staff at atheist mental hosptial
I find atheists using terminology in such a way that it is a weapon and hurtful o religious people and obscures their true meaning. I find atheists on CARM using the term "delusional" to indicate that religious people are mentally ill. When pressed they deny that they mean that. They basically say they just mean the ideas are wrong. But they using a term that designates mental illness. A delusional person is "out of his head." He cannot be reasoned with. This is obviously way too strong a word to just designed an idea they disagree with. It makes me wonder if these people even live in the world.
CARM athist board,
Sept 3, 2009
poster named "Too"
OK theists we know you don't think you are delusional when it comes to believing god is something that is not just in your mind, but do you think it is possible for you to have a delusion?
Are delusions possible? If they are how can you tell?
How can you tell the difference between your mind and want you mind creates?
We know optical illusions exist. You see something that definitely is not there.
We know people can think they can fly but they just plummet to their deaths. They obviously were convince their delusion was real.
We know placebos work. Your mind thinks it is taking a drug and it makes things happen as if the drug actually existed.
We know you can lose an arm but the person stills thinks it is there and can feel it.
So is it the size of the delusion? Does a shared delusion carry more reality?
We know for a fact everyone is capable of delusions. We know delusions can be helpful and harmful but they still remain delusions.
Can you know if you are delusion or does someone else have to tell you?
Look how much fiction assumed to be the case is loaded into that statement? Shared delusions? Obviously he's not using this in a clinical sense yet he's giving the impression that he thinks religious people are just out of their heads.
that is a hate tactic, it dennnotes hate, and it's a tactic hate groups use. I say it denotes it I mean not that it merely implies (connotes) but overtly says "I hate you."
I asked them if the op was delusional and the the Poster Roger T steps in:
It may be the result of a delusion. But it certainly isn't a fantastic delusion. And much less delusional than one involving invisible beings capable of creating the natural world.
So does this mean he thinks religious people are out of their heads and need institutionalization? Of course he claims to know absolutely that there can't be a God. One would have to know this or a fact to declare belief in it to be designational.what about the deductive reasoning people like Aquinas did in the ontological argument and the scinece that went into the fine tuning argument. Are these guys actually having delusions as they do the math on fine tuning?
Aussie Dave says:
Before I was converted Hans, I used to think I was rational, just like you infer. However, when I was converted, I realised that that former rationality I had justified to myself was based on ignorance. To gain enlightenment, one must follow Yahweh's formula and believe - then you will "see". It is my prayer that you will take that step one day.
this makes it seem they are using the term "delusion" to just mean a different view point but one that may be somewhat self decieved. Yet the term they use has real legal implications and is extremely insulting.
The one that really takes the cake is by MarcusAurelius
Originally Posted by MarcusAurelius View Post
Conversion disorder is a shared delusion, religion could easily be compared.
Monkey see, monkey do, if you will.
He's invented his own fictional from psychological malady, which defines the basic understanding of sentient being and requires that we all have the same exact perceptions, that of the "shared delusion." do they have any sort of data to back it up. No of course not they don't even try to give any.
Roger T and I have a little tussel:
Meta: (1) it is an ideology
(2) its about hating religious people.
Your ignorance is astounding. Or are you just pulling our legs?
Lets see how much you think you know.
What makes it atheism an ideology? What are the ideological components?
(1) you reduce all forms of knowlege to one
(2) you try to imply that that one form of knowledge is science3, but when science doesn't' back you up you don't accept it. So its not science you use but scientism or perhaps reductionism. that is famously an ideology.
(3) you only credit facts that support your one form of knowledge and reduce everything else out of existence.
(4) you all say the same things
(5) you all look at everything the same way
(6) any idea that i snot in line with this one form of knowledge you mock and ridicule.
(7) you use hate speech to designate anyone who does not accept this one form of knowledge (as we see in this thread).
And where does this ideology make any declarations against religious people?
you would have to missing a brain to not get this. your use of the term "delusional" to dscribe ideas you don't agree wtih is hate it is an act of hate. Because you saying "if you don't agree with me then you are crazy out of your head and can't think for youself." you are saying "you have zero credibility in my eyes if you don't fall in line behind the ideology.
Look at the way he expresses it when he tired to argue with someone who disagrees:
You are completely off your rocker.
he can't even accept the idea that people don't' agree with everything he says. to disagree with this guy is to be insane, no valid, not competent.
If you want to be taken seriously, you should probably think about what you want to say before hitting the submit button.
I'm the one who researched 350 studies that say religious experience makes you whole and less depressed and less mentally ill than people who don't have them. you have no data to back up your bigoted hate speech, and yet you think I have less credibility and I"m not taken seriously?
that's becuase in your eyes there's only one form of knowledge and if you don't accept it you are not a valid person you are to be hated and objectified. we call that way of thinking "ideology!"
he hasn't read Orwell. but he's so intellectual he knows all about philosphy and why it can't prove God and so forth, but he's never read one of the most basic books of the 20th century. This is the problem. Atheism is not an erudite movement anymore. It's a movement of the uneducated rebel.
How would you know what I believe?
I know what he thinks by the stuff he says.
atheism looks like a clear and present danger.