Are Religious Beliefs Delusional?

[Diogenes]

In clinical practice, no clear guidelines exist to distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and "pathological" religious delusions. Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional, while the current DSM-IV definition of delusion exempts religious doctrine from pathology altogether. ....
Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective.....

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15990520/
The question for debate is stated in the title, Are Religious Beliefs Delusional?
A subordinate question: Should we distinguish between a learned belief in supernatural phenomena and those who believe and attribute their beliefs to personal experience... and how could we tell?

[Inquirer]

It would take to much time and space to explain.

How about a short list?

For example, for common ancestry I can list several of the lines of supporting evidence without explanations for each. Can you do that for people living 900 years?

Did you not understand my previous answer?

So I'm going to take it that the only evidence you have for people living 900 years are written stories. And as we agreed, just because something is in a written story, that doesn't mean it's therefore true.

Meanwhile, common descent has multiple, independent lines of evidence from various fields of science as well as direct observation (speciation).

Given the extraordinary nature of people living 900 years, combined with a lack of any physical evidence of such a thing and the fact that it runs contrary to our observations, I contend that it is a rather delusional belief.

When you say "I contend" do you mean you are asserting that it is a delusion? that the claim as to age is undoubtedly false? that you have material evidence that the claim is not only false but also attributable to a delusion?

Given the multiple, independent lines of evidence from various fields of science as well as direction observation of a key component (speciation), I contend that common ancestry is not delusional at all.

I agree.

Thus, the claim that people living for 900 years is no more delusional than common ancestry is false.

Well as I assumed you knew, that conclusion is only true if the premises are true. The key premise in this case is your personal belief that the Biblical record is a product of a deluded mind, since you've offered no material evidence for this, your conclusion is also a belief, you did say too that you "contend" so perhaps we'll understand you better when you explain what you meant by that.

[Jose Fly]

When you say "I contend" do you mean you are asserting that it is a delusion?

It's exactly what I said. The belief that people live for 900 years is delusional (given the factors I described).

that the claim as to age is undoubtedly false?

It is extremely unlikely to be true.

that you have material evidence that the claim is not only false but also attributable to a delusion?

It's important to differentiate between the story itself and the belief that the story is true. The story itself could be the result of all sorts of things...lying, use of fable to convey a message, creative story-telling, legend construction, delusion....

The key premise in this case is your personal belief that the Biblical record is a product of a deluded mind

Note what I said above. The belief that people live for 900 years is delusional, the stories describing such a thing may or may not be.

since you've offered no material evidence for this, your conclusion is also a belief, you did say too that you "contend" so perhaps we'll understand you better when you explain what you meant by that.

I listed several lines of evidence supporting my conclusion.

[Inquirer]

It would take to much time and space to explain.

How about a short list?

For example, for common ancestry I can list several of the lines of supporting evidence without explanations for each. Can you do that for people living 900 years?

Did you not understand my previous answer?

So I'm going to take it that the only evidence you have for people living 900 years are written stories. And as we agreed, just because something is in a written story, that doesn't mean it's therefore true.

Meanwhile, common descent has multiple, independent lines of evidence from various fields of science as well as direct observation (speciation).

Given the extraordinary nature of people living 900 years, combined with a lack of any physical evidence of such a thing and the fact that it runs contrary to our observations, I contend that it is a rather delusional belief.

Also I almost forgot, what "observations" of human longevity five thousand years ago are you referring to?

[Jose Fly]

Also I almost forgot, what "observations" of human longevity five thousand years ago are you referring to?

We have plenty of skeletal remains of human beings from that time frame. None of them show signs of being from 900 year old people. Also, we've not seen a single person live anywhere near that long. Further, the data shows that human lifespans were in the range of 25-30 years for most of our history and it's only been in the last half century or so that average lifespans have exceeded 40 years.

[Inquirer]

When you say "I contend" do you mean you are asserting that it is a delusion?

It's exactly what I said. The belief that people live for 900 years is delusional (given the factors I described).

So you know it's not a lie or a transcription error or miscalculation, it can only be due to delusion?

that the claim as to age is undoubtedly false?

It is extremely unlikely to be true.

Ahh so it's your opinion then, got it.

that you have material evidence that the claim is not only false but also attributable to a delusion?

It's important to differentiate between the story itself and the belief that the story is true. The story itself could be the result of all sorts of things...lying, use of fable to convey a message, creative story-telling, legend construction, delusion....

Oh, so you're backtracking now, you're no longer saying it is a delusion.

The key premise in this case is your personal belief that the Biblical record is a product of a deluded mind

Note what I said above. The belief that people live for 900 years is delusional, the stories describing such a thing may or may not be.

Yes, you do keep changing your argument, I did notice!

since you've offered no material evidence for this, your conclusion is also a belief, you did say too that you "contend" so perhaps we'll understand you better when you explain what you meant by that.

I listed several lines of evidence supporting my conclusion.

You mean circumstantial evidence?

[Inquirer]

Also I almost forgot, what "observations" of human longevity five thousand years ago are you referring to?

We have plenty of skeletal remains of human beings from that time frame. None of them show signs of being from 900 year old people.

So in your mind that proves there never ever were any?

Also, we've not seen a single person live anywhere near that long.

So in your mind that proves there never ever were any?

Further, the data shows that human lifespans were in the range of 25-30 years for most of our history and it's only been in the last half century or so that average lifespans have exceeded 40 years.

No that's not true either, read this:

This cartoon reflects a very common view of ancient lifespans, but it is based on a myth. People in the past were not all dead by 30. Ancient documents confirm this. In the 24th century B.C., the Egyptian Vizier Ptahhotep wrote verses about the disintegrations of old age. The ancient Greeks classed old age among the divine curses, and their tombstones attest to survival well past 80 years. Ancient artworks and figurines also depict elderly people: stooped, flabby, wrinkled.

and

So what is the source of the myth that those in the past must have died young? One has to do with what we dig up. When ancient human remains are found, archaeologists and biological anthropologists examine the skeletons and attempt to estimate their sex, age, and general health. Markers of growth and development, such as tooth eruption, provide relatively accurate age estimates of children. With adults, however, estimates are based on degeneration.

From: Anthropology Magazine.

Odd, why did you not know this was a myth, yet I did?

[Jose Fly]

So you know it's not a lie or a transcription error or miscalculation, it can only be due to delusion?

Again, pay closer attention to what I write.

The delusion refers to people who believe the stories. The stories themselves have other possibilities (e.g., lying, transcription error, miscalculation, fable use, creative story telling, legend construction).

Try and grasp the difference.

Ahh so it's your opinion then, got it.

It is my contention.

Oh, so you're backtracking now, you're no longer saying it is a delusion.

Yes, you do keep changing your argument, I did notice!

Again, note the difference between the construction of the story itself and believing that the story is true.

You mean circumstantial evidence?

Yes, of course.

[Inquirer]

Is it delusional to believe human lifespans were in the range of 25-30 years for most of our history and it's only been in the last half century or so that average lifespans have exceeded 40 years?

[Jose Fly]

So in your mind that proves there never ever were any?

So in your mind that proves there never ever were any?

It shows that there is zero evidence for people living for 900 years, beyond stories. Thus, believing that people lived for 900 years is as delusional as believing that a 90 foot tall logger existed in the American west.

Further, the data shows that human lifespans were in the range of 25-30 years for most of our history and it's only been in the last half century or so that average lifespans have exceeded 40 years.

No that's not true either, read this:

This cartoon reflects a very common view of ancient lifespans, but it is based on a myth. People in the past were not all dead by 30. Ancient documents confirm this. In the 24th century B.C., the Egyptian Vizier Ptahhotep wrote verses about the disintegrations of old age. The ancient Greeks classed old age among the divine curses, and their tombstones attest to survival well past 80 years. Ancient artworks and figurines also depict elderly people: stooped, flabby, wrinkled.

and

So what is the source of the myth that those in the past must have died young? One has to do with what we dig up. When ancient human remains are found, archaeologists and biological anthropologists examine the skeletons and attempt to estimate their sex, age, and general health. Markers of growth and development, such as tooth eruption, provide relatively accurate age estimates of children. With adults, however, estimates are based on degeneration.

From: Anthropology Magazine.

Noted. I also note that your source states:

"So it seems that humans evolved with a characteristic lifespan. Mortality rates in traditional populations are high during infancy, before decreasing sharply to remain constant till about 40 years, then mortality rises to peak at about 70. Most individuals remain healthy and vigorous right through their 60s or beyond, until senescence sets in, which is the physical decline where if one cause fails to kill, another will soon strike the mortal blow."

So yet another line of evidence against the belief that people lived for 900 years. Thanks.

[JoeyKnothead]

So you know it's not a lie or a transcription error or miscalculation, it can only be due to delusion?

Again, pay closer attention to what I write.

The delusion refers to people who believe the stories. The stories themselves have other possibilities (e.g., lying, transcription error, miscalculation, fable use, creative story telling, legend construction).

Try and grasp the difference.

Ahh so it's your opinion then, got it.

It is my contention.

Oh, so you're backtracking now, you're no longer saying it is a delusion.

Yes, you do keep changing your argument, I did notice!

Again, note the difference between the construction of the story itself and believing that the story is true.

You mean circumstantial evidence?

Yes, of course.

I think some of the confusion here points to how tangled up the two ideas can become in the theist.

I understood clearly you were getting at those who hold the belief, and not those who wrote it (especially where you were specific with possible genres).