Theism is delusion

[edhopper]

True? Sometimes true? Never true?

Discuss

[Zambero]

1. Guess I need to be reminded as to what theism is all about

Not a religious expert, but curious nevertheless.

[Voltaire2]

5. a belief in gods.

[Major Nikon]

19. Yes, but also a particular type of creator/interventionist god(s)

[Voltaire2]

20. not really, that is just one variant

polytheists are theists as are monotheists. It is just belief in god-beings.

[Major Nikon]

23. I'm just saying that in order to be any kind of theist requires a couple of additional steps

Otherwise one would be a deist. I learned this from our resident self avowed deist/theist who posted a definition that specifically said those two things are mutually exclusive.

[C_U_L8R]

2. What is truth?

[edhopper]

11. "Beauty is truth, truth beauty"

"– that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Keats

[C_U_L8R]

12. There is god

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. Or not.

[Cartaphelius]

80. Truth is what, as a society, defines

it to be.

To allow "truth" to be defined by devine creature only serves to provide some one to get credit or blame for our lot in life while einforcing the division by injecting skeletal status suvh as wealth, racial purity, and countless other factors to strengthen the holier than thou from the downtroden.

[Newest Reality]

3. Hot potato there!

What is theism, truth and delusion.

Define the terms first.

[edhopper]

13. Theism:

a belief in any God.

Truth: In this case, a fact in objective reality.

Delusion: believing something that is not real.

If you wish to define these terms differently and then answer, that is fine.

[Voltaire2]

4. If by theism one means a god-being then yes clearly it is a delusion.

There are some squishy constructs of post-enlightenment theism that have some vague pan-theistic concept of what a god is that avoid the obvious fact that there are no sky-beings watching over us, but mostly these are rhetorical dodges to buttress obsolete beliefs and institutions.

[NeoGreen]

6. Apparently you are doing it wrong...

...no 'ifs' are allowed, you are only allowed to post a definitive answer immediately. No discussion, dialog, debate or requests for clarification are allowed, or so I have come to learn.

[trotsky]

8. Correct.

Either you are stupid illogical bigoted atheist who says "THEISM IS DELUSIONAL ALWAYS" or you are a good, tolerant person who never says anything bad about religion or religious beliefs.

That's it. No other options. If you try to discuss the issue, you're just pushing a "narrative" and you don't deserve a response.

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Squishy post-enlightement apologetics are really no different from traditional apologetics.

They're arguments constructed post-hoc to justify a preexisting belief. They are not the reasons most people actually believe in God. In the case of hippy-dippy "God is love" arglebargle, they're not even describing a god most theists actually believe in. I'm at a point where I consider them largely irrelevant, and don't really bother addressing them anymore.

[Voltaire2]

18. totally agree.

[NeoGreen]

7. What evidence would be sufficient...

...for those guided by 'faith' over logic?

[Pendrench]

9. Hi edhopper - thank you for posting this interesting topic.

Speaking only for myself (52 year old life time practicing Catholic), I would say that it is very possible that my beliefs may be mistaken and even delusional.

I believe in god (in fact, I believe in the Trinity)

I also believe in transubstantiation.

And I also believe in heaven and hell.

Since I have no verifiable evidence that would prove any of these things, I imagine that I would be considered by many to be delusional.

Thank you again for starting this discussion!

Wishing you well and peace

Tim

[edhopper]

14. Thank you for not being offended

by my question.

[Pendrench]

15. Hi edhopper - I didn't see anything offensive about your question.

I always appreciate the opportunity for discussion...I think it's the best way to learn about others, and better understand differing points of view.

Thank you again!

Wishing you well and peace

Tim

[Major Nikon]

24. Try removing your emotional attachment and looking at it another way

For instance, is the belief that homosexuality is destroying the fabric of society an example of delusion?

The tricky part comes when you ask yourself if your own beliefs are delusions because obviously you wouldn’t believe in them if you did. However that belief is irrelevant to whether or not they actually are delusions.

[Pendrench]

32. Hi Major Nikon - thank you for taking time to respond to my post.

I quite agree - since I believe in such things, I do not (personally) see them as delusional.

But I also acknowledge that those beliefs may be delusions, since I am not able to provide any concrete proofs for those beliefs.

I hope that I am open to expanding or changing my beliefs as I learn more and encounter others with differing views.

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this

Wishing you well and peace!

Tim

[Major Nikon]

35. Sounds a bit like doubt

Not that doubt is unexpected or a bad thing, just that so many people of faith claim to have none. I find that claim either dishonest or irrational.

[Pendrench]

37. Hi Major Nikon - Thank you for your reply.

If my reply came off as dishonest, I apologize for giving you that impression....that was not my intent.

As far as my claim of doubt being irrational, I can understand and appreciate why it may appear that way...and perhaps it is.

In any event, thank you for the opportunity to continue this discussion.

Wishing you well and peace.

Tim

[Major Nikon]

43. Exactly the opposite. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I'm saying those who claim to have no doubt about their faith strike me as dishonest or irrational. Your reply struck me as the opposite of those things.

If one stops to consider the business end of religion, much if not most of the time and effort is spent removing doubt from it's adherents. As such many of those adherents are afraid and/or embarrassed of admitting their own doubts.

[Pendrench]

45. Hi Major Nikon - My apologies to you for misunderstanding your reply!

I should have read your statement more carefully....that was my fault, not yours.

As always, thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues.

Wishing you well and peace.

Tim

[trotsky]

10. If you believe in a trickster god who doesn't particularly care for humanity...

then I can't really argue that's a delusion, so I'd have to say "sometimes true."

[Bretton Garcia]

21. "All religion is delusion" said Freud.

[Major Nikon]

22. Theism essentially makes 3 progressively incredible claims

1) There are one or more gods
2) The aforementioned metaphysical entity/entities created everything in the universe
3) The aforementioned metaphysical entity/entities intervene in the lives of humans

Webster’s defines delusion as

1a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

The answer to the question isn’t hard if one values logic, reason, and literacy.

[Iggo]

25. Absolutely. (n/t)

[RockRaven]

26. One of the unpleasant things from the get-go is the definition of theism...

not because *that* definition is controversial by itself; most people will go with your "belief in any God" or equivalent...

but because what is meant "any God" or "any god" -- holy hell, convos like that are too often like trying to nail jello to a wall -- a squishy, slimy, sticky, dissatisfying mess.

Based on that, I surely cannot say it is never a delusion, but I won't be so bold as to say it is always one -- because there is probably a squirrelly-as-fuck definition of "god" that I have not been exposed to yet which would make that assertion look like an over-reach. So I'll go with "sometimes" of the choices provided.

[applegrove]

27. Read Yuval Noah Harari's 21 Lessons for the 21st Century.

All human created things since we lived in hunter gatherers are a myth mixed with stories and conventions and some facts and truth thrown in. Liberal democracy, the law, religion, atheism, banking, are all fictions. So are emotions and language. They are all things that people agree on the rules to and then participate in. Power centers they are. Science and biology would be truth i guess. If the world did not have stories to hold our power centers together and thing were only based on facts it would be very chaotic.

[wasupaloopa]

28. I think it is. I am a Buddhist. Buddha said that greed, hate and delusion are not

wholesome. Their opposites are generosity, loving kindness and knowledge.

I was baptized Catholic, yet ever since childhood I never believed in the church's teachings. They never made sense to me. Everything that there was no answer to was either a mystery or you had to take it on faith.

I found Buddhism and it makes sense to me. Buddhism is not a religion like Christianity is. There is no god in Buddhism. Buddha was a human being like we are. Buddhism is there for you to try and investigate. It does not say it has the truth and nothing else does. If it seems like something you can live with then start your practice.

So to me religions and god are delusions. There is no truth there. I do not believe in heaven or hell. I do like the gospels though. I could accept that there was a Jesus. I like what he taught. I would not say he was a god.

I find most Christians do not follow Christ's teachings but preach the Old Testament. So again they delude themselves by calling themselves Christians.

I can't say that Buddha was a real person, but he certainly was no god.

He may have been real, it doesn't matter. His teachings were handed down by monks from 2,500 years ago.

He taught that life involved suffering. That suffering was caused by clinging. That there is an end to suffering. The noble eight fold path is the path to end of suffering.

That path is right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right concentration, and right mindfulness. ( there is much to learn about these)

Again Buddha says try them out, investigate them, if they fit practice them. He never said "thou shalt."

Thou shalt to me is delusion. It doesn't involve investigation you just do what god says to do.

[edhopper]

31. Thanks for this thoughtful reply.

[Pendrench]

33. Hi wasupaloopa - thank you for sharing this.

I have read a little bit about Buddhism, and find it fascinating.

Best to you and your continuing journey

Wishing you well and peace!

Tim

[YOHABLO]

29. Why is ''I don't know" never a legitimate answer?

[edhopper]

30. It's perfectly

acceptable.

[guillaumeb]

34. Certainty in asserting the unprovable is delusion.

Thus any assertion that either theism or atheism are true is belief based and unprovable.

[edhopper]

36. So there are no religious beliefs that are delusions?

None?
Belief in any of the pantheistic gods throughout history?
Belief in demonic possession?
Nobody who thinks God is talking directly to them is delusional?

None?

[guillaumeb]

38. My statement stands.

There can be no certainty without proof. It is delusion to think otherwise. So definitive statements about the existence or non-existence of a deity are delusional. Faith is required.

[edhopper]

39. And people who say their faith tells them

that it is 100% certain a diety exists?

[guillaumeb]

40. The key word is faith.

Faith is not proof. Faith needs no proof.

[edhopper]

41. That's delusional

[guillaumeb]

42. The delusion may come when one is certain without proof.

And anyone saying that theists are delusional has no proof, just their own beliefs.

[edhopper]

46. You don't want to answer if SOME theist are delusional then.

Noted. I see you only want to perpetuate your own narrative.

[guillaumeb]

47. My responses applied to theists and non-theists.

[edhopper]

48. So anyone with an absolute belief that God exists

is delusional?

[guillaumeb]

49. Anyone who does not recognize the limitations of belief.

So, as well, anyone with an absolute belief that theists are delusional is also delusional. But if we believe in one thing or another, and recognize the limitations of our own intelligence and beliefs, that is not delusional.

My view.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Then the formula is not balanced, as you pretend it is.

You talk of 'proof' but it works out thus:

Theist: I KNOW/BELIEVE, and do not require proof, and furthermore the existence of my god CANNOT be proven by definition.
Atheist: Prove it.

This is not balance. One is making a claim that requires burden of proof. The other is simply skeptical, therefore the burden of proof remains with the theist.

There are few to no atheists that stand here and say NO GOD(S) exist. We just don't believe you. It only becomes an issue then, when the Theist wants to control government, and thereby the populace, by religious claims.


So, to wrap up, I'll meet your last sentence's challenge:

Faith is not required to reject your faith-based claim.

[guillaumeb]

71. I never link faith with proof.

Quite the opposite.

But calling theists delusional is not skepticism, it is the assertion, the delusion, of certainty where none can exist.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. I feel like I'll be using your words a lot against you when we touch on 'proof' and 'certainty'.

"it is the assertion, the delusion, of certainty where none can exist."

You just described the atomic basis of 'Faith'.

And I'm actually going to stand by my interpretation of 'delusion' here, because it's not just about religion. This applies to political issues as well, like the folks that have faith in trickle down economics, despite the considerable evidence against it. There's no proof it flat doesn't work, but there's enough evidence to give anyone pause that maybe, just maybe, it's not a usable thing at all, yet they trundle on and *believe*.

Those people are, quite simply, delusional. And that doesn't mean straight-jacket/loony bin bound crazy.

[guillaumeb]

73. Faith requires no proof.

If there were proof, faith would be unnecessary.

Calling theism delusional is itself a delusional act in that the assertion is unprovable.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Proof does not abrogate faith. They can be compatible.

If your god could be proven to exist, I would still not have faith in it. I reject the very premise of it, even if it were to hypothetically provably exist.
If you received actual proof, I wager you'd still have faith in it.


It would be an option not to.

And none of your response works with non-theistic things people have faith in, like political mechanisms or quasi-economical political policies.

[guillaumeb]

75. If the Creator was visible, and knowable to us,

faith would be unnecessary.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. I disagree.

Simply knowing it provably exists does not imply anything like faith.

"Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid, is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept. In the context of religion, one can define faith as confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief. Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence."

Confidence/Trust is much more than simple existence (and proof/certain knowledge thereof).


I would have no confidence and no trust in the christian biblical character of 'god', even if I knew for certain it existed.

[guillaumeb]

79. Yes, we disagree.

And we can do so without being disagreeable.

[Major Nikon]

44. If you assert Russell's teapot isn't real, you are delusional

[edhopper]

50. Howard Dean says Bill Barr is delusional

and it's because of his religious beliefs.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212577100

[Cary]

51. Last time I checked I could neither prove nor disprove

The question is therefore personal. I tolerate no attempts of others to impose their religion on me and I never impose my own beliefs on others.

[edhopper]

52. God aside, there are many, many religious beliefs

that can be disproved. Creationism one of the most obvious.

[Cary]

53. True

[docgee]

54. It's a belief system that takes the place of what we don't know.

I have many hypothesis regarding what physics can't explain about the universe. I know a lot of them could be proven wrong in the future with more research, but for now it's what I believe. Theists have their own beliefs. It only becomes delusional when they ignore reality (ex. Evolution, fossil records) and continue with the same beliefs. I worked with a guy that was very religious and asked him what he thought about dinosaurs. He said he didn't think about them. Delusional.

[Act_of_Reparation]

55. Plenty of people use theism in place of what we DO know.

[NeoGreen]

56. You seem to be describing the "God of the Gaps"...

...fallacy:

"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The "gaps" usage was made by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1][2] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theology, to mean that the existence of a creator is almost always proposed for anything not currently explained by science.

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

[Major Nikon]

58. Seems to be less of a delusion to buy into the mythology completely

Otherwise one has to not only buy into the delusion of the mythology, but one must also create additional delusions to somehow reconcile mythology with reality.

As Jesus said (metaphorically), ‘With Metaphor, all things are possible.’

[docgee]

61. God of the gaps, yes.

Long ago there were a lot more gaps. The question is why do modern humans not give up old beliefs when offered with less scientific ignorance.

[Major Nikon]

65. Privilege

So long as religionists have privilege they are allowed to freely promote their ideas while voices of dissent are muted. For centuries this was enforced on pain of death. Still is in some places.

[docgee]

66. Very true. Good point.

[Major Nikon]

57. Religious belief isn't hypothesis

A hypothesis is an idea with accompanying reasoning as to why the idea might be true.

Religious belief requires the suspension of reasoning. Those ideas fall under mythology or creative speculation.

[docgee]

60. Perhaps, but think about 3000 years ago the people who wondered why it rained.

They didn't know anything, so their reasoning was some magical being must be the cause. It was a hypothesis based on what they assumed to be true. In modern time doing a rain dance, praying, throwing stones or whatever would be a suspension of reasoning. When religion thought was in its infancy, that stuff was the truth.

[NeoGreen]

63. It is incorrect to label any of their 'guesses' or 'speculation' about reality as a hypothesis...

...there was no system for them to systematically test their 'guess'.

To call it a hypothesis, is a disservice to science.

Their guesses and speculation, for the most part, have all been answered by tested hypothesis through a process (i.e. science) they knew nothing about.

[Major Nikon]

64. What you describe is mythology, not hypothesis

When the answer to a question is magic, hypothesis is out the window. Describing it as such does not make it one any more than the zealots' description of ID as "theory" makes it a theory.

If an idea can't be tested, then it isn't a hypothesis. At best it is conjecture, and when repeated often enough it becomes mythology.

[docgee]

68. It appears you and NeoGreen are correct:

hypothesis
n. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
n. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
n. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

[Voltaire2]

67. 2300 years ago people were thinking critically

Look at where the Greeks and others were at that time. Magical explanations were being rejected in favor of evidence based reasoning.

[Major Nikon]

69. The problem was then as it is now

There has always been those who defer to magic and mythology over reason. The problem is one of those gets to appeal to emotion while the other by its very nature can’t.

[Voltaire2]

59. God of the gaps.

Trying to wedge Iron Age religions into the knowledge gaps of human civilization is a modern revision of these religions invented to work around the failure of these religions to provide a compatible religious explanation for what we do know.

This form of religious revisionism is commonly referred to as the “god of the gaps”.

[Iggo]

62. ...and that god keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller...

[dchill]

76. It feels like it's generally true.

[vlyons]

77. Deity is a concept

and like all concepts, it is essentially empty. Without mass. Cannot be weighed on a scale. Deity is imaginary, and completely subjective. It's one reason why I am a Buddhist. We don't propose a creator god. We only try to answer the question of how to be happy in this life.