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?

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #199]
Any information revealed to us in a manner which cannot be demonstrated, has to be the epitome of "special case". ftfy

[JoeyKnothead]

If we're to accept biblical claims of folks living to 900 years old cause "ya can't show they didn't ", we might as well accept claims of anal violating alien abductions.

When "ya can't show it ain't " is the best argument for a claim, "ya can't show it is" becomes even more compelling.

Not again, I mean must we?

When you're willing to extend me the courtesy of answering my questions I'll be glad to answer those you ask of me.

Nowhere have I argued that the claims about living past 900 must be believed because we can't show the claims to be false. That's a fact, I have not said that so please don't make stuff up.

I stand by my comments, whether they apply to you or others.

[brunumb]

I do not regard the Bible as a special case other than to the extent that it represents revealed knowledge from the creator of the universe and all it contains.

When it can be demonstrated that the bible represents revealed knowledge from the creator of the universe rather than the imaginative musings of ancient people, you might have a point. But you admit yourself that what happened in the past isn't really accessible to being proved.

In sum, your position appears to be that you believe the Bible to be the word of God and it is sufficient that it can't be proved otherwise for you to maintain that belief. Seems like the way anyone can prop up a belief in anything, true or false.

[Inquirer]

I do not regard the Bible as a special case other than to the extent that it represents revealed knowledge from the creator of the universe and all it contains.

When it can be demonstrated that the bible represents revealed knowledge from the creator of the universe rather than the imaginative musings of ancient people, you might have a point.

What constitutes "demonstrated"? Is your position that unless you accept this and agree with me, then it has not been demonstrated? is that it? you are using your subjective approval as if it were an objective test?

But you admit yourself that what happened in the past isn't really accessible to being proved.

Indeed, which is why such knowledge must be revealed for us to even be aware of it.

In sum, your position appears to be that you believe the Bible to be the word of God and it is sufficient that it can't be proved otherwise for you to maintain that belief. Seems like the way anyone can prop up a belief in anything, true or false.

My belief in God, a creator, the divinity of scripture is a rational position based upon a huge amount of investigation and fact finding, as a scientist myself I'm well able to undertake such an investigation.

On balance a God, creator with a profound purpose who has revealed information about himself over the centuries and preserved it - unaltered - for fifty centuries, explaining human nature and why our world today is as it is, makes more overall rational sense than the vacuous self referential futile "explanation" claimed by scientism.

This is my position, that all things considered, God makes more sense than inexplicable, vacuous, baseless claims made by atheism.

I suggest you at least make some effort to hear what intellectual, scientifically educated believers have to say, they and I do not just "believe" in all this, it actually makes more sense to us, it is a rational position.

Note the quote of Einstein (a true quote) "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible".

You need to understand that for me and a huge number of others, God, a belief in God, revelation and so on, is a deeply intellectual position, not the mindless, primitive "need" that it is often misrepresented as by many atheists.

By all means embrace atheism, by all means refuse to believe in a universe created by an intelligent God, you are free to do so, but do not make the error of judgement in assuming your position is intellectually more sound, more rational because it is not, I know it is not, that's why abandoned it.

[JoeyKnothead]

My belief in God, a creator, the divinity of scripture is a rational position based upon a huge amount of investigation and fact finding, as a scientist myself I'm well able to undertake such an investigation.

Why, just the other day I was walking by the cemetery there, and folks was just hoping em up out of their graves right and left.

On balance a God, creator with a profound purpose who has revealed information about himself over the centuries and preserved it - unaltered - for fifty centuries, explaining human nature and why our world today is as it is, makes more overall rational sense than the vacuous self referential futile "explanation" claimed by scientism.

Cause claims of a global flood ain't "vacuous".

This is my position, that all things considered, God makes more sense than inexplicable, vacuous, baseless claims made by atheism.

Well there's your problem, right there.

Atheism is a lack of belief, and that's far as atheism goes.

I suggest you at least make some effort to hear what intellectual, scientifically educated believers have to say, they and I do not just "believe" in all this, it actually makes more sense to us, it is a rational position.

Soon ad I find me an "intellectual" religion promoter, I'll be happy to hear em.

Note the quote of Einstein (a true quote) "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible".

Einstein's dead, so we have no way of knowing what he'd think today.

You need to understand that for me and a huge number of others, God, a belief in God, revelation and so on, is a deeply intellectual position, not the mindless, primitive "need" that it is often misrepresented as by many atheists.

"Deeply intellectual" ain't "deeply factual".

By all means embrace atheism, by all means refuse to believe in a universe created by an intelligent God, you are free to do so, but do not make the error of judgement in assuming your position is intellectually more sound, more rational because it is not, I know it is not, that's why abandoned it.

You abandoned "deeply intellectual" when you took up with "And then, after being dead and all, he hopped up and went to town".

[Inquirer]

My belief in God, a creator, the divinity of scripture is a rational position based upon a huge amount of investigation and fact finding, as a scientist myself I'm well able to undertake such an investigation.

Why, just the other day I was walking by the cemetery there, and folks was just hoping em up out of their graves right and left.

On balance a God, creator with a profound purpose who has revealed information about himself over the centuries and preserved it - unaltered - for fifty centuries, explaining human nature and why our world today is as it is, makes more overall rational sense than the vacuous self referential futile "explanation" claimed by scientism.

Cause claims of a global flood ain't "vacuous".

This is my position, that all things considered, God makes more sense than inexplicable, vacuous, baseless claims made by atheism.

Well there's your problem, right there.

Atheism is a lack of belief, and that's far as atheism goes.

I suggest you at least make some effort to hear what intellectual, scientifically educated believers have to say, they and I do not just "believe" in all this, it actually makes more sense to us, it is a rational position.

Soon ad I find me an "intellectual" religion promoter, I'll be happy to hear em.

Note the quote of Einstein (a true quote) "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible".

Einstein's dead, so we have no way of knowing what he'd think today.

You need to understand that for me and a huge number of others, God, a belief in God, revelation and so on, is a deeply intellectual position, not the mindless, primitive "need" that it is often misrepresented as by many atheists.

"Deeply intellectual" ain't "deeply factual".

By all means embrace atheism, by all means refuse to believe in a universe created by an intelligent God, you are free to do so, but do not make the error of judgement in assuming your position is intellectually more sound, more rational because it is not, I know it is not, that's why abandoned it.

You abandoned "deeply intellectual" when you took up with "And then, after being dead and all, he hopped up and went to town".

Thanks for an informative post, I'm sure people had no idea that Albert Einstein was dead or that dead people don't think, another impressive post, bravo!

[JoeyKnothead]

Thanks for an informative post, I'm sure people had no idea that Albert Einstein was dead or that dead people don't think, another impressive post, bravo!

It was mostly meant for them that think ol' Einstein there mighta hopped up and strolled about three days after his death.

[William]

Thanks for an informative post, I'm sure people had no idea that Albert Einstein was dead or that dead people don't think, another impressive post, bravo!

It was mostly meant for them that think ol' Einstein there mighta hopped up and strolled about three days after his death.

E = mc. 2 apparently forbids such carry-on

[brunumb]

I suggest you at least make some effort to hear what intellectual, scientifically educated believers have to say, they and I do not just "believe" in all this, it actually makes more sense to us, it is a rational position.

Professor Lennox drops a lot of names, as if appeals to authority are of any great significance when it comes to proving God, and talks about evidence without actually presenting anything more than personal opinions. He believes in the Christian God because it seems to make sense to him, and that's about all we really learn. What a waste of time.

[Inquirer]

I suggest you at least make some effort to hear what intellectual, scientifically educated believers have to say, they and I do not just "believe" in all this, it actually makes more sense to us, it is a rational position.

Professor Lennox drops a lot of names, as if appeals to authority are of any great significance when it comes to proving God, and talks about evidence without actually presenting anything more than personal opinions. He believes in the Christian God because it seems to make sense to him, and that's about all we really learn. What a waste of time.

I see, so if a theist refers to another person of repute that can only be "dropping names" a disparaging and facile tactic to dismiss what he says.

He referred to evidence, you must have missed it.

Yes these are his opinions who's opinions did you think you'd be hearing?

Yes it makes sense to him, he's a mathematician you see, making sense is important.

The only waste of time I see is your disparaging and dismissive post that quotes him exactly zero times, some rebuttal.