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]

If it was not misleading then it would persist to this day in more recent Bible translations. Using the wrong term for something is to mislead the reader. So it is the use of term that is misleading.

You repeatedly insist that it is misleading, yet have so far either neglected or refused to explain why.

I've answered your question. yet you continue to insist I have not.

You ask "why" it is misleading? well, for the same reason that calling an aeroplane a handsaw is misleading.

[Difflugia]

I've answered your question. yet you continue to insist I have not.

You've repeated that it is misleading. The question is why?

You ask "why" it is misleading? well, for the same reason that calling an aeroplane a handsaw is misleading.

So far, the only answer you've offered for either question is that you've asserted its truth.

[Inquirer]

I've answered your question. yet you continue to insist I have not.

You've repeated that it is misleading. The question is why?

You ask "why" it is misleading? well, for the same reason that calling an aeroplane a handsaw is misleading.

So far, the only answer you've offered for either question is that you've asserted its truth.

That's not true. I just answered "[it is misleading] for the SAME reason that calling an aeroplane a handsaw is misleading"? is it misleading though? do you think it is? or if someone said "we were delayed flying to New York because the handsaw wasn't ready" you'd not find that misleading?

Perhaps this will help you, a definition of misleading:

to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit.

Joey's belief that a belief in God is the same as a belief in ghosts is a perfect example of being misled, in this case by the term "ghost" used in the KJV.

Ghosts aren't real, God is, yet because the KJV uses the term "ghost" Joey was misled into believing that God is fictional like ghosts are fictional.

[Diogenes]

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #64]

Here, in the 21st century "ghost" has connotations rather different to those it had in the 17th century. If I said to you "I am gay" you'd infer a different meaning to what someone would have inferred in 1820 for example. That is you'd be misled into thinking I was homosexual.

[Difflugia]

I just answered "[it is misleading] for the SAME reason that calling an aeroplane a handsaw is misleading"?

What's the reason? Why are you trying to turn this into a staring contest instead of answering a straightforward question about what you mean?

William's comments were insightful:

William: A "religious belief" has to do with the branch of Theism which attempts to Dress The Ghost - [dressing The Ghost through the use of imagery is an attempt to make The Ghost be seen.] which is what religion does with the idea of GOD...this itself stems from the idea that we exist within a creation, something which still hasn't been established.
Thus Theism - and the religious branch in particular, place the cart before the horse.

It isn't immediately obvious that when folk are yapping about "GOD" they are talking about a Ghost. Same as when folk yap about Spirits....

You insultingly dismissed them without explanation:

Sorry, but that's delusional, God and ghosts are entirely different things not the same.

You then went on to dismiss JoeyKnothead's observation that the Authorized Version refers to the Holy Ghost.

You haven't explained what the difference is in reference either to William's comment or the Authorized Version, only derisively hinted that it's self-explanatory. I suspect that you and William had slightly different meanings in mind for "ghost" such that both of your statements are true from a particular point of view. That happens sometimes, but when it's intentional, it's equivocation. Is it intentional? Is that why you don't want to define your terms? Are you concerned that someone might find a narrower word or phrase that's more accurate, but just as unflattering to theists? If not, why is it so important to you that we guess at what you're talking about?

[JoeyKnothead]

This is what Joey said:

when folk are yapping about "GOD" they are talking about a Ghost

I never said any such a thing.

I merely noted the poor ol holy ghost don't get no respect.

Where you said there ain't no ghosts, I was reminded of how here, in the Bible Belt, the holy ghost is mentioned quite frequently.

So now I gotta sort it out - are the millions of holy ghost teller abouters right, or are you, a lone indivual, the one who has it right?

From the telling about it bunch, ya can hear the KJV thumping all across the South. From you, I see ya ain't proud of the KJV bible, but have little beyond that to know why ya ain't proud of it.

[Diogenes]

[William]

William: It isn't immediately obvious that when folk are yapping about "GOD" they are talking about a Ghost. Same as when folk yap about Spirits....

Inquirer: Here, in the 21st century "ghost" has connotations rather different to those it had in the 17th century. If I said to you "I am gay" you'd infer a different meaning to what someone would have inferred in 1820 for example. That is you'd be misled into thinking I was homosexual.

[Replying to Difflugia in post #66]

I suspect that you and William had slightly different meanings in mind for "ghost" such that both of your statements are true from a particular point of view.

I have no problem in thinking GOD as a GHOST {GOD-HOST/G.HOST}

There is no excuse for regular contributors in the forum not getting the gist of my overall position as I also refer to GOD as "Consciousness" [and consciousness is invisible by nature just as are 'ghosts'] and I concur with the likelihood that we exist within a creation and that the creation we refer to as "reality" is indeed an Experiential Reality [experienced by all of us consciously/with consciousness] and I think of this reality as being the product of a Mind I refer to as "Cosmic" - that "Mind" = "GOD" and is invisible and I sometimes also refer to this Cosmic Mind as "The Ghost in The Machine" and created the machine [physical universe] in order to have the particular experience the machine can provide it with.

If the Inquirer thinks GOD is different from that, then I agree with JK and Diogenes and Difflugia that the Inquirer has to clearly explain the difference so we might all better understand the protest the Inquirer is making re the accusation being made that I am being 'misleading'.

[Inquirer]

EDITING ERROR - DELETED.