SCantiGOP]

4. Yep, no matter where you go

there you are.

[Cartoonist]

6. That's two posts now

What I think you mean is that you don't want anyone to discuss this, so you tried to cut it off before it began.

[SCantiGOP]

8. and this is three

three comments about inanity.

[trotsky]

9. Which wouldn't have existed without yours in the first place.

Just gets more fascinating as we go.

[guillaumeb]

13. Amazing how the same few "just happen" to follow the same pattern.

And in harmony.

[trotsky]

15. And there you go with your group smears.

So Christian.

[guillaumeb]

17. So my notice of small group tactics is a smear?

I am using the scientific method of observation and analysis.

[trotsky]

19. Uh huh. n/t

[guillaumeb]

20. I thought you were a fan of the scientific method.

My apologies for the error.

[trotsky]

39. Only when used properly. Thus, I'm not a fan of what you do.

But getting an apology from you is greatly appreciated, even if it's dripping with contempt and trademark Christian love.

[guillaumeb]

40. And you are the determiner?

Understood.

[trotsky]

41. Good. Glad you understand you're not using the scientific method. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

47. It's almost like some of us know how to work an RSS feed.

[guillaumeb]

51. It is "amost" something.

Confirmation bias is one of those some things.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. I'm sorry that the internet is a scary place for you.

It's not magic, I assure you.

[guillaumeb]

76. I am sorry that dissent is a scary thing for you.

But just because you feel you are correct about an issue does not constitute proof.

[MineralMan]

77. Please say that to yourself while looking at the mirror.

Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

81. Why? Did it work for you? eom

[MineralMan]

83. No need. I didn't say it in the first place.

What I post is always my opinion, as I state in my signature line. You're welcome not to share that opinion. We can discuss that, on a case-by-case basis, no?

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Wait, am I allowed to respond to you now, without frightening you with 'harmony'?

I wouldn't want to make you uncomfortable.

Hard enough to defend your positions as it is.

[guillaumeb]

88. As a musician, I like harmony, and dissonance. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

89. This won't surprise you, but I am skeptical.

[guillaumeb]

115. Does that make you an agnostic?

Or a sceptic?

[AtheistCrusader]

116. Skeptic.

You exist, and you know the actual answer, therefore the answer is knowable.

[guillaumeb]

117. Well said.

I do exist, or so I feel.

[MineralMan]

7. Oh, I'll bet you can, actually.

Meanwhile here you are in this thread.

[guillaumeb]

14. As are you.

Interesting. And predictable.

[MineralMan]

24. Yes, but I'm not claiming that the thread is useless.

It's not. In fact it's a perfectly good thread for this group.

As always, thanks for your comment. I can always count on you to reply to me, whether we were having a conversation or not. That way, I know you're OK.

[Major Nikon]

5. I'm not all that big on analogies, but here is one that isn't bad

If your neighbor thought your satellite dish was transmitting mind control beams into his home designed to corrupt him, you'd probably think he is insane or at least highly irrational. Meanwhile the exact same belief happens with some religionists about homosexuality and society views them as rational people.

Quite often people in this group focus on the belief in one or more deities as the issue. That's not really the issue. Religion makes numerous unsupported incredible claims that go far beyond belief in one or more deities. The issue is what they believe their invisible overlord is telling them to do. That's where the real delusional behavior begins.

[trotsky]

10. Time to pull out this classic Sam Harris quote about Dubya again.

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.”

[Major Nikon]

11. Even scarier it wouldn't precipitate a national emergency

Meanwhile that same presidunce couldn’t differentiate between god or Dick Cheney telling him to invade Iraq.

[Bretton Garcia]

59. With "GOP" starting the comments ...

... with an attempt at a power play, to shut off further commentary or investigation/therapy? Then we hear a warning about right-wing terrorism!? Yes, we might in fact take threats of right wing terrorism, suicide attacks, seriously.

So: when we confront a patent in angry Denial, patience and caution are clearly advised.

To our patients? In a democracy, it is thought to be good to allow many points of view to be expressed. Including those that challenge your own faith.

[Act_of_Reparation]

86. Had to stop reading to lol after the first 7.5 words...

...cuz I stopped growing at 13.

[guillaumeb]

12. Laughable.

What about the self deception of those who feel they are competent to declare others to be deceived when speaking of unprovable matters?

Discuss? Hardly.

[NeoGreen]

18. You should really try expanding your vocabulary...

[guillaumeb]

21. And you might try actual discussion instead of name calling.

Or not.

[NeoGreen]

22. And pray tell, what name did I call...

...please discuss.

[guillaumeb]

23. Did you read your own post?

If so, the answer is obvious.

[NeoGreen]

27. I wrote it, and so my question still stands...

...what 'name' did I 'call'? I don't see it, so please be so kind as to highlight the specific text, the 'name' I called. Or, failing that, please explain why is this triggering such a vehement response from you. Does this represent something personal, something deeper, for you?

[guillaumeb]

29. Your attempt at analysis is noted.

Perhaps the reason for your post is rooted in something from your past.

Or it might be that because this article validates your own view, you feel it must be correct.

[NeoGreen]

32. I asked for discussion, and all I am getting from you is deflection...

..., and therefore, I sense I have 'hit a nerve', so to speak.

[guillaumeb]

33. I gave a answer.

Confirmation bias is an interesting topic, is it not?

[Mariana]

38. You did not give an answer.

You asked a question. A question isn't an answer, by definition.

[NeoGreen]

34. And take note, the OP doesn't 'validate' my view...

...it is my hypothesis, I'm not into self-validation and circular references.

I asked for discussion, not validation.

[guillaumeb]

35. I took notice of your method.

Thank you for revealing so much, intentionally or not.

[NeoGreen]

36. To post a hypothesis and ask for discussion on the points presented?...

...yes, ouch, that was/is my method. Touche'

[Major Nikon]

45. Someone is working hard on their victimization

As usual.

He’s made the same lame ass allegation before, and will insist ad nauseum he was called a name, even when he can’t manage to figure out what name he was called. Funny how that works. Sounds kinda familiar.

[guillaumeb]

50. So very clever.

On a certain level.

[MineralMan]

25. That poster did not call you any name.

You must have read that into the post, between the lines, or something.

[guillaumeb]

26. Illogical.

Or something.

[MineralMan]

28. Well, you're here in the Religion Group this afternoon,

but so far, I haven't seen you post anything about religion. Instead, you are making snide comments to other posters here. I'm not sure what the usefulness of that might be.

So, do you have a religion topic you would like to discuss today, or will you spend your brief time in the group today simply posting vague attacks on others here?

[guillaumeb]

30. Thank you for asking so politely.

And yes, I do have something to post about.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218316104

[MineralMan]

31. Yes, and I have replied in that thread, as well, as is my wont.

[NeoGreen]

70. Why did you post his term, this particular word?

It is not included in my OP. You can search the text until the last black hole has evaporated from the universe and you won't find it, so where did this word come from?

It is a product of your mind, and it is curious that you should openly post it here.

Is there something deeper there, in your mind, that you need to explore?

[trotsky]

44. I'll repeat the question: where's the name-calling?

Please link to it.

[guillaumeb]

49. Read the post.

No need for a link.

[Cartoonist]

53. Can I play?

In the OP, there are several possibilities. While there is NO actual name calling, some terms can be twisted into descriptive designations.

Self-deceptor
Mind-virus owner
Willfully ignorant (by definition)
Putting quotation marks around faith and faithful is highly offensive.

[Bretton Garcia]

61. The OP is important, if problematic

I agree that the language is a bit more aggressive than therapeutic.

Though it caught my attention...

Maybe there's a place for a "Dr. Phil" intervention in the Faith community?

Personally I very much like the content here. Though for myself I like to generally pursue a more calmly reasoned approach.

Still? It's a democracy. Let many approaches blossom?

To be sure, I might say that if a contributor is going to advance a view as calm therapy, he's going to have to explain any use of aggressive language.

Maybe Neo Green should be introduced as using "Dr. Phil"-style therapy?

[guillaumeb]

75. True.

Framing the majority of humans as the victims of a virus as a way of elevating those who are not subject to this supposed virus.

[Cartoonist]

84. Wrong motivation

We're just trying to help. We recognize the virus. Many of us suffered the same thing. You are wrong in saying we do this just as a self aggrandizing conceit.

[trotsky]

67. I did. Where's the name-calling? n/t

[trotsky]

43. Fucking whataboutism. n/t

[Major Nikon]

46. Using those exact words no less

Not that there’s any sense trying to hide what was always a transparent tactic.

[guillaumeb]

48. I understand that you believe this to be true. eom

[trotsky]

66. Dude, you LITERALLY said "what about."

Your cherry-picked definition from a website of ONE meaning of the word doesn't change that, no matter how desperately you wish that were the case.

[MineralMan]

82. Yeah, what about that?

[Bretton Garcia]

63. We can prove physical miracles don't arrive ...

As they were advertised in say, John 14.13.

And? Metaphorical, "spiritual" Christians know this. That is exactly why they chose to call them metaphors. Because taken literally, even the simplist sense of science suggests such promises are clearly false

So can we agree on that?

[edhopper]

91. You mean

unprovable as in, absolutely no evidence at all?

Yeah, that is worth discussing.

The delusion of lack of evidence for, and evidence against existing, means "faith is being tested."

It's the logic of a schizophrenic.

[elleng]

37. No doubt imo.

[Karadeniz]

52. For Lord's sake, people! Let's start over. The original posts comments on faith sound very

reasonable to me. Before I'd finished reading, I thought most people's faith could be chalked up to its being socially acceptable within their niche. As far as Christianity is concerned, faith is now the buzzword for being Christian rather than modeling one's thoughts and actions on Christian teachings. As James wrote, you can't have one without the other. Faith-Christianity is not a true religion, at least as far as the original communities felt.

[Cartoonist]

55. Faith is a shield

It's their last and final word. When they run out of cognitive arguments, they throw out the word "faith" to signal that reality and logic have no place in their ideology.

[Bretton Garcia]

62. Faith as Logic is somewhat interesting

Inherently understandable. An appeal to instinctive Reasonableness?

Some theologians like Aquinas or Augustine referred to the "rational soul "

I've made the argument too that the "word" or "logos," relates to our English cognate "logic."

[Bretton Garcia]

65. Guil might like this

Though he usually uses it unfortunately, just to attack reason and logic and science, as just more faith.

But Guil? What if we turn it around? Religious faith was just an early version, prescience, of Logic?

It may be that there are no "presuppositionless inquiries." But given that, the provisionally best grounded studies, those advancing the most likely convincing results, "fruits," would be Reason, Science, Logic.

Or for religious folks, the "rational soul."

[Pendrench]

58. Hi NeoGreen - As someone who believes in god (I'm Catholic) I find this discussion very

interesting - thank you for posting!

There was one aspect of your post that I wanted to ask your opinion about, specifically: When would it be appropriate for someone who is non-faithful to "expose and discuss the roots of the deception" with someone who identifies as a person of faith?

Obviously I'm talking about outside of this group - since the purpose here is to discuss such issues - but in society as a whole, should this engagement only take place when a person of faith tries to convert someone who does not believe the same as they do or (worse) the person of faith insults or condemns someone because they do not believe?

In other words, do you see this sort of engagement initiated as a reaction to people of faith who overstep their bounds or should this engagement be a proactive step by non-faithful individuals to try to help cure the faithful of this disease?

Thank you again for posting!

Wishing you well and peace.

Tim

[Bretton Garcia]

64. The Bible warned that many believers are "deceived" by "false" Christianity

And by "delusions" and "false spirits."

So there is a useful biblical language, precedent, to describe delusions even in very religious people. Even those "Christians" who think they are following Christ, may be following a "false Christ."

[Pendrench]

68. Hi Bretton - thank you for responding to my post.

To your point, if there are Christians who may be following a false Christ - and it is viewed as a symptom of a disease (i.e, self-deception) - would it be more appropriate and/or effective to be reactive or proactive when initiating engagement to address/counter a person of faith?

Thank you again - wishing you well and peace!

Tim

[Bretton Garcia]

78. Depends; from case to case.

Christians are privileged, and not used to very direct criticism in general though. And that has allowed them to live with far too many illusions, unchallenged, for far too long.

So SOME criticism is in order. When, is a matter for individual judgment.

[Pendrench]

87. Hi Bretton - sorry for the delayed response...I was away from my computer for awhile.

First of all, thank you again for taking the time to respond to another of my posts.

If I may ask another question - in your opinion, should ALL illusions held by a Christian (such as myself) be challenged and criticized? For example, as a Catholic, I believe in the Trinity as well as Transubstantiation - so I can understand and respect why someone who does not believe as I do would find these beliefs worthy of challenge and criticism. On the other hand, are there certain aspects of faith (again, in your opinion) that should be celebrated?

I ask because I think that the way I try to live my life is a byproduct of my faith - not to avoid being sent to hell or to bargain my way into heaven (if either place exists), but rather because I believe that the love of god is to be shared by and with everyone - regardless of their belief or unbelief - and that I can best share that love by offering comfort and support where I can, especially among those who are less fortunate than myself.

Of course it could be argued that I might still try to live my life that way even if I was not raised Catholic (others certainly have), but the fact of that matter is that I was raised that way...so perhaps even if others do not agree with what I believe, I hope at least that my actions and deeds (inspired by my faith) have a positive impact on others.

I imagine that we will not agree on most topics concerning religion and/or faith, but I greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you.

Wishing you well and peace -

Tim

[Bretton Garcia]

90. If you learned some tolerance from your religion, that seems helpful

But at some stage, we hope you will see some bad effects coming from religion too.

Who will teach tolerance if there is no religion? Maybe the Constitution; Liberalism.

Liberal Christianity has a few, albeit problematic, overlaps with atheist liberalism.

Some say we are religious as children; cf. St. Paul. But we add to, modify that, as we become adults.

[Pendrench]

92. Hi Bretton - Thank you again for your thoughtful reply.

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2019, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I absolutely agree that there are other ways to teach tolerance outside of religion - and I also agree (and acknowledge) that there are some bad effects that stem from religion.

I think that discussions like this are helpful for both sides to understand our differences, and see if (perhaps) there are areas where we can find agreement.

Thank you again - wishing you well and peace.

Tim

[Major Nikon]

93. So the ideas you place faith onto aren't worthy of challenge and criticism?

Without realizing it I think you've made the point as to why faith should not be celebrated. It requires people to suspend critical thought.

This is perhaps the #1 problem with organized religion. It posits ideas as divine and inarbitrable. That's why we can't seem to pry away ideas about why it's a good idea to hate based on oral tradition from the stone age.

[Pendrench]

94. Hi Major Nikon - thank you for responding to my post.

First of all, if I gave the impression that ideas about my faith are not worthy of challenge and/or criticism...that was not my intent, and if my post conveyed that message, then the fault lies with me, and I apologize for not being more clear.

The point that I wanted to make, was that there ARE certain aspects of faith which lend themselves to discussion/debate/challenge/criticism (such as belief in the Trinity or Transubstantiation) but I also wanted to ask: If a person of faith lives their life in positive service to others based on their faith, should that also be challenged or criticized? In other words, should the belief itself be challenged/criticized or should just the actions resulting from those beliefs?

That was the gist of my initial response to Bretton Garcia - I hope that I was more clear in my response to you.

Thank you again for the opportunity for discussion - wishing you well and peace.

Tim

[Major Nikon]

95. It still sounds as if you think belief itself is beyond criticism

Assuming this is what you are saying, it’s not all that surprising. It’s pretty hard to envision religion without dogma, and Christianity is certainly no exception. What I’m pointing out is this is the inherent flaw of religion. Whenever any idea is exempt from criticism, corruption is the inevitable result. This is true with many things besides religion, but is especially true in that instance.

[Pendrench]

96. Hi Major Nikon - Than you again for your thoughtful reply.

Actually, I try to be open to criticism and debate on most topics, including issues of faith (that's the only way one grows and learns) which is why I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you and others.

If I stated that there was a particular idea/belief that I thought was beyond criticism, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Thank you again - wishing you well and peace!

Tim

[Major Nikon]

97. What is religion without accepting certain things as incontrovertible?

How else does one define faith?

[Pendrench]

98. Hi Major Nikon - Thank you again for your reply.

I think on this point we are in agreement - as a person of faith (specifically a Catholic) there are certain ideas that I accept and believe, including the Resurrection, Transubstantiation, and the divinity of Jesus - but why should having these beliefs shield me from dissenting views and criticism?

These are my beliefs (not yours), so you should have every right to disagree, criticize, and (if so desired) mock me for these beliefs.

It is my hope and goal, however, that these beliefs guide me in treating others fairly and with respect, but if they don't, then you have every right to call me out for my actions.

Again, I appreciate the discussion - wishing you well and peace

Tim

[Major Nikon]

99. Your question was, if I understand it correctly...

Are there aspects of faith that should be celebrated?

My answer is no for the reasons given which have nothing to do with how you view your faith on a personal level. Regardless of what potential you think faith has for benevolence, in practice it has even more potential for malevolence. Either way it’s still a dishonest way of behavior modification. I can really see nothing worth celebrating.

[Pendrench]

100. Hi Major Nikon - Yes - you understood my question correctly, and I appreciate and respect your

answer to that question, as well as your right to question and criticize my beliefs.

Obviously we see this differently and will not reach agreement on this issue, but I greatly appreciate your well thought out position/comments and your civility in discussing this with me.

Thank you again - wishing you well and peace.

Tim

[NeoGreen]

69. Pendrench...

...Thanks for your reply, I will do my best to address your comments and questions.

When would it be appropriate for someone who is non-faithful to "expose and discuss the roots of the deception" with someone who identifies as a person of faith?

My post above does not suggest that those without 'faith' should engage, but is focused on if and when they do engage.

In other words, do you see this sort of engagement initiated as a reaction to people of faith who overstep their bounds or should this engagement be a proactive step by non-faithful individuals to try to help cure the faithful of this disease?

First, the hypothesis uses an analogy to express the main point and is a priori on shaky ground, as with most analogies, when the details are discussed. That being said, I don't think there is a cure, in the medical sense, I merely wish to provide a possible means for those who are without 'faith' to frame their dialog/approach in discussion with those who claim 'faith'.

The only way out of the 'faith' trap, that is to defeat the virus so to speak, is for the individual to escape on their own.

[Pendrench]

72. Hi NeoGreen - thank you for your thoughtful reply.

That makes perfect sense.

If I may ask another question - in your opinion, if an individual (like myself) who claims to be a person of faith is self-delusional in this regard, would it be possible (or even likely) for me to escape the "faith trap" on my own if I see that faith as being beneficial?

For example, as you may have seen in a recent post of mine, my father died last Tuesday:
https://www.candlelightfuneralhome.com/notices/Tom-Lynch?fbclid=IwAR34Q7Emcxxl-pLx8VXkk2T6Fl4OUKIdIt7zLJWMbzB3CV98YJPvolrIkVc

During his life, my father was a very devout Catholic, and that faith not only gave him great comfort, but (in my opinion) it also helped shape his worldview and the way he treated others - with great compassion and love. My mother also shared this faith, and that faith gave her great comfort during the time he was dying - not to mention the words of support and comfort the priest provided at his funeral.

To that end, not that I think that you or anyone else in this group is trying to dissuade me from my own personal beliefs/faith, but for the sake of discussion, do you think faith is always a trap, when (for some) it may be the only available means of solace, support, and comfort?

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this with you.

Wishing you well and peace.

Tim

[NeoGreen]

73. Pendrench...

... my response(s):

in your opinion, if an individual (like myself) who claims to be a person of faith is self-delusional in this regard, would it be possible (or even likely) for me to escape the "faith trap" on my own if I see that faith as being beneficial?

I really can't speculate on the probability or even the likelihood of your specific ability to escape, other than to say it is possible and that the probability isn't fixed across time.

During his life, my father was a very devout Catholic, and that faith not only gave him great comfort, but (in my opinion) it also helped shape his worldview and the way he treated others - with great compassion and love. My mother also shared this faith, and that faith gave her great comfort during the time he was dying - not to mention the words of support and comfort the priest provided at his funeral.

To that end, not that I think that you or anyone else in this group is trying to dissuade me from my own personal beliefs/faith, but for the sake of discussion, do you think faith is always a trap, when (for some) it may be the only available means of solace, support, and comfort?

No doubt the belief can be a catalyst for comfort and in some cases compassion, regardless of the 'flavor'. However, the level(s) of comfort/solace, no matter how great, do not provide one iota toward the truth of the base beliefs. Transubstantiation is not a real thing. It does not comport with the real world. Creationism is not a real thing. Resurrection is not a real thing. The End-Of-Days in not a real thing.

These beliefs are incompatible with the desire to create and maintain a durable society. Managing the future of society through the 'lens' of religious philosophies and 'truths' is illegitimate and dangerous.

Plus, there are better alternatives in the world that can be catalysis for comfort and compassion, and which have the added benefit of not requiring a belief in magic. It is up to you to seek them out and find them.

[Pendrench]

74. Hi NeoGreen - thank you again for your reply.

Although I'm relatively sure that we will not reach agreement on this topic, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you.

Thank you again - wishing you well and peace!

Tim

[NeoGreen]

80. My pleasure...

...

[MaryMagdaline]

103. What are the alternatives to faith that can bring comfort and compassion?

I don’t logically believe in god, etc, but I envy my parents’ resolute faith. Without it, life is meaningless. Believers do have an advantage over the rest of us.

[trotsky]

104. What?

Without religious faith, "life is meaningless"? That is simply not true.

One perspective:

https://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/corymarkum/life-without-god-meaningless

...And yet, there is a silver lining if we but know where and how to recognize it. The above realization, as horrible as it is, also has the capacity to simultaneously engender a powerful, and I think unique, type of significance and meaning to this one, perpetually fleeting life. Again, for those who believe in god, this life is just a precursor, a sort of preliminary round; it is a mere half a century or so of corporeal life preceding an eternity of existence in an incorporeal, better, afterlife. But for atheists, this life is all there is. This life, this world, here and now, and c’est fini—the show’s officially and irrevocably over. Rather than the comprehension of this inescapable fate making our lives less meaningful, these things can instead make our lives and the time that we do have on this planet more meaningful.

...For the godless, the sheer finitude of this life, combined with its fragility, makes every second of it incomparably more astounding and more valuable than it would be if it were merely a chapter taken from an infinite book of life.

[MaryMagdaline]

106. I've heard, read this. It makes intuitive sense but

It really is no substitute for the belief in afterlife. If religion is the opiate of the people (it is) I’m not sure a benevolent god or dictator would not prescribe it for the benefit of mankind.

[trotsky]

107. You should at least understand that it's possible other people see it differently than you do.

I'm sorry you think life is meaningless without religion, but not everyone does.

[MaryMagdaline]

111. I am encouraged to know they (you) are out there

[Pendrench]

113. Hi trotsky - I completely agree with you.

In my opinion, the fact that one does not adhere to a particular religion and/or set of beliefs (such as I do) does not make their life meaningless. It may, in fact, give MORE meaning to their life, and to the lives of those they love and cherish.

Wishing you well and peace.

Tim

[Pendrench]

105. Hi MaryMadaline - Although I am a believer (Catholic), I do not think that life is meaningless for

those who do not have faith, or that we who profess a certain faith have any sort of advantage over those who do not believe.

For example, my father recently died (on June 18) - and while I can personally say that my faith offered me comfort, I can also say that I found comfort in the memories of my father, as well as seeing his legacy live on in his children and grandchildren, not to mention the friends he made, and all the good he accomplished in his life.

Those things are independent of faith, and can be shared and celebrated by all of us...so I definitely can see how faith is not necessary to find comfort in such situations.

As far as compassion is concerned, I would bet that many of the people who took care of my dad during his last illness probably did not believe in god...yet their compassion to him and to our family stemmed from the fact that they were simply good, caring people, not because of what they believed or did not believe.

Anyway, those are just my personal thoughts on this issue - I welcome the opportunity to continue this discussion with you and others.

Wishing you well and peace

Tim

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

101. DSM-V defines "mental disorder" as follows:

"A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities." If a person's religion isn't causing him/her significant distress in his/her important activities, it wouldn't be classified as a mental disorder.

[NeoGreen]

108. As I said in previous posts...

...I was using an analogy to express a hypothesis of an idea. The analogy is not the idea itself.

Also, please consider, the idea is, at its base, a suggestion focused toward people who do not claim 'faith', not the other way around.

Plus, I merely suggested that 'faith' is a form of self-deception and then noted that self-deception is a symptom of mental disorders.

I did not say that 'faith' = mental disorder. You reading too much into the hypothesis.

[MaryMagdaline]

102. Utilitarian question

If you cure me of my self-deception, am I better off? Are you?

[NeoGreen]

109. If the 19 hijackers were 'cured' of their 'self-deceptions'...

...before 911, wouldn't they have been better off?
The other passengers?
The citizens of the US?
The world as a whole?

[MaryMagdaline]

110. With your example, we would be better off.

THEY on the other hand, ended up no worse than they would have, had they lived exemplary lives, loved mankind and cured cancer. They still end up dead and going into nothingness.

They died, however, thinking they would get into heaven. As a wartime advantage, score one for bin laden. If society needs soldiers, the believers have an advantage.

[NeoGreen]

112. US Marines, or any branch on the US military...

...don't have "Gott Mit Uns" imprinted on their belts.

The overall advantage is with the secular society whose service members are not deluded with irrational ideas and hold to the idea that: "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

[MaryMagdaline]

114. Here we disagree. Give me 50k true believers vs 100k atheists

If I’m forming an army. Patton was good for motivating the anti-believers, though.

[NeoGreen]

122. And the Atheists will win, just...

...as we are now.

[NeoGreen]

118. Dysrationalia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia

Dysrationalia
Dysrationalia is defined as the inability to think and behave rationally despite adequate intelligence. It is a concept in educational psychology and is not a clinical disorder such as a thought disorder. Dysrationalia can be a resource to help explain why smart people fall for Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent encounters.

(snip)

Examples

One example that can be related to dysrationalia centers on two former Illinois schoolteachers who pulled their children from the local public school in the area because discussions of the Holocaust are a part of the history curriculum. These parents, who are presumably competent due to their college education, believe that the Holocaust is a myth and should not be taught to their children. This is an example of a problem in belief formation regardless of intelligence.

A survey was given to Canadian Mensa club members on the topic of paranormal belief. Mensa members are provided membership strictly because of their high-IQ scores. The survey results show that 44% of the members believed in astrology, 51% believed in biorhythms, and 56% believed in the existence of extraterrestrial visitors. All these beliefs have no valid evidence.

There are many examples of people who are famous because of their intelligence, but often display irrational behavior. Martin Heidegger, a renowned philosopher, was also a Nazi apologist and used the most fallacious arguments to justify his beliefs. William Crookes, a famous scientist who discovered the element thallium and a Fellow of the Royal Society, was continually duped by spiritual mediums yet never gave up his spiritualist beliefs. Kary Mullis, an American biochemist and 1993 Nobel Prize winner, is also an astrology supporter and a global warming and HIV/AIDS denier.