#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is God(s) A Delusion?
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further"
""Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence."
- Richard Dawkins
He is
Side Score: 153
|
He isn't
Side Score: 103
|
|
3
points
To me a delusion is believing in something even if there is no good reason to, or if there is plenty of reason against it. I could believe that I have a million dollars somewhere, that I will obtain once I hit retirement, I could believe that somehow, someway I will obtain this when I need to retire, but I have no reason to, then again can anyone prove me wrong? This would be considered a delusion, and believing in god is to me the exact same situation. Side: He is
"Delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind." (Merriam Webster) A belief in God is not founded in reality, but it is an active distortion of reality that refuses to acknowledge our insignificance, mortality, and the unknown. It is a comforting placation for minds too incapable of fully perceiving and accepting reality. Side: He is
0
points
3
points
1
point
Then you would have proof for yourself that can only be verified to yourself, rationalizing your belief in god, making it not delusional to strictly yourself. However until you prove that you saw god, then your belief in god would still appear delusional to us. You would also have no issue with people perceiving your belief as delusional as your observing would be securing of your belief, you'd be to comfortable in it to let it bug you, or at least me if I worse those shoes in this hypothetical situation. Side: He is
I guess the reason why we don't think it's delusional to believe that the world exists is because everyone can directly perceive the world. What if the same thing goes for God? What if I have a rigorous method that allows everyone to succesfully perceive God, wouldn't that make belief in God non-delusional? Side: He is
1
point
I guess the reason why we don't think it's delusional to believe that the world exists is because everyone can directly perceive the world. What if the same thing goes for God? Does it? What if I have a rigorous method that allows everyone to succesfully perceive God, wouldn't that make belief in God non-delusional? Until I see this method, then I still have to say, I find god-belief delusional. Once you do this, and prove god does exist, then I wlll change my mind on the information and evidence that I have obtained, and say that god-belief isn't delusional, not only would it not be delusional, but it would be delusional not to have god-belief. Or you don't even have to prove god, but make a good case for how it is probable, then it wouldn't delusional either way, however their is nothing that has convinced me to think god is probable. Side: He is
Until I see this method, then I still have to say, I find god-belief delusional. Good question. I am not sure that I truly believe that what I am about to say is true, rather I am an atheist of sorts, but I insist that the similarities between the great world religions can't be coincidental. Anyway, in some form or another, the world religions propose that you can get in tune with some unseen force, entity or aspect of reality if you devoit yourself to the task. In Mahayana Buddhism it is said that every sentient being has buddha-nature which allows being to reach enlightenment. It is said that buddha-nature is an underlying part of mind which is totally pure. It's free from the suffering of Duhka. In Christianity it is said that God is in everyone and everything. It is said that we can achieve liberation if we forget the self so that we may love God within and God outside. This is similar to the concept buddha-nature. In Taoism the God concept is called Tao. Taoist philosophy is about being in tune with this Tao, which means to be in tune with the flow of the world. Tao is the flow of the world. Buddhism has produced the concept called mindfulness. Mindfulness is about being in the present with the sole intention of being in the present. It is said that if we can achieve mindfulness by realising that everything is in flux, everything changes. Taoism proposes that Tao is ineffable, that "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao". In Hinduism, Brahman is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world". Like the Hindus, Buddhists propose that right view can only be attained when we don't fixate any aspect of reality. It is said that right view is almost like no view at all, right view is about seeing everything and therefore nothing in particular. We the Brahman that we can fixate is not Brahman. In Islam, the mystical school of Sufism is about turning the heart away from everything but God. Sufism is thus similar to Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Christianity in that all of these say that we have to forgot the self in order to get in tune with Tao / be liberated by God / attain enlightenment / etc. I hope that it's apparent by now that the great religions work with similar concepts. All the religions express it in different ways, but in all the religions the goal is to be liberated from suffering by getting in tune with something that we don't usually see. For instance, Kierkegaard kept saying that life is fundamentally suffering, and the only way to be free from this suffering is to have a deep faith in God despite his paradoxal nature. So let's assume that there's a similar God concept in all the major religions. All these religions propose similar ways of getting in tune with their Gods. Basically it's about forgetting the self, it's about forgetting all worldly matters in order to see the eternal. This is where ethical conduct plays a big role. In Buddhism for instance, ethical conduct is about reducing clinging and craving, and cultivating compassion for others. In Christian morality compassion plays a big role, we are supposed to forget the self in our love for others. Hinduism has given rise to a lot of, frankly speaking, insane traditions. There's stories of people who haven't sat down in years, fasting to the point of death, etc. These people are trying to forget the self by ignoring their biological needs. In Islam there's a tradition of giving money to the poor. There's also prayer / meditation which is important to devoitees. All the religions discourage sexually to some extent because supposedly, it will only make us lose ourselves in the material world. So that's the method that religions tend to propose. It is said that we can't truly grasp God if we maintain but a tiny bit of selfhood. We can only truly see God if we entirely forget the self, we have to stop caring about anything in the material world. This is the method. There's a very interesting neuroscientific interpretation of all this, but I won't go into that. If you read everything then thank you so much. This post got longer than I had thought it would. :p Side: He is
1
point
Good question. I am not sure that I truly believe that what I am about to say is true, rather I am an atheist of sorts, but I insist that the similarities between the great world religions can't be coincidental. I would agree, I don't think it is coincidence either, neither do I think it is because a god actually exists. Rather I think it because religions are all regurgitations of the same idea. Religions are essentially all the same idea, but with significant differences, they all suggest god being the origin of all existence (except for god's), all have moral guidelines to follow, all suggest their is a supernatural aspect to reality, most or lot of them have some sort of human figure (Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad), etc this makes it very clear that they are all around the same idea, but different ideas of that one idea if that makes any sense. With this logic, all religions must have an origin somewhere, where exactly? I don't know. However I imagine so many religions have sprout for the first sketch through conflicting perspectives, passing through language barriers, and simply different interpretation. Anyway, in some form or another, the world religions propose that you can get in tune with some unseen force, entity or aspect of reality if you devoit yourself to the task. In Mahayana Buddhism it is said that every sentient being has buddha-nature which allows being to reach enlightenment. It is said that buddha-nature is an underlying part of mind which is totally pure. It's free from the suffering of Duhka. In Christianity it is said that God is in everyone and everything. It is said that we can achieve liberation if we forget the self so that we may love God within and God outside. This is similar to the concept buddha-nature. In Taoism the God concept is called Tao. Taoist philosophy is about being in tune with this Tao, which means to be in tune with the flow of the world. Tao is the flow of the world. Buddhism has produced the concept called mindfulness. Mindfulness is about being in the present with the sole intention of being in the present. It is said that if we can achieve mindfulness by realising that everything is in flux, everything changes. Taoism proposes that Tao is ineffable, that "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao". In Hinduism, Brahman is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world". Like the Hindus, Buddhists propose that right view can only be attained when we don't fixate any aspect of reality. It is said that right view is almost like no view at all, right view is about seeing everything and therefore nothing in particular. We the Brahman that we can fixate is not Brahman. In Islam, the mystical school of Sufism is about turning the heart away from everything but God. Sufism is thus similar to Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Christianity in that all of these say that we have to forgot the self in order to get in tune with Tao / be liberated by God / attain enlightenment / etc. I hope that it's apparent by now that the great religions work with similar concepts. All the religions express it in different ways, but in all the religions the goal is to be liberated from suffering by getting in tune with something that we don't usually see. For instance, Kierkegaard kept saying that life is fundamentally suffering, and the only way to be free from this suffering is to have a deep faith in God despite his paradoxal nature. So let's assume that there's a similar God concept in all the major religions. All these religions propose similar ways of getting in tune with their Gods. Basically it's about forgetting the self, it's about forgetting all worldly matters in order to see the eternal. This is where ethical conduct plays a big role. In Buddhism for instance, ethical conduct is about reducing clinging and craving, and cultivating compassion for others. In Christian morality compassion plays a big role, we are supposed to forget the self in our love for others. Hinduism has given rise to a lot of, frankly speaking, insane traditions. There's stories of people who haven't sat down in years, fasting to the point of death, etc. These people are trying to forget the self by ignoring their biological needs. In Islam there's a tradition of giving money to the poor. There's also prayer / meditation which is important to devoitees. All the religions discourage sexually to some extent because supposedly, it will only make us lose ourselves in the material world I can see you have done a lot of research on this subject, and indeed religion has a lot in common with each other if people realized what was the same rather than what was different, perhaps there would be less tension. So that's the method that religions tend to propose. It is said that we can't truly grasp God if we maintain but a tiny bit of selfhood. We can only truly see God if we entirely forget the self, we have to stop caring about anything in the material world. This is the method. There's a very interesting neuroscientific interpretation of all this, but I won't go into that. If you read everything then thank you so much. This post got longer than I had thought it would. :p I much enjoyed the read :), very well thought out. I would say that I find it rather strange how all one needs to do is partake in the philosophy of letting go all material goods, and there are buddhist atheists, so my next question would be, those that partake in the buddhist philosophy devotedly, but still call themselves atheist from lacking belief in god, why couldn't they see god? Side: He is
With this logic, all religions must have an origin somewhere, where exactly? I don't know. Some would say that prehistorical shamanic practices are the roots of the great religions. but still call themselves atheist from lacking belief in god, why couldn't they see god? Well it's properly a problem of language. Christians (those that actually read the Bible anyway) will tell you that God is incomprehensible. I guess when Christians call their God incomprehensible they are talking about the same phenomenon as when Buddhist say 'dependent origination' is impossible to understand intellectually. Buddhists don't believe in a personal God like Yahweh, but their concept of awakening is very similar to the realization of Brahman. Brahman is properly a more impersonal entity than Yahweh, yet we would still call Brahman a kind of God. My opinion is that pantheism is the common thread in all the religions. They all propose that there's something in this world that we don't normally see. Buddhists will merely call this Dhamma, reality as-it-is, Taoists will call it Tao, Hindus Brahman and the Abrahamic religions will simply call it God. So Buddhists will recognize themselves as atheists in the sense that they don't believe in a personal God, but Buddhism is essentially aimed at realizing the same thing that all the other religions are aiming at. The religions have incompatible philosophies, that's true, but I believe their philosophies stem from the same basis. They insist that there is something more, something wholly other which we won't be able to perceive if we approach it in the same way that we approach our everyday problems. Side: He is
1
point
They insist that there is something more, something wholly other which we won't be able to perceive if we approach it in the same way that we approach our everyday problems. See I don't understand this perception, my problem with it, is it is so vague it almost doesn't mean anything. Their has to be a basis to this thing "something more" otherwise it doesn't really mean anything. something more to reality? Of course there is something more to reality? of course there is something more to reality? Though from what you explained it sounds like something more to all material things of reality, this is not at all a strictly paranormal or spiritual thing however. Appreciating more than just material things, and understanding there is more to the material can be VERY secular, knowing that their is love and hate (immaterial things), etc which can be done by anyone, one with no spiritual background or one whom has a heavy religious backgound, that isn't something that belongs to the metaphysical/spiritual/paranormal but rather philosophy on its own. Side: He is
knowing that their is love and hate (immaterial things), etc which can be done by anyone I should probably have been more careful when I said material things. I meant for things like love and hate to be put into this category as well. In fact, anything you can think of should be put into this box. Like the Sufists say the heart should be turned away from everything but God. We have to be indifferent to each and every thing in this world in order to truly see God. It's not just about giving up possesions, it's actually deeper than that. In Buddhist philosophy it's about freeing ourselves from our three fundamental desires. We have to free ourselves from our desire for pleasure, our desire for existence, and our desire for non-attachment. I understand I started out trying to justify a method for seeing God, but honestly, the only description of God I can give you is a methodological one, but bare with me. God is supposedly that which emerges when we stop focusing at anything in this world. When we become indifferent to everything in this world, we will be able to see God. So yeah, this concept of God is extremely vague, bordering on the useless, but that's exactly the point. You can't have a practical relation with God, you can't see him if you want to get something from him. That's the idea anyway. Side: He is
1
point
0
points
0
points
1
point
0
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
6
points
|
It cannot be proved if any God exists, it cannot be proved which religion if any is correct on this basis I don't think God is a delusion and I don't think someone should be scorned for believing in a God or Gods or not. Once it can be proved undeniably that someone is correct fine but until that time I think peoples beliefs should be respected. Debate religion, the discrepancies in religions and the hypocrisies of the followers fine but in the end to call someone's belief or lack of belief delusional just because it differs from yours is arrogant and disrespectful. Side: He isn't
There is no reason to believe in any God(s). However, there are reasons to think that such God(s) are a socially constructed and/or bio-neurological effect. Preliminary research indicates that human genetics at least partially predispose to religiosity. While there is no singular God or set of Gods, religion is a recurring phenomenon across all human societies; if God(s) were real we would suspect that universality but not the variation. When belief in God(s) is accompanied by a particular religious belief, the evidence against its being true mounts: internal contradictions and selective interpretation, flagrant mistruths and misrepresentations of known reality, and so forth. So while it is true that calling any belief delusional for the mere reason that you disagree with it is arrogant, doing so when you have cause to think that it is actually delusional is not. Side: He is
hahahaha. Okay. Here's the way it is. Evidence is in many shapes and forms, and is accepted or denied by many, respectively pertaining to their particular beliefs. Within science, they're all about empirical data, whilst simultaneously acknowledging things, such as dark matter, or frequencies beyond the human threshold, or things that science has yet to "understand". Within spirituality and region, they too are about evidence, yet their evidence is mostly based upon faith and empirical data (physical testimony and scientific data). Whilst simultaneously understanding that spirituality and religion has yet to "understand" the world around them. Similar to science. And so, they're both after the same thing, the truth of the world around them. Science claims "the BEST evidence for truth is empirical data." Spirituality/religion claims "the BEST evidence for truth is both faith and empirical data". So why the discrepancy? It is obvious both are searching for the truth. GOD IS NOT DELUSIONAL. IT IS NATURAL FOR A HUMAN TO BELIEVE IN GOD. Side: He isn't
Evidence is something which proves another thing to be true. In order to prove something you have to utilize the objective and definite, otherwise there is room for ambiguity and uncertainty and therefor nothing is actually proven. While some would claim otherwise, I have never seen an adequate argument advanced as to why the subjective alone should be considered proof of anything. Belief is inherently subjective, and religion is inherently a matter of faith-based belief. Thus, no actual evidence. I also strongly disagree that science and religion are pursuing the same thing at all. Science seeks understanding; it seeks true knowledge where we lack it. Religion seeks explanation; it substitutes assumptive answers without proof where we lack knowledge of certain things, and even were we have definitive knowledge. We knew the earth was round and religion insisted it was flat. We knew the earth revolved around the sun, but religion insisted the sun revolved around the earth. We know human sexuality is genetically predisposed for, and religion insists it is choice. Actual truth is anathema to religion because religion creates clear accounts of what is that allow little to no flexibility. Further, religion has no internal system of checks upon human fallibility and subjectivity. Science does. I quite agree though that it is natural for many human beings to believe in God(s). That belief has served an evolutionary function, as suggested and substantiated by a growing body of bio-neurological research. However, being natural does not preclude delusion. The entire mental phenomenon of delusion is itself naturally occurring. Side: He is
There isn't an option for "sometimes", so I have to go with "No" There are many whacko religious people who believe in things that are in conflict with evidence in the real world. When this happens, they chose to reject the reality and use their beliefs. These individuals are certainly deluded, although probably not in the typical psychological meaning of the word. However, there are many who freely admit that they do not know the details, and attempt to resolve the world based on the evidence around them, in a way that includes the existence of God. These theists, who treat God and their religion as providing philosophical explanations of their existence rather than as a belief in conflict with the reality of science and freely admit that all the facts and knowledge of him is not known are perfectly rational and do not exhibit the telltale irrationality and denial that is typical of self delusion. Side: He isn't
1
point
NO HE ISN'T'' EVERY HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED BY SOMEONE' (HEBREWS CHAPTER 3 VERSE 4 )'THE ONE TRUE GOD JEHOVAH IS NOT A DELUSION. HE CREATED EVERYTHING ESPECIALLY YOU AND ME HIS GREATEST CREATION. TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT CREATION THE STARS THE MOON THE SUN.THE TREES THE SEA,THE RIVERS, THE LAKES, Side: He isn't
1
point
Well, um, science time, boys and girls. So, Big Bang, right? Widely accepted as how the universe was created, right? Well, so basically, what it states is that energy was always there. This doesn't make sense. At all. Something can't have always existed. I mean, that's what science says, right? So, how did something that cannot be created(energy) just randomly create itself? Side: He isn't
1
point
Science makes no claim that something can't have always existed. In fact, the laws of thermodynamics claim just the opposite- that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted to other forms. According to science as we understand it, all matter and energy in the universe has always existed in one form or another, not since the 'beginning' but in fact extending towards infinity in both the past and the future. The big bang isn't usually claimed to be the beginning of time and the universe (at least by those who understand it- plenty don't.), it's a hypothesized backwards extrapolation that more or less fits what we can observe about the current state of the universe and the changes it is currently undergoing. The theory doesn't speak to how or why the matter and energy got condensed into such a small area, or in fact anything prior to it. Side: He is
1
point
I'm going to have to go with No, in this case. Simply stating "I believe in God" or "I do not believe in God" doesn't require evidence or justification, as it's just a statement of belief; you aren't making a claim or assertion of any kind other than stating what you believe. If you believe in God, it is factually correct to state that you believe in God. But claiming "God is a delusion" is making a positive claim, just as claiming "God is real and provable" is making a positive claim. The burden of proof lies on the theist claiming that God is real and provable, as they are making a specific positive claim and presenting it as fact. The burden of proof lies on the atheist claiming "God is a delusion" as they are in fact making a specific positive claim with two components- firstly, that there is no God, and secondly that there is a mental deficiency in the minds of those who believe otherwise causing them to believe in this. While it's not necessary to 'disprove' God in order to not accept the existence of a god or gods as valid, this is taking it a step further. If one is to claim that God is a delusion, in order to use belief in god as proof of this, God would in fact need to be conclusively disproven. As that does not appear to be possible, there needs to be some other evidence to support the 'God is a delusion' claim. Side: He isn't
1
point
God is not a delusion. Have you ever thought who created the Universe? Let's assume that the "Big Bang Theory" is true. If that's the case, who do you think was responsible for the entire process? Did things really move at its own? And if that's the case (again), how did it move? Over the years, religion has been one of the most popular debate among the individuals. Specifically, the subject of the said debate is whether the existence of God is factual or not. There are 'unbelievers' who rather believe in the statement "To see is to believe." That is, whatever things that cannot be perceived by 'their' eyes are said to be fictional or imaginary. The existence of God is evident from our surroundings and even on ourselves- our body. Questions like 'Who was the first person on Earth?' and 'How was he created?' can't simply be proven by science. For the latter, the aforementioned questions still remain a mystery. Let us face it, all things (including universe, galaxies and even the existence of 'black-hole') are created by God. Even the most powerful and greatest person couldn't simply precede the omnipresent, omniscient divine Afflatus. It's indeed unprecedented. Things will not just come to existence without being 'navigated'. There is really 'someone' who makes it move. And that 'someone' could no other than God himself. Side: He isn't
Let's assume that the "Big Bang Theory" is true. If that's the case, who do you think was responsible for the entire process? Did things really move at its own? And if that's the case (again), how did it move? String theory (aka the big bang theory) has been studied for over a century. Surely someone must have though of this already. I am no expert on the matter though, so I would advice you talk to a theoretical physicist about this. There are 'unbelievers' who rather believe in the statement "To see is to believe." That is, whatever things that cannot be perceived by 'their' eyes are said to be fictional or imaginary. No. These people simply do not believe that which has no evidence. There is no evidence for or against a god, therefore they do not believe in one. Before you say "But you must have faith", consider this: Why faith on this? Why are you having in this over that? Let us face it, all things (including universe, galaxies and even the existence of 'black-hole') are created by God Let's assume your argument is correct (which I doubt), then let me ask you this: Why does it have to be God? It could be anything really, it might even be a Flying-Spaghetti-Monster. Side: He is
-1
points
8
points
He is a need. A father figure for the progress of civilization and a guidance to turn to during dark times. ...like when a woman is raped. Without the guidance of a god, forcing her to marry the perpetrator or stoning her to death might not have been considered good options. Now that's what I call progress. Side: He is
1
point
1
point
I never saw this one on browsing list. Anyway. ...like when a woman is raped. Without the guidance of a god, forcing her to marry the perpetrator or stoning her to death might not have been considered good options. Now that's what I call progress. The concept of God is different from the corruption of religion Side: He isn't
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
An imaginary ally inherently provides nothing external. An imaginary god is even less useful, since it will not even provide suitable surrogate for examining the effect of our actions on others since we could not assume that a god would respond in a similar fashion as humans. Also, this does not answer the question - if the imagined god was trying to guide someone, how do you posit that the guidance would be conveyed? And, of course, the next question would be - you believe this based on...? Side: He is
1
point
I can understand if you cannot. This is a high lesson in psychology. People create imaginary friends in order to accompany them in dark times. We believe in the existence of a far stronger creature who can provide us with aid when the world has left us or even a reason to struggle when the burden has become too much. Everything happens for a reason if the imagined god was trying to guide someone, how do you posit that the guidance would be conveyed? Explain? you believe this based on...? Research. Side: He isn't
1
point
I can understand if you cannot. This is a high lesson in psychology an imaginary god/friend is not a high lesson in psychology beyond comprehension. can provide us with aid when the world has left us or even a reason to struggle when the burden has become too much comforting delusions are still delusions Everything happens for a reason What reason is that? Explain? If the god is able to provide aid and guidance, how? Do you hear voices, see visions... Research Then share your repeatable methodolgy so we can all come to the same conclusion(s) Side: He is
1
point
an imaginary god/friend is not a high lesson in psychology beyond comprehension. But the creation of one, is comforting delusions are still delusions You are mistaking imaginations for delusions What reason is that? The need to maintain sanity If the god is able to provide aid and guidance, how? Do you hear voices, see visions... better decisions Then share your repeatable methodolgy so we can all come to the same conclusion(s) The formulation of a divine being belongs to the Level 2 categories of psychological defense mechanism. Side: He isn't
2
points
But the creation of one, is No, it isn't; 2 year olds create imaginary friends. There may be myriad ramifications, but impact is not determinative of whether something is delusional. You are mistaking imaginations for delusions The distinction between imagination and delusion is mostly a matter of degree of conviction. When presented with evidence against god, do people subsequently let go of the idea or create an unfalsifiable one? Knowingly creating an imaginary god to avoid the unpleasant idea of not having a benevolent creator exceeds the conviction threshold. The need to maintain sanity You said "Everything happens for a reason" and I asked what that reason is. Your answer is "[t]he need to maintain sanity"?? The reason everything happens is to maintain sanity?? I think you have cut some things out of context and replied in error. Your repeatable methodology This one is more justifiable since looking back at the thread I can see how the question could have been a bit ambiguous, but the question was in relation to how god conveys guidance. So, in relation to your answer "better decisions", how does god make "better decisions" come about and what do you base that on (the how part)? The formulation of a divine being belongs to the Level 2 categories of psychological defense mechanism. Being an "Immature" defense mechanism does not exclude it from being a delusion. The bottom line is: how does deliberately inventing an imaginary god and then believing in that god and granting it attributes like benevolence and the ability to help you make better decisions, etc. comport with your own definition "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary" ? Side: He is
1
point
No, it isn't; 2 year olds create imaginary friends. And they create it under the same reason-inability to answer questions or simply the need to cope up with fear The distinction between imagination and delusion is mostly a matter of degree of conviction. You got your answer When presented with evidence against god, do people subsequently let go of the idea or create an unfalsifiable one? No. It goes under certain levels of psychological defenses. Starting with Level 1 Your answer is "[t]he need to maintain sanity"?? The reason everything happens is to maintain sanity?? Yes. You may not know about this, but there are plenty of researches conducted to study the process of madness. And it is surprising how easy it is to drive a person mad. Especially when they have no god to pray to the question was in relation to how god conveys guidance. So, in relation to your answer "better decisions", how does god make "better decisions" come about and what do you base that on You already asked this question and my answer was "The invention of an imaginary ally allows a person to see his problem in an external outlook. This is an important part for people who wishes to judge a situation without any hindrance caused by emotions and allows them to make better judgements" Being an "Immature" defense mechanism does not exclude it from being a delusion. Which brings us back to to your post "The distinction between imagination and delusion is mostly a matter of degree of conviction." Delusion is the act of refusing reality. Imagination a healthy act of a healthy mind. You can be religious without being delusional. But you cannot be delusional without being religious. Side: He isn't
1
point
The distinction between imagination and delusion is mostly a matter of degree of conviction. You got your answer Then please address the second part of what I said. If someone is presented with enough evidence against god that they decide to disbelieve all existing gods, yet rather than disbelieve in the concept altogether, they knowingly create an imaginary god to believe in - doesn't that exceed the conviction threshold? But you cannot be delusional without being religious. I'll assume you typed this without thinking since I am pretty sure you are smarter than that. Clearly religious and non-religious people can be delusional. Side: He is
1
point
Sorry for the late reply. Im busy lately If someone is presented with enough evidence against god that they decide to disbelieve all existing gods The problem is, it is impossible to disprove one I'll assume you typed this without thinking Now that I think about it, I guess yes. Sorry Side: He isn't
1
point
The problem is, it is impossible to disprove one You similarly can't disprove the unicorn in the middle of the sun either - yet it would still be a delusion. Also, in the context given, the person has enough evidence to not believe in pre-existing gods and chooses to make one up. In that context, has the conviction threshold been breached? Side: He is
1
point
You similarly can't disprove the unicorn in the middle of the sun either - yet it would still be a delusion. If the belief cannot be disproven (or made out of ignorance), its a healthy imagination. If the belief causes the person to lose his sense of self-respect, now thats the delusion. Also, in the context given, the person has enough evidence to not believe in pre-existing gods and chooses to make one up. If there was a way to disprove the existence of one, then indeed, refusal will amount no less than a delusion. Side: He isn't
1
point
If the belief cannot be disproven (or made out of ignorance), its a healthy imagination. If the belief causes the person to lose his sense of self-respect, now thats the delusion. That does not coincide with your own definition: "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary" If there was a way to disprove the existence of one Nothing can be completely disproved, yet we would consider many things to be delusions. Also, in the given context, all existing gods have been disproved to the satisfaction of the person and yet they knowingly make one up - why would there be a need to disprove something that the person knowingly makes up? Side: He is
1
point
That does not coincide with your own definition: "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary" There is a philosophical rule. "If it cannot be disproven, it can be proven". Ridiculous as it sounds, if we cannot disprove something, then we cannot say that it exist Nothing can be completely disproved, yet we would consider many things to be delusions The question is, how can you say that its a delusion if you cannot even prove that it does not exist? why would there be a need to disprove something that the person knowingly makes up? The question would be, what makes you think its a made up? Side: He isn't
1
point
if we cannot disprove something, then we cannot say that it exist Then if your imaginary friend cannot be disproved, can you say it exists? how can you say that its a delusion if you cannot even prove that it does not exist Are you saying that you must prove something must be true in order to be a delusion??? what makes you think its a made up? In the specific scenario, the god has been created as an imaginary friend, it is a given that the god is imaginary and therefore made up. Side: He is
1
point
Then if your imaginary friend cannot be disproved, can you say it exists? It is in a grey area. Untouchable until science says otherwise Are you saying that you must prove something must be true in order to be a delusion??? Im saying, if you cant disprove it, you cant be sure of your side In the specific scenario, the god has been created as an imaginary friend, it is a given that the god is imaginary and therefore made up. And yet, there are many factors that lead to his creation. From simple questions to a desperate need for mental stability. The question for his existence will remain unanswerable. But the fact that religion came with civilization proves that he isnt a delusion. But a need Side: He isn't
1
point
1
point
The absence of something with no properties can, of course, never be proved - that's the point I was saying, if it cannot be touched nor studied, it falls under the grey area where both sides has equal chances of being correct If someone believes there is a unicorn in the middle of the sun, is that a delusion or not? If theres no proof that will support or go against it. The answer would be "Neighter". Side: He isn't
1
point
1
point
Delusion: a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason Using the same logic that invented the Russels Tea Cup and Spagheti monster, we can say that everything that cannot be proven false can be proven true. No matter how absurb Side: He isn't
1
point
we can say that everything that cannot be proven false can be proven true. The first time that you said "If it cannot be disproven, it can be proven", I thought it was a typo because you followed it by saying the opposite: "if we cannot disprove something, then we cannot say that it exist" - but now it seems that you may not actually know that the 'argument from ignorance' is not an example of sound logic, but an example of a logic fallacy. Side: He is
1
point
Its called "Circular Reasoning" The very basics of paradox philosophy where you always end up where you started. Our argument (or God argument perhaps?) is nothing of the ordinary where it is either "It is true until proven false, or False until proven true" But in the end, we have one answer. If God cannot be disproven and your beliefs does not define your actions, then you are not delusional Side: He isn't
1
point
Its called "Circular Reasoning" You are attempting to use things which refute your argument (e.g. Russel's Teapot and Flying Spaghetti Monster) as your support. Argument from ignorance and 'Circular Reasoning' are both logic fallacies and yet you seem to think they are valid arguments for your position. If God cannot be disproven and your beliefs does not define your actions, then you are not delusional a belief does not have to be wholly disproved in order to be a delusion - in fact, many examples of delusions from the literature (i.e. that organs have been replaced without leaving any scars, that a family member has been replaced with an impostor, that thoughts are being read by others, that a person is the reincarnation of a famous person, that a building or other inanimate object has a consciousness or emotions, etc.) are completely unfalsifiable. Delusion of Control - thought broadcasting All of a person's beliefs influence what actions they will or will not take. Delusions can have positive and negative expressions. Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy with Delusions and Hallucinations: A Practice Manual Side: He is
1
point
Argument from ignorance and 'Circular Reasoning' are both logic fallacies Precisely the logic behind the Russel's Tea Cup and FSM. The argument from ignorance is double edged. Its logic can work both ways and abuses the proverb "Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence" You cannot call them delusional if you cannot prove them wrong first a belief does not have to be wholly disproved in order to be a delusion Your examples are already disproven, being analyzed or condemned as unscientific. None of them supports your argument and I question your definition of "delusion" All of a person's beliefs influence what actions they will or will not take. Delusions can have positive and negative expressions. I agree Side: He isn't
1
point
the logic behind the Russel's Tea Cup and FSM Russel's Tea Pot and FSM are devices used to point out absurdities: The teapot points out the absurdity of trying to have someone provide conclusive proof against unfalsifiable claims (like the existance of any god, more so if that god was deliberately created in a person's imagination). FSM aims to point out some of the absurdities of intelligent design Anyone who actually believes that Russel's teapot or the FSM exist are delusional. You have said: "everything that cannot be proven false can be proven true" and "If it cannot be disproven, it can be proven" - and I am pointing out that both of those are 100% wrong. Your examples are already disproven, being analyzed or condemned as unscientific. What are you talking about? I gave specific examples of known delusions from the relevant literature. I question your definition of "delusion" My definition is largely the definition from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition. (I have one difference which is not applicable in your given scenrio, so I will save for the time when/if that area is broached.) relevant section of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition I agree Well, that's progress I suppose. Side: He is
1
point
Russel's Tea Pot and FSM are devices used to point out absurdities: Correction, it was made to mock religion and its philosophies. Or establish a group with a better chain of command and better philosophies in life "The only dogmas allowed in the FSM is the rejection of dogmas" -Church of FSM Anyone who actually believes that Russel's teapot or the FSM exist are delusional. "In August 2005, in response to a challenge from a reader, Boing Boing announced a $250,000 prize—later raised to $1,000,000—of "Intelligently Designed currency" payable to any individual who could produce empirical evidence proving that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." The challenge is still open on their website and so far, no one has able to win the prize. If you cant prove them wrong, then they aren't. What are you talking about? I gave specific examples of known delusions from the relevant literature. A family member has been replaced with an impostor Capgras delusion. A simple mind illness where the person loses his face recognition ability. It is called Delusion because they are wrong. Their family members has always been there and they are the one who was overthinking things thoughts are being read by others Telepathy. Condemned as unscientific because mind reading has never been apart of human communication. Famous only for the number of frauds that a person is the reincarnation of a famous person also condemned as unscientific because technically speaking, a human infant has a past that has no connection with a dead person. There are plenty of strange intances where some people are born with weird intelligence about deceased people but believing in Reincarnation requires spiritual belief and I dont suppose you will convert. Would you? My definition is largely the definition from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition None of which has said anything about your claims that a person can be called delusional without any need for evidence that he is wrong Side: He isn't
1
point
Correction, it was made to mock religion and its philosophies. Is mocking religion different than pointing out absurdities in religious belief in some significant way that is relevant to our discussion? If you cant prove them wrong, then they aren't. If you can’t completely disprove something, that does not make it true. Appeal to ignorance is a fallacy, not sound logic. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ It is called Delusion because they are wrong. You cannot completely disprove any of those scenarios - in the same way that one cannot completely disprove the unicorn in the middle of the sun, nor a god created in a person’s imagination. None of which has said anything about your claims that a person can be called delusional without any need for evidence that he is wrong There is a need for some evidence and I have presented some evidence - complete disproval is not achievable and is not required. There is a whole category of delusions (bizarre delusions) for beliefs that are entirely implausible – they do not have to be disproved before they can be said to be delusions. Side: He is
1
point
Is mocking religion different than pointing out absurdities in religious belief in some significant way that is relevant to our discussion? Minor correction. Leave it as be. If you can’t completely disprove something, that does not make it true. Indeed. But neither can you claim something false without evidence You cannot completely disprove any of those scenarios Exactly why you cant call it delusion There is a need for some evidence and I have presented some evidence - complete disproval is not achievable and is not required Scientific method does not work that way. No matter how bizarre a claim is, without any evidence to support nor disprove it, it will stay on the grey area- the stage of Hypothesis. Anyone is free to be biased, though Side: He isn't
1
point
Exactly why you cant call it delusion This is exactly where you are wrong. All of those things are well known delusions - by the definition you gave and by the medical literature on the subject. Can you point to one source where those phenomenon are specifically excluded from being delusions? No matter how bizarre a claim is, without any evidence to support nor disprove it, it will stay on the grey area I pasted a link to the relevant except from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders describing the clinical use of delusion including bizarre delusion - did you not read it, can you not understand it, or do you disagree with it (and your own definition)? Side: He is
1
point
This is exactly where you are wrong. All of those things are well known delusions No its not. They are artistic examples of humor and satire aimed at religious folks. It is as real as any religion, as powerful as any god. Can you point to one source where those phenomenon are specifically excluded from being delusions? I pasted a link to the relevant except from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders describing the clinical use of delusion Yes. But what does clinical benefits of delusion has to do with anything? This argument is to analyze the definition of delusion. Nothing more, right? Side: He isn't
1
point
I sure hope you have better correspondence skills in some other mode because your online debate ability is atrocious. I really don't think I can post too much more if you are going to have this much trouble understanding. The "well known delusions" I am refferring to are the ones I posted: Delusion of Control - thought broadcasting Impostor Delusion Delusional Companion Syndrome The literature is replete with references to them: http://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/ http://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/ http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ http://www.schizophrenia.com/ http://health.yahoo.net/galecontent/ http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/10/ http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/ You asked for it Wow - you really search high and low, eh? The homepage for the church of the flying spaghetti monster web-site does not address whether belief in unfalsifiable ideas can be delusional. Yes. But what does clinical benefits of delusion has to do with anything? I think you are confusing links here - I previously posted a link to "Cognitive-behavioural Therapy with Delusions and Hallucinations: A Practice Manual" which had information on positive effects of delusion since you seemed to suggest that if something had positive effect that it was imagination, but if it had adverse effect it was a delusion. I believe that we have since agreed that delusions can have positive effects. My question was related to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which has a description and examples of delusions and the question remains: Did you not read it, can you not understand it, or do you disagree with it (and your own definition)? Side: He is
1
point
The "well known delusions" I am refferring to are the ones I posted: So whats your point? You just gave me some examples of delusion and blew our original topic off its tracks. The homepage for the church of the flying spaghetti monster web-site does not address whether belief in unfalsifiable ideas can be delusional. You asked for it. That is all I believe that we have since agreed that delusions can have positive effects. Yes. I agreed with it and I dont understand why you are bringing that up Our topic is whether God is a Delusion or not. But here you are, frustrating yourself with studies about the kinds of delusions when it is barely even related to anything. I ask, Why? Side: He isn't
1
point
So whats your point? You just gave me some examples of delusion These are all examples of delusions that cannot be completely disproved which goes against what you keep saying. You asked for it. I asked for any supporting literature that substantiates your claims that delusions must be disproved (and you still haven't provided any) - not for a website which makes fun of religion. Our topic is whether God is a Delusion or not. and to have that discussion, you need to understand what a delusion is. studies about the kinds of delusions when it is barely even related to anything. how is information related to defining, describing, and diagnosing delusions irrelevant in our discussion about what constitutes a delusion? Side: He is
1
point
1
point
1
point
I just got back from work. Its time to continue, I guess These are all examples of delusions that cannot be completely disproved which goes against what you keep saying. Apparently, all your examples has already been disproven I asked for any supporting literature that substantiates your claims that delusions must be disproved (and you still haven't provided any) - not for a website which makes fun of religion. It is a supporting literature. Did you even try to check their archives? It is filled with sightings and scientific stuffs how is information related to defining, describing, and diagnosing delusions irrelevant in our discussion about what constitutes a delusion? Because your mistaking imagination and delusion Side: He isn't
1
point
Apparently, all your examples has already been disproven If English is your second language, then I empathize with you since I don't speak any of the other languages I have dabbled in to any high degree of fluency, but why persist when it is obvious that you are mistaken? I think you are conflating delusion with disorder and apparently have no idea what we are talking about when we say that something cannot be completely disproved or is unfalsifiable - shouldn't you become familiar with those things in order to continue debating this topic?? Believing that someone you know has been replaced with an identical impostor may not be a very rational belief, but it is not one that can be completely disproved. It is filled with sightings and scientific stuffs I thought you understood that FSM was satire...?? mistaking imagination and delusion First you said that "studies about the kinds of delusions" were "barely even related to anything" when clearly they are related to our discussion and now you jump to saying that they somehow relate to "mistaking imagination and delusion" - do you see how that is a non sequitur? If not, clearly there is no prospect for progress here. Side: He is
1
point
I think you are conflating delusion with disorder and apparently have no idea what we are talking about What I am saying is that all your examples for delusions can easily be disproven through simple logic. (e.g asking for eyewitness, drug testings and application of the laws of physics) None of which has added anything to the topic of delusion and God I thought you understood that FSM was satire...?? Thats what they say but thats not how they act. My point is to show that if something cannot be proven wrong, it isnt a delusion First you said that "studies about the kinds of delusions" were "barely even related to anything" when clearly they are related to our discussion and now you jump to saying that they somehow relate to "mistaking imagination and delusion" I was simply giving a clarification that you are mistaking delusion and imagination. Simple as that Side: He isn't
1
point
all your examples for delusions can easily be disproven you do not understand what disproven means. None of which has added anything to the topic of delusion and God the definition and examples of delusion aren't related to the topic of delusion and God???? Thats what they say but thats not how they act. People engaging in satire/parody can often act in believable ways - see Poe's law You have to clue the rest of us in on why you come off as so impaired. Are you very young, very old, have a mental illness, are a very recent learner of English? Side: He is
1
point
you do not understand what disproven means. You can put to under trial if you want. Give me an example of delusion that cannot be disproved,perhaps? the definition and examples of delusion aren't related to the topic of delusion and God???? sigh Read the title. We are arguing what makes a delusion and we tested it through valid examples and definitions. How was that not related? People engaging in satire/parody can often act in believable ways Which does not make FSM any less related to defining delusion and imagination Side: He isn't
1
point
Please take a second to think about the absurdity of what you are saying - you are claiming that in order for something to be a delusion, you must first prove that it is true, or, at the very least could be true. A true (or likely true) delusion is an oxymoron. Why are you not getting this by now? Side: He is
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Schizophrenia Schizophrenia itself is not a delusion. Delusions are a positive symptom of Schizophrenia. Stockholm Syndrome Not even close to a delusion. Erotomania Yay, an actual delusion. Erotomania cannot be completely disproved! - the person with the delusion could confront the person they believe is enamored with them, but even if the person emphatically denies having feelings for the person, that does not rule out the possibility that they are lying. Why do you ask? To point out that delusions like Erotomania cannot be completely disproved in the hopes that, by being confronted by the contradiction in your beliefs, you might be able to discover the flaw in your perception. Side: He is
1
point
Schizophrenia itself is not a delusion. Delusions are a positive symptom of Schizophrenia. There are 4 types of delusion. Schizophrenia belongs to the Bizarre type of delusion. Not even close to a delusion. What are you talking about? Stockholm Syndrome belongs to the "Mood-congruent delusion" but even if the person emphatically denies having feelings for the person, that does not rule out the possibility that they are lying. Thats the delusion. Erotomania belongs to the Mood-congruent and it isn't simply skipping the friendzone. Most cases involve being madly inlove with people they dont even know in frightening ways. It can even happen online. Heard of the UTV case? Side: He isn't
1
point
Schizophrenia belongs to the Bizarre type of delusion. I really don't know how to put it more plainly - Schizophrenia is not a delusion. Delusions are one of the symptoms of Schizophrenia. Do you not understand that, or do you disagree with that? If you disagree, is there any professional who shares your opinion that you can point to? Even the wikipedia article you linked to says "Grandiose delusions or delusions of grandeur are principally a subtype of delusional disorder but could possibly feature as a symptom of schizophrenia and manic episodes of bipolar disorder." The article also says that a belief is a delusion if "it is so extreme that it cannot be, or never can be proven true" which supports my assertion that beliefs do have to be completely proven true or false to be delusions. It also lists several examples of delusion which cannot be completely disproved: thought control, capgras/imposter delusion, erotomania, delusional misidentification syndrome, "a man claiming that he flew into the sun and flew back home", etc. Do you not see that the sources you are using reiterate exactly what I have been telling you and do not support your claims? Stockholm Syndrome empathy is not a delusion. It may or may not be based on a delusion (e.g. that their captors mean no harm, have a higher purpose, etc.), but Stockholm Syndrome itself is not a delusion and does not require a delusion in its presentation. Erotomania belongs to the Mood-congruent and it isn't simply skipping the friendzone. Most cases involve being madly inlove with people they dont even know in frightening ways. What you are describing is infatuation not erotomania. Erotomania is not when you are in love with someone else, but when you believe someone else is in love with you. I have to say, it is very difficult to carry on a conversation with someone who creates their own definitions for words and then feels free to change them at will... Side: He is
1
point
Schizophrenia is not a delusion. Delusions are one of the symptoms of Schizophrenia sigh You dont understand it dont you? There is more than 1 type of mental illness. Schizophrenia is the most famous but it isnt everything it is so extreme that it cannot be, or never can be proven true" Exactly what I am saying: "You cannot call something a delusion if you cannot prove it false" Hence, God isnt a delusion "a man claiming that he flew into the sun and flew back home" Can easily be disproven by question his ways of transport or eyewitnesses of what he was doing that night. empathy is not a delusion. Yes it is mate. It is a self induced delusion where in order to protect yourself from pain and despair, you will fall in love with your captors and think of your rescuers as your enemies It is trading your pain for madness. Theres plenty of studies done with it and Disney Princess "Belle" is the prime example What you are describing is infatuation not erotomania. My mistake, I guess? lol Side: He isn't
1
point
You dont understand it dont you? not a sentence There is more than 1 type of mental illness. duh Schizophrenia is the most famous but it isnt everything What does the fame of schizophrenia have to do with whether schizophrenia is a delusion or delusion is a symptom of schizophrenia? Exactly what I am saying Saying that delusions can be things that cannot be true or can never be proven true (or false) is not exactly what you are saying - it is the complete opposite. Can easily be disproven by question his ways of transport or eyewitnesses of what he was doing that night. Well I guess I can confirm that you do not know what completely disprovable means. There were no eye-witnesses and he says he took a unicorn or teleported, etc. Why do you think your own reference uses examples of delusion that you think are not delusions?? We have both agreed that erotomania is a delusion - after you look it up and see what it is, you should look back and see that I told you how it is unfalsifiable. Theres plenty of studies done with it and Disney Princess "Belle" is the prime example Your example of "studies" is a cracked.com article about "5 Romantic Movie Gestures That Were Actually Dick Moves"??? - you are officially a troll. I see no need or benefit in responding to you anymore. My mistake, I guess? Indeed! I encourage you to futher study the issue (and English in general) - there is obviously nothing further to add to this debate and I will no longer be responding unless you have a question that will actually further your understanding. Side: He is
1
point
What does the fame of schizophrenia have to do with whether schizophrenia is a delusion or delusion is a symptom of schizophrenia? Your words: " Schizophrenia is not a delusion. Delusions are one of the symptoms of Schizophrenia." equates to: "Schizophrenia isnt a delusion, but all delusions are a form of schizophrenia" Which means that you reject all other forms of mental illnesses Saying that delusions can be things that cannot be true or can never be proven true (or false) is not exactly what you are saying - it is the complete opposite. And you are supposed to give an example There were no eye-witnesses and he says he took a unicorn or teleported, etc. You can test him for drugs, question how he did it and apply the laws of physics. If he can formulate a valid excuse, it isnt a delusion. We have both agreed that erotomania is a delusion Yes. And your reason why for saying that it isnt disprovable is your words: "the person with the delusion could confront the person they believe is enamored with them, but even if the person emphatically denies having feelings for the person, that does not rule out the possibility that they are lying" You force the possibility that they are lying and withold the existence of possible tests that will decide the answer. (e.g psychological tests, lie detectors, etc...) Hence, its disprovable Your example of "studies" is a cracked.com Did you even bother to read it? Cracked is a well known site for comedies but never for frauds. But if it suits you, heres is their official reference Side: He isn't
1
point
"Schizophrenia is not a delusion. Delusions are one of the symptoms of Schizophrenia." equates to: "Schizophrenia isnt a delusion, but all delusions are a form of schizophrenia" That's stupid! Saying that "Delusions are one of the symptoms of Schizophrenia." does not exclude it from also being a symptom of something else. Which means that you reject all other forms of mental illnesses more utter stupidity. Even if someone said all delusions were Schizophrenia #which is not what I said#, that would not mean there are no mental illnesses which do not have delusions as a symptom. And you are supposed to give an example I, of course, have given several #including agreeing that erotomania is a delusion - notably one that you cannot disprove# test him for drugs, question how he did it and apply the laws of physics. If he can formulate a valid excuse, it isnt a delusion. results come back negative for drugs and he says his unicorn defies the laws of physics. erotomania psychological tests and lie detectors are not 100% reliable - hence, it is not disproved. Cracked is a well known site for comedies but never for frauds. Your belief that the FSM site is "filled with sightings and scientific stuffs" shows that you would be unable to tell the difference. heres is their official reference Really? Their "official reference" is a howstuffworks.com article? You really need to understand the difference between a website and a study. Also, do you notice that neither the cracked.com article nor the howstuffworks.com article support your claim that Stockholm syndrome is a delusion? Do you wonder why that is? Side: He is
1
point
That's stupid! Saying that "Delusions are one of the symptoms of Schizophrenia." does not exclude it from also being a symptom of something else. That we can agree on I, of course, have given several #including agreeing that erotomania is a delusion - notably one that you cannot disprove# I was at fault at the wrong definition. But using simple tests, you can easily prove that the person is wrong and suffering from a delusion results come back negative for drugs and he says his unicorn defies the laws of physics. defies the laws of physics thats the delusion. psychological tests and lie detectors are not 100% reliable - hence, it is not disproved. Alone yes. But combined, its 100% Your belief that the FSM site is "filled with sightings and scientific stuffs" shows that you would be unable to tell the difference. FSM site is a site for satire. Cracked is a place for turning science and pop culture into comedy without ruining the facts. Is there something wrong? Really? Their "official reference" is a howstuffworks.com article? Yes. Its a valid study in a valid website. Whats the matter? Also, do you notice that neither the cracked.com article nor the howstuffworks.com article support your claim that Stockholm syndrome is a delusion? Its a complete process of how delusion works. Bit by bit the person changes his point of view just to stop the pain without knowing that he is turning mad. It is a delusion. Side: He isn't
1
point
That we can agree on You have agreed on several things before only to regress later, but I will consider this progress for now at least. Alone yes. But combined, its 100% Baloney! You are completely making that up. using simple tests, you can easily prove that the person is wrong and suffering from a delusion So far your "simple tests" include getting the person that is the object of the patient's erotomania to sit for lie detector tests and psychological tests, testing the patient for all possible drugs, having the psychiatrist know all possible physics, etc. and you still have not completely disproved the delusion. defies the laws of physics thats the delusion. His unicorn obeys the laws of physics to the same degree that God does – is God a delusion??? Is there something wrong? Yes – I have provided you information from many mental health experts and you have linked to cracked.com and the FSM homepage and nothing you have referenced has supported your assertions. Do you not see the vast disparity between the substantiation of our arguments. Its a valid study in a valid website. Then not only did it not support your claim, but you do not know what a study is. It is a delusion. Again - you have cited nothing that agrees with your assertion that Stockholm syndrome is a delusion. Nothing! Why do you think you care about the topic enough to debate about it for so long, but not enough to actually learn anything about it??? Side: He is
1
point
You are completely making that up. Lie Detectors has an 80% success rate Psychological Tests success rate varies on the type of test given. Now, repeat the process over and over. If you gain the same answers repeatedly, it is time to stop. So far your "simple tests" include getting the person that is the object of the patient's erotomania to sit for lie detector tests and psychological tests, testing the patient for all possible drugs, having the psychiatrist know all possible physics, etc. and you still have not completely disproved the delusion. Thats how the scientific formula works, and thats how a claim can be proven or disproven. His unicorn obeys the laws of physics to the same degree that God does – is God a delusion??? 1. There are plenty of eyewitnesses for the miracles 2. Documents that supports the event There is none for your unicorn case Then not only did it not support your claim, but you do not know what a study is. Are you seriously judging a website without any evidence that the information's are wrong? Again - you have cited nothing that agrees with your assertion that Stockholm syndrome is a delusion. Nothing! Side: He isn't
1
point
Lie Detectors has an 80% success rate Psychological Tests success rate varies on the type of test given. Now, repeat the process over and over. If you gain the same answers repeatedly, it is time to stop. That does not = 100% and it never will - you are stupider than I thought if you believe otherwise. Imagine all the money we could save by not paying the police, FBI, and the CIA, etc for interrogations since they can get to the truth 100% of the time just by asking the same questions until they get the same answers... And, how much of the non-deluded person's time do you think you should be granted to try completely disproving their feelings? If they don't agree to be tested, is the patient automatically cured of their delusion since it can't be disproved? Thats how the scientific formula works Testing the plausibility of unicorns is not how patient diagnosis works... There are plenty of eyewitnesses for the miracles Is the god from your imagination performing miracles now, or have you chosen to switch gods? There is none for your unicorn case There is no possible eye-witness to god's supposed 'miracle' of creation either - did it happen? If people believe it happened are they as deluded as people who believe in unicorns? Google it A howstuffworks.com article from someone with no medical experience (B.A. in English literature from Duke University and a M.F.A. in creative writing from the University of Miami) which specifically states that it is only describing a "most basic, generalised" presentation and even then qualifies delusion by saying, "... what some call an act of self-delusion" - way to support your argument... Here is a counter-example: If I were kidnapped by an initially unknown group - after being moved to the hideout and after things settle down, the kidnappers explain that they do not what to harm me and I see no evidence to suggest otherwise. They explain that they are keeping me hostage in order to compel my government to send much needed medication for a sick child. I meet the child and see that they are unable to afford the medication given their means. I can empathize with them and want them to succeed without being under any delusion whatsoever. It is only when there is evidence that their motives or intentions are false that delusion would be a component. As I said before: "empathy is not a delusion. It may or may not be based on a delusion (e.g. that their captors mean no harm, have a higher purpose, etc.), but Stockholm Syndrome itself is not a delusion and does not require a delusion in its presentation." Moreover I'll say that there are several things that we can agree are delusions so Stockholm Syndrome is not a necessary component of our discussion. You will have enough problems trying to disprove the ones already mentioned: Erotomania Delusion of Control - thought broadcasting, thought insertion, etc. Impostor Delusion Side: He is
1
point
That does not = 100% and it never will I was implying that you should just use some simple math. Just add the success rate of the two and you got your 100%.Thats pretty much the same things that the police do in their investigations evidence + witness + interrogation = case Hence, erotomania can be disproved There is no possible eye-witness to god's supposed 'miracle' of creation either Ah, but there are plenty of inexplainable feats that proves the existence of the paranormal. Most of them were seen by crowds, documented with evidences and tested on laboratories A howstuffworks.com article from someone with no medical experience And does that make the article any less plausible? If all you wanted is a different link, then just click on a different one Here is a counter-example: Your example contributed nothing. Its just a plain story about desperate men doing desperate things. Whats your point? empathy is not a delusion. It may or may not be based on a delusion First link on google says otherwise "The prisoner undergoes what some call an act of self-delusion: In order to survive psychologically as well as physically - to lessen the unimaginable stress of the situation" So does the second "The researchers concluded Stockholm Syndrome was a combination of defensive self-delusion and an effort to “get along” with their captors" Delusion of Control - thought broadcasting, thought insertion, etc. Disproved by applying the laws of physics Impostor Delusion Disproved by eyewitnesses and simple DNA tests Erotomania Denial can only get you so far Side: He isn't
1
point
Just add the success rate of the two and you got your 100%. So, if a lie detector works 80% of the time and just asking people works 20% of the time - you think you would be able to know the truth 100% of the time just by combining the two?? Thats pretty much the same things that the police do in their investigations Do you believe that police get it right 100% of the time?? there are plenty of inexplainable feats that proves the existence of the paranormal Then who is to decide whether a given paranormal experience is real or a delusion? In one breath you say that if something defies the laws of physics it is a delusion, and in the next breath you say that there is lots of evidence for the existence of the paranormal. Your example contributed nothing. It is an example of feeling empathy for one's captors without any delusion First link on google says otherwise addressed in my prior post So does the second Written by a 24 year old student. I know you are working so hard to support your opinion - all the way to typing in the words you like into google, but I don't think you can tell a good source from a flying speghetti monster... Maybe you should try looking at the actual study which she was referencing: INTERPERSONAL IMPACTS AND ADJUSTMENT TO THE STRESS OF SIMULATED CAPTIVITY: AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE STOCKHOLM SYNDROME By: STEPHEN M. AUERBACH AND DONALD J. KIESLER - Virginia Commonwealth University THOMAS STRENTZ - The Academy Group. Manassas, Virginia JAMES A. SCHMIDT - Western Illinois University CATHERINE DEVANY SERIO - Virginia Commonwealth University In: Psychology, Vol. 1 3, No. 2, 1994, pp. 207-221 I did and, as expected, there was no mention of delusion in the study. However it did say: "We evaluate the Stockholm Syndrome transactionally by having both captives and the lead terrorist fill out IMI’s on each other at this point, and by analyzing the relationship between their perceptions of each other and measures of hostage adjustment. As a result, though the Stockholm Syndrome has been defined exclusively in terms of affiliative feelings, we also evaluate the interactive contributions of feelings of control." {at the end of page 208 and beginning of page 209} (provided surroundings for context - emphasis added on the relevant part) Delusion of Control - thought broadcasting, thought insertion, etc. - Disproved by applying the laws of physics Which laws of physics completely disprove thought insertion or reading someone else's thoughts? See also, your assertion that there is lots of evidence for the existence of the paranormal. Impostor Delusion Disproved by eyewitnesses and simple DNA tests Aliens have replaced the patient's friend with an identical copy. Physics does not disprove the potential existence of aliens, there are many 'eyewitnesses' to alien phenomenon and aliens could understand DNA well enough to create a copy that would pass a DNA test. Erotomania Denial can only get you so far Right - it can't get you far enough to completely disprove someone's feelings. If an eye-witness is all it takes, then is there no possible folie à deux? Why do you think medical literature refers to Thought Insertion, Impostor Delusion, Erotomania, etc. as delusions? You can stop putting your foot in your mouth at any time.... Side: He is
1
point
you think you would be able to know the truth 100% of the time just by combining the two? yes Do you believe that police get it right 100% of the time? In the court of justice, either you get it right or you had wrong evidences In one breath you say that if something defies the laws of physics it is a delusion, and in the next breath you say that there is lots of evidence for the existence of the paranormal. I am open for inexplanable events but your case has no evidence that supports it. Its that easy It is an example of feeling empathy for one's captors without any delusion It is an act of self delusion to protect one's self from the pain. addressed in my prior post Justified on my previous post: And does that make the article any less plausible? You skipped it Writen by a 24 year old student. Yes and do you have any evidence that the written informations are false? Maybe you should try looking at the actual study which she was referencing: sigh As a result, though the Stockholm Syndrome has been defined exclusively in terms of affiliative feelings, we also evaluate the interactive contributions of feelings of control. Equates to saying "Although Stockholm Syndrome is defined by the feelings of the person to her captors, we also keep an open mind to the possibility of having a masochistic personality" Nothing has been added to the table, let alone changed anything Aliens have replaced the patient's friend with an identical copy. Then he has to give a proper evidence. Right - it can't get you far enough to completely disprove someone's feelings. We developed psychology for a reason. And knowing someones feelings does not even take an expert to understand. Just type "How to know if someone is in love" will give you valid answers Side: He isn't
1
point
yes um, wow. Then I guess I must point out the obvious that if one thing works 80% of the time and another thing works 20% of the time, there is a potential that the population in which those things are effective may overlap. your case has no evidence that supports it The patient's significant other believes the same thing and provides eye-witness accounts (an example folie à deux which you ignored from my prior post) It is an act of self delusion to protect one's self from the pain. My example was plainly not a delusion in any way. And does that make the article any less plausible? Is an article written by someone who is not a medical profesional, and specifically states that it is addressing the topic in a general way, likely to be less technically accurate than peer reviewed medical literature? Um - yes. Yes and do you have any evidence that the written informations are false? I absolutely do and I posted same. Nothing has been added to the table Nothing except that the study does not support what the student wrote and exactly correlates to my assertion that Stockholm Syndrome does not require a delusion, "Stockholm Syndrome has been defined exclusively in terms of affiliative feelings", but hey, not much other than that.... Then he has to give a proper evidence. So he belives aliens replaced his friend and he is not delusional unless he provides evidence? Do you see how laughable that is? knowing someones feelings does not even take an expert to understand sure, because no one ever undergoes years or decades of psychotherapy - the therapist can usually just walk them through a quiz in Cosmopolitan magazine or help them google it the first day and be done. (Unfrotunately I feel I have to spell out for you that this is sarcasm.) Also ignored: Which laws of physics completely disprove thought insertion or reading someone else's thoughts? Side: He is
1
point
Then I guess I must point out the obvious that if one thing works 80% of the time and another thing works 20% of the time, there is a potential that the population in which those things are effective may overlap. Yes The patient's significant other believes the same thing and provides eye-witness accounts Eyewitnesses are one thing. But without any evidences that said event actually happened, then society will dismiss it as a poor attempt for a fraud I absolutely do and I posted same. Judging an article based on the age of the author is just a pathetic form of discrimination. Nothing except that the study does not support what the student wrote and exactly correlates to my assertion that Stockholm Syndrome does not require a delusion, In what way? You simply pointed out a statement saying how a Stockholm Syndrome is defined. So he belives aliens replaced his friend and he is not delusional unless he provides evidence? Yes and its called "The Burden of Proof" sure, because no one ever undergoes years or decades of psychotherapy Sounds like you gave up. If you wont raise an argument, then its cool for me Which laws of physics completely disprove thought insertion or reading someone else's thoughts? Human conversation is limited on the 5 senses. Plenty of experiments has been made to prove the existence of esp. All of them was proven to be fake. Side: He isn't
1
point
Yes Yes as in - Yes you agree that you were catastrophically wrong in your assumptions once again?? Eyewitnesses are one thing. But without any evidences that said event actually happened, then society will dismiss it as a poor attempt for a fraud Or a delusion - which is the point.... Judging an article based on the age of the author is just a pathetic form of discrimination. So if a 2 year old said it, you would be ok using it to substantiate your claim? Also note that not only did I point out that she is a 24 year old student and not a medical professional, but I additionally verified that the study she referenced did not support her claim. Shouldn't you have verified it before offering it up? You simply pointed out a statement saying how a Stockholm Syndrome is defined In a discussion about what is Stockholm Syndrome - I pointed out the definition from the study she referenced completely agrees with me. Yes and its called "The Burden of Proof" The burden of proof is on the deluded person to prove they are deluded?? Sounds like you gave up. Wow. I explicitly stated that I was posting sarcasm and you still failed? Incredible. Human conversation is limited on the 5 senses. Prove it! That is what you are asking therapists to do. If you cannot completely disprove even the possibility of it happening, you are saying that it cannot be considered a delusion. Experiments not proving that it exists is not the same as proving that it cannot exist. So: you don't know what it means to completely disprove something, you didn't know what conviction meant (after agreeing with me that it was the delineating factor), you didn't know what Erotomania meant (after proffering it as a delusion), do not understand sarcasm even when it is explicitly pointed out to you, completely disagree with all medical literature on what a delusion is, offer google and parody sites as your only sources, etc. etc. I will no longer respond to you in this debate; I am sure no one will blame me for not continuing to state the obvious to the oblivious. Side: He is
1
point
Sorry for the late reply. I got stuck with work again. Yes as in - Yes you agree that you were catastrophically wrong in your assumptions once again?? I am open for corrections. Please state it So if a 2 year old said it, you would be ok using it to substantiate your claim? It was written by a person above 20 with valid references. Your example is a bad one In a discussion about what is Stockholm Syndrome - I pointed out the definition from the study she referenced completely agrees with me. Your claim was Stockholm Syndrome isnt a delusion Your study states that "Although Stockholm Syndrome is defined by the feelings of the person to her captors, we also keep an open mind to the possibility of having a masochistic personality" How was that related to anything? The burden of proof is on the deluded person to prove they are deluded?? The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. Otherwise, he will be dismissed as delusional I explicitly stated that I was posting sarcasm You did not post an argument. Sarcasm is one of the fancy ways of escaping the debate without admitting defeat. Prove it! Now it is up to you to prove the existence of telepathy or ESP in general I will no longer respond to you in this debate lol thats cute :) Side: He isn't
1
point
defies the laws of physics thats the delusion. Rather than argue with me, maybe you should argue with yourself for a while until you figure it out... "There are plenty of unexplainable feats that supports the existence of the paranormal and celestial. You cannot call something delusion just because you cannot explain its cause" ref "Being unexplainable isnt being false." ref Both were said by you just 3 days ago. Side: He is
1
point
You mistook my claims again. But I understand. Here is the complete list of the flaws on the claims of your case 1. There was no eyewitness 2. No valid documents to support it 3. Everything was merely from the words of an ordinary man. Its all common sense from here on out. Side: He isn't
1
point
I notice that you have still avoided my question, so I will ask again: If the distinction between imagination and delusion is a matter of degree of conviction which you conceded to, then at what point has that threshold been exceeded? In your specific scenario, the person has already been convinced that existing gods do not exist and choses to create an imaginary friend god - does that surpass the conviction threshold? Side: He is
1
point
If the distinction between imagination and delusion is a matter of degree of conviction which you conceded to, then at what point has that threshold been exceeded? When the actions defied common sense for the sake of a belief that made no sense In your specific scenario, the person has already been convinced that existing gods do not exist and choses to create an imaginary friend god - does that surpass the conviction threshold? Creating an imaginary friend is different from creating a God, mind you. Though both cases was created under the same reasons, they are still different Side: He isn't
1
point
1
point
1
point
Religion=God, there is no difference, there is only origanized religion and personal religion. If a person believes in God, their personal preferences in life will be reflected inbtheir idea of God. For example, I am a heterosexual male and I support equal rights for gays. But I will be perfectly honest to admit that I find acts of homosexuality to be repulsive, but what I realize is that it is because they are predisposed to be attracted to the same sex as much as I am to the opposite sex, therefore I respect what they do in their personal life without interference. However if I believed in a God (or some other sort of higher power) then I might take my personal disgust of homosexuality to be a sign from God that it isnt right, making my discomfort justified and I have the right to hate gays simply because my God hates gays. Side: He is
1
point
You just said the difference. Believing in a God is to believe in the form of a higher being. Believing in Religion is let others tell you what to believe in. A personal God allows a person to live normally without any need for worship. A religion sets aside the definition of normal life to make way for pleasing their god/s. Side: He isn't
You certainly took the text out context to reach the misguided opinion. “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. An amplified look shows the second scenario to mean a man violating a virgin by taking away her virginity through the act of fornication, and not rape. "Seize" is more in the context of a man convincing a woman to give up her valued virginity. That she didn't cry for help as in the preceding preceding scenario shows that it was consensual. That they are found shows they had conspired to keep their sexual relationship private, until their sexual relationship could no longer remain private. To save the virgin from shame of losing her virginity outside of marriage, seeing that no other man would approach her for marriage in the very conservative society, the man must marry her. The payment of money is in the context of a dowry. And in speaking of progress, scientific inquiry thrived the most in a Christian background. Side: He isn't
3
points
1
point
4
points
1
point
3
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
3
points
1
point
There are certain levels to consider before you call something a delusion. The ability to conceptualize beautiful scenes and origins of the universe is a healthy display of imagination. But to let your inner voices command your actions, that is called "insanity". Side: He isn't
2
points
1
point
1
point
Delusion - a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. And what part of that means except when it 'provides comfort and guidance'? 'evidence to the contrary' would, in some respects, depend on the god that is believed in, but regardless of which god, the evidence that the believer uses to not believe in all of the other gods humans have invented and the fact that humans have invented so many gods to explain phenomena they did not understand are good 'evidence to the contrary'. Any time there has been a falsifiability established where if science is right x will happen and if what we know of god is right y will happen - x has happened. (e.g. the earth is round, orbits the sun, the sun and moon are not in our atmosphere, there are transitional fossils, the universe is > 13 billion years old, etc.) After which religion either claims its texts to be metaphorical or just decides to deny reality altogether. a side effect of mankinds intelligence and inability to answer everything I agree that god is in large part a result of the human ability to ask certain questions before we had the answers, but just because we understand how the early concept of god was rationalized does not mean god wasn't/isn't a delusion. Side: He is
2
points
'evidence to the contrary' would, in some respects, depend on the god that is believed in, But there was never any evidence that disproves nor supports the existence of a god. The existence of many religions are attempts after attempts to control the society into the favor of the leaders. But it provides nothing to the argument of whether God exists or not. After which religion either claims its texts to be metaphorical or just decides to deny reality altogether. Indeed, religion is corrupted. I believe in a God without any need for Religious dogma but just because we understand how the early concept of god was rationalized does not mean god wasn't/isn't a delusion Creating an imaginary answer is called a "Hypothesis". It is an act that is not only normal but promoted as well. It is imagination that allows people to achieve great heights. But when you started to worship your ideas and even resort to violence to people who go against it. Thats what you call "Delusion" Religion falls there. But the belief in a God itself, doesn't. Side: He is
1
point
there was never any evidence that disproves nor supports the existence of a god You don't have to completely disprove (an actual impossibility) that a unicorn isn't at the center of the sun to consider someone who believes it to be delusional, you just have to have evidence against its likelihood. I believe in a God without any need for Religious dogma So, you decided to look at a chain of imaginary gods that didn't meet your approval and subsequently invented your own... ?? Do you chose to simply call whatever created the universe god - making it unfalsifiable and useless (and possibly detrimental to the pursuit of the universe's actual origins), or have you ascribed some cool attributes to your god such as the ability to hear our thoughts and prayers and watch us masturbate? Can s/he subvert the laws of physics (perform miracles) to answer those prayers? Is your new god benevolent? Is there an afterlife in your new religion? Is your god a unicorn at the center of the sun? an imaginary answer is called a "Hypothesis" Hypotheses are only useful if they are falsifiable or help in making predictions. If there have been a 1000 god hypotheses and you believe them all to be wrong, wouldn't it make some sense to hypothesize something different? when you started to worship your ideas and even resort to violence to people who go against it. Thats what you call "Delusion" where is "resort to violence" in: "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary"? Side: He is
1
point
you just have to have evidence against its likelihood. You cannot disprove something that does not have a nature. Let alone one without any physical form So, you decided to look at a chain of imaginary gods that didn't meet your approval and subsequently invented your own... ? Yes. And its called "Theism" We believe in a benevolent being that created the universe and that its. We have no need for acts of worship nor hierarchy. Hypotheses are only useful if they are falsifiable or help in making predictions. If there have been a 1000 god hypotheses and you believe them all to be wrong, wouldn't it make some sense to hypothesize something different? Its called "Trial and Error" The art of worship improves over time as we evolve our concept of morality. The old gods are vicious and frightening as the old civilization needs to be strong in order to fight of and barbarians. The new religions are pacifists as we have learned the value of cooperation and unity And it is still improving where is "resort to violence" in: "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary"? Aggression comes after Denial Side: He is
1
point
You cannot disprove something that does not have a nature. That doesn't make it exist - if someone believes in the unicorn in the middle of the sun, or the dragon in my garage which has the same properties as god (namely, none) - they are delusional - even if they cannot be completely disproved. We believe in a benevolent being So, now your god does have a nature?? What evidence is there of benevolence rather than neutrality or malevolence? How do you know we are not just your god's ant-farm? Its called "Trial and Error" It cannot be trial and error if the position is unfalsifiable. "The art of worship improves over time" apparently it has improved to the point where it has become useless: "We have no need for acts of worship". Is there no need for worship because worship cannot affect your god, or because your god cannot, or will not, affect our universe based on that worship, or... ? it is still improving Maybe it can improve by being based not on an eternal watcher and heaven/hell, etc. but on morality of a human society sharing a planet together in the form that we currently have. Also, isn't an evolving nature for god evidence that man made the concept of god in the first place, and is free to re-invent at anytime, or free to just stop believing? Aggression comes after Denial and d'Nile ain't just a river in Egypt, but that doesn't really answer the question does it? Side: He is
1
point
That doesn't make it exist Indeed. What evidence is there of benevolence rather than neutrality or malevolence? How do you know we are not just your god's ant-farm? Theres none which is why its called "belief". It cannot be trial and error if the position is unfalsifiable. It is trial and error when the results are improving apparently it has improved to the point where it has become useless Tell that to the people who crowds around the church during dark times. Is there no need for worship because worship cannot affect your god, or because your god cannot, or will not, affect our universe based on that worship, or... ? Theism is all about having the spritual ideas of a religious man but living their life as an Atheist. That is all you need to know. Also, isn't an evolving nature for god evidence that man made the concept of god in the first place, and is free to re-invent at anytime, or free to just stop believing? Which brings us back to our roots. The concept of God is a side effect of human intelligence and incapability to answer everything Religion is the proof that mankind will always crave for power. No matter on what group. and d'Nile ain't just a river in Egypt, but that doesn't really answer the question does it? I was pointing out the typical reaction from religious freaks. Side: He is
1
point
Thats not a healthy display of imagination, if you believe it to be true. If someone writes a book of mythology but acknowledges it as a work of fiction (like Tolken and Lord of the Rings) then thats a healthy imagination. To believe fairytales like that actually happened, is insanity Side: He is
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
3
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
Wow. This argument is so weak I don't know where to start. I'll try to keep it simple. A. We are AWARE that movies are fantasy and we don't, at least consciously, attempt to shape our believes, choices and actions based on what we were told in a movie. Belief in God is quite different. B. People do not believe in God for enjoyment, but because they assume it is true and real. This is a terrible analogy. C. There are alternative and secular ways to find comfort and guidance outside of beliefs in the supernatural. Side: He is
2
points
That is just a nonsense. The delusion is that you have to obey an invisible magician is useless and crippling. More is society religious less developed it is. God is a plague that poisons minds, makes you happy with what you have, you do no progress anywhere you are just repeating rituals. Side: He is
2
points
0
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
0
points
Correction: "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." Your the one who said this one "Letting that imaginary friend rule over your life" I said this as the boundary that divides the definition of imagination to delusion. These two things are not the same. Indeed . Ill keep up with you in an interval of a few days Side: He isn't
2
points
0
points
1
point
0
points
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
In part this is the debate creator's fault for not including specific definitions, but where they are not given I think we are to use the normal meaning of the words. Instead of arguing whether belief in god is a delusion, you are attempting to make a semantic arguments related to the word 'belief' and the word 'God'. Basically saying that if you reduce God to an imaginary friend with no extrinsic attributes and only halfheartedly believe in that God, then you might be able to avoid delusion, but I think you also avoid the point of the debate. Side: He is
1
point
Im really sorry for another extremely late reply. Im really busy right now Instead of arguing whether belief in god is a delusion, you are attempting to make a semantic arguments related to the word 'belief' and the word 'God'. Basically saying that if you reduce God to an imaginary friend with no extrinsic attributes and only halfheartedly believe in that God, then you might be able to avoid delusion, but I think you also avoid the point of the debate. Actually, my argument was more on the "Believing in a God is Normal" and I contradicts your stance that "Believers are delusional" Side: He isn't
1
point
1
point
Believing in an imaginary friend god with no attributes just as a defense mechanism is not the "normal" belief. No silly. It does not work that way. Every evolutionary achievements has its certain disadvantages. The disadvantage of having high Intelligence is that you are extremely sensitive to changes and prone to stress. To protect ourselves from its self destructive effects, we have evolved mentally to create specific psychological defenses Religion was first a medicine against loneliness and a tool to unite a group. Until we learned to weaponize it Side: He isn't
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Imagination is the ability to form new images and sensations that are not perceived through sight, hearing, or other senses. Delusion a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary Sanity the condition of having a healthy mind Conviction The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged. The border line between Delusion and Imagination is the persons ability to maintain his grip to reality. Hence, sanity. Conviction has no relation to our topic and I dont even know how you came to the idea of having it on our table Side: He isn't
2
points
Conviction The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged. Wow. I have seen some responses to your arguments asking whether English is your second language and have seen some instances where your replies were confusing or grammatically incorrect etc., but until now I haven't actually thought that you just might not be very smart. Your definition seems to come from the first definition here, but, in case you are unaware, some words have multiple meanings. Like definition #3 from the same link: "A fixed or strong belief." Conviction has no relation to our topic and I dont even know how you came to the idea of having it on our table re-read the definition you copied and pasted for delusion and see if you can determine how 'conviction' is 'on our table': "a belief held with strong -> conviction <- despite superior evidence to the contrary" (emphasis added) I try to be somewhat forgiving on grammar and anyone can see that I am not perfect in that regard, but when it impedes understanding the argument you are trying to make, I feel I have to call it out - especially when the arguments are semantic in nature. Please take your time, understand the issue and decide the point you are trying to make, then take the necessary time to phrase it cogently. It will save us both a lot of back and forth as this debate will elucidate. Side: He is
1
point
1
point
You just pointed out a few linguistic errors. I was pointing out that you didn't seem to know the definition of conviction as used in your given definition of delusion - that seems somewhat significant to me. Whether a person is delusional or not is judged by the measure of his sanity. Your reliance on "sanity" as the delineation is basically an attempt to make a tautological argument such as: the measure of mental impairment (delusion) is determined by the measure of mental impairment (sanity). It says nothing of what empirically distinguishes imagination from delusion. The definition you gave does exactly that - "strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary". In terms of evidence to the contrary in your specific scenario the person does not believe in any of the traditional notions of god and instead creates one in their imagination, so evidence to the contrary for customary belief in god is already assumed. And all possible evidence to the contrary of the imaginary god is present - the inventor going through the process of creating the god, etc. The only remaining aspect - per the definition you gave - is 'strong conviction' (meaning strong belief - not a determination by a jury...) If a person actually maintains a belief in that imaginary god, the conviction threshold is surpassed and the belief is a delusion. Side: He is
1
point
the measure of mental impairment (delusion) is determined by the measure of mental impairment (sanity) Correction, sanity is the state of a healthy mind where healthy thoughts are allowed. Delusion is the state of an unhealty one. The only remaining aspect - per the definition you gave - is 'strong conviction' (meaning strong belief - not a determination by a jury...) You're just playing with words. There is a word for strong belief and that is "Faith". But nevertheless, we are still in the same melting pot. Strong belief in anything does not equate to irrational behaviors and inhumane atrocities. Insanity does Side: He isn't
1
point
Correction, sanity is the state of a healthy mind wow - I'll spell it out even further - by "measure of mental impairment (sanity)" I mean on a scale from sane to insane. There is a word for strong belief and that is "Faith" There is a whole book just dedicated to synonyms, maybe you've heard of it - it is called a thesaurus. Using 'strong conviction' which is from your given definition is not just playing with words; if it is, then I sure wish you would play with words yourself since you seem to completely ignore your own given definition. Your presented definition: a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary Nothing in that definition says that the person must commit inhumane atrocities or that they must believe something which is completely disprovable and disproved or that it can't be useful as a defense mechanism, or any of the other arguments that you are making which are outside of your own definition. Would you like to change your definition to include some of these factors or would you like to stay within the given definition?? Side: He is
1
point
There is a whole book just dedicated to synonyms I see. Nothing in that definition says that the person must commit inhumane atrocities or that they must believe something which is completely disprovable It does actually. Every single person, (no matter what he believes in) follows a certain code of conduct based on the self-preservation and survival of the species. It can be from simple politeness and artistic imagination to the founding of united countries An insane person on the other hand lacks a sense of humanity for he cannot see himself on others. Hence, he sees nothing wrong in being cruel Side: He isn't
1
point
It does actually. Where? Every single person, (no matter what he believes in) follows a certain code of conduct based on the self-preservation and survival of the species. It can be from simple politeness and artistic imagination to the founding of united countries Lots of irrelevant gibberish. Delusions can have positive effects. A statement which, as of the day before yesterday, you agreed with ref An insane person on the other hand lacks a sense of humanity for he cannot see himself on others. Hence, he sees nothing wrong in being cruel you are describing psychopathy/sociopathy, not delusion. Side: He is
1
point
Where? Advance lessons in evolutionary psychology Delusions can have positive effects. A statement which, as of the day before yesterday, you agreed with ref Yes. but our argument is the discussion of what divides imagination and delusion. What does that have to do with anything? you are describing psychopathy/sociopathy, not delusion. Actually, I was proving why sanity is the red line that differs imagination and delusion. Contradictory to your claim- conviction Side: He isn't
1
point
Advance lessons in evolutionary psychology Another complete non-sequitor answer of course.... The question was "Where" in the definition you gave: "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary" does it require that the person must commit inhumane atrocities or that they must believe something which is completely disprovable? I was proving why sanity is the red line that differs imagination and delusion. Describing psychopathy/sociopathy does not prove sanity to be the distinguishing factor for a delusion. Contradictory to your claim- conviction well my claim, and the description in the diagnostic literature, and your own definition... Side: He is
1
point
"a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary" does it require that the person must commit inhumane atrocities or that they must believe something which is completely disprovable? No. You do not have to be cruel to be insane. But you have to be insane in order to appetite the acts of atrocities Describing psychopathy/sociopathy does not prove sanity to be the distinguishing factor for a delusion. It presented the acts that defines a healthy imagination and an unhealthy delusion. So it does well my claim, and the description in the diagnostic literature, and your own definition... You gave me clinical literature that defines delusion but does not say anything about Conviction being the border. EDIT: I will be gone for a few days. Side: He isn't
1
point
You gave me clinical literature that defines delusion but does not say anything about Conviction being the border. actually, they do exactly that: "The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradicting evidence regarding its veracity." Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition I will be gone for a few days. Cool - hope it is for something good. Side: He is
1
point
actually, they do exactly that: Thats an interesting study. I am currently reading the book online but I cant find it in the table of contents. Can you tell me the page number? Side: He isn't
1
point
1
point
Page 87 of your book says: "Differential Diagnosis Autism spectrum disorder. Autism spectrum disorder is the primary diagnostic consideration for individuals presenting with social communication deficits. The two disorders can be differentiated by the presence in autism spectrum disorder of restricted/ repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities and their absence in social (pragmatic) communication disorder. Individuals with autism spectrum disorder may only display the restricted/repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities during the early developmental period, so a comprehensive history should be obtained. Current absence of symptoms would not preclude a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, if the restricted interests and repetitive behaviors were present in the past. A diagnosis of social (pragmatic) communication disorder should be considered only if the developmental history fails to reveal any evidence of restricted/repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Primary deficits of ADHD may cause impairments in social communication and functional limitations of effective communication, social participation, or academic achievement Social anxiety disorder (social phobia). The symptoms of social communication disorder overlap with those of social anxiety disorder. The differentiating feature is the timing of the onset of symptoms. In social (pragmatic) communication disorder, the individual has never had effective social communication; in social anxiety disorder, the social communication skills developed appropriately but are not utilized because of anxiety, fear, or distress about social interactions. Intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) and global developmental delay. Social communication skills may be deficient among individuals with global developmental delay or intellectual disability, but a separate diagnosis is not given unless the social communication deficits are clearly in excess of the intellectual limitations. Unspecified Communication Disorder 307.9 (F80.9) This category applies to presentations in which symptoms characteristic of communication disorder that cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning predominate but do not meet the full criteria for communication disorder or for any of the disorders in the neurodevelopmental disorders diagnostic class. The unspecified communication disorder category is used in situations in which the clinician chooses not to specify the reason that the criteria are not met for communication disorder or for a specific neurodevelopmental disorder, and includes presentations in which there is insufficient information to make a more specific diagnosis." I cant find your qoute. Is it in a different page? Side: He isn't
1
point
What you have posted is from page 49. CreateDebate messes up links with ampersands in them, but I will try posting again: http://books.google.com/ That should take you straight to page 87 Side: He is
1
point
You link gives no pages. It simply directs me to the main page for DSM 5. How bout you just download the same pdf file that I use and tell me on what page it is again. I really want to see that study EDIT: I found it. I removed the preface and introduction. Here is page 87: "SchiZOphreniâ spectrum and other psychotic disorders include schizophrenia, other psychotic disorders, and schizotypal (personality) disorder. They are defined by abnormalities in one or more of the following five domains: delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking (speech), grossly disorganized or abnormal motor behavior (including catatonia), and negative symptoms. Key Features That Define the Psychotic Disorders Delusions Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g., persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose). Persecutory delusions (i.e., belief that one is going to be harmed, harassed, and so forth by an individual, organization, or other group) are most common. Referential delusions (i.e., belief that certain gestures, comments, environmental cues, and so forth are directed at oneself) are also common. Grandiose delusions (i.e., when an individual believes that he or she has exceptional abilities, wealth, or fame) and érotomanie delusions (i.e., when an individual believes falsely that another person is in love with him or her) are also seen. Nihilistic delusions involve the conviction that a major catastrophe will occur, and somatic delusions focus on preoccupations regarding health and organ function. Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. An example of a bizarre delusion is the belief that an outside force has removed his or her internal organs and replaced them with someone else's organs without leaving any wounds or scars. An example of a nonbizarre delusion is the belief that one is under surveillance by the police, despite a lack of convincing evidence. Delusions that express a loss of control over mind or body are generally considered to be bizarre; these include the belief that one's thoughts have been "removed" by some outside force {thought withdrawal), that alien thoughts have been put into one's mind (thought insertion), or that one's body or actions are being acted on or manipulated by some outside force (delusions of control). The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity. Hallucinations Hallucinations are perception-like experiences that occur without an external stimulus. They are vivid and clear, with the full force and impact of normal perceptions, and not under voluntary control. They may occur in any sensory modality, but auditory hallucinations are the most common in schizophrenia and related disorders. Auditory hallucinations are usually experienced as voices, whether familiar or unfamiliar, that are perceived as distinct from the individual's own thoughts. The hallucinations must occur in the context of a clear sensorium; those that occur while falling asleep (hypnagogic) or waking up" I still cannot find your qoute Side: He isn't
1
point
My quote: "The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradicting evidence regarding its veracity." is the last sentence before "Hallucinations". The only difference I see is that I typed contradicting instead of contradictory because I had to type it from the book instead of copying and pasting. I don't think the slight typing error impacts the meaning. Side: He is
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You gave me a good source It is the same source I referenced 2 weeks ago. ref your source took no sides. Whats the problem? I said 48 days ago that "The distinction between imagination and delusion is mostly a matter of degree of conviction." ref Initially, you agreed. ref Then, as is apparently your pattern and practice, you changed your argument completely. First by not even understanding what conviction meant in the given context, then you said: "I was proving why sanity is the red line that differs imagination and delusion. Contradictory to your claim- conviction" ref Subsequently you said: "You gave me clinical literature that defines delusion but does not say anything about Conviction being the border." (emphasis added) As you have found, the APA manual explicitly agrees with my "degree of conviction" assertion and yet you are trying to use the first part of that sentence in order to say that the manual is neutral. That is at minimum completely wrong and if I thought you were smart enough to know what you were doing, I would call it flat out deceptive. Side: He is
1
point
As you have found, the APA manual explicitly agrees with my "degree of conviction" assertion sigh Ever since the first one, I agreed, thats a fact. But the breaking point is when you misunderstand your own sources. "The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradicting evidence regarding its veracity." Equates to saying "It is hard to tell if a man is delusional or just stubborn to learn" None of which has said anything about what defines the border between delusion and imagination. Side: He isn't
2
points
Certainly. And the difference between imagination and delusion is: When I imagine something, I believe or claim to know that it IS a fantasy, it is not real. When I am delusional, I believe or claim to know that the very same thing is REAL, it is NOT a fantasy. Which one does the belief in God fall under? Side: He is
1
point
1
point
Sorry for the extremely late reply. I was burdened by work Well, if you have no evidence to back up god, then he/she is only found in your imagination is it not? There are plenty of unexplainable feats that supports the existence of the paranormal and celestial. You cannot call something delusion just because you cannot explain its cause Side: He isn't
1
point
1
point
1
point
No being unexplained isn't being false I completely agree, believing something that you have no reason to is delusional. Because being delusion typically means to not be able to differentiate between reality and what isn't, there is no reason to think that god is a reality therefore to go on as if god was a reality is delusional. If I believed that I was eventually going to be a billionaire, it might comfort me, and I couldn't be proved wrong, however it would still be a delusion because I wouldn't have a reason to think that I would one day inherit a billion dollars. Side: He is
1
point
believing something that you have no reason to is delusional People believes in a god out of need and guidance. Its a normal thing to seek help. Wheres the delusion there? Because being delusion typically means to not be able to differentiate between reality and what isn't, And since you cannot disprove a god, it isnt a delusion Side: He isn't
1
point
1
point
1
point
Mental illness does not mean insanity, the two terms are not interchangeable. If you make up an imaginary father figure to guide you through troubled times because you don't trust yourself or others (which is kind of funny because you're asking your own mental creation to guide you) there is most likely something wrong with your cranium. Side: He is
1
point
Mental illness does not mean insanity, the two terms are not interchangeable. If you make up an imaginary father figure to guide you through troubled times because you don't trust yourself or others (which is kind of funny because you're asking your own mental creation to guide you) there is most likely something wrong with your cranium. I was just saying insane like mental illness.... Mental Illness- any disease of the mind; the psychological state of someone who has emotional or behavioral problems serious enough to require psychiatric intervention How is religion serious enough to require psychiatric intervention? Side: He isn't
1
point
Centifolia is referring to self-created gods, if you create your own god to guide you... well, I don't really need to say much more. Personally, I believe that in most cases religious people do need psychiatric intervention, if you think that there is a magic spaghetti monster in the sky and you are willing to obey his command, that is quite an intense delusion you have going on there. Side: He is
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
Escaping to a fantasy is one thing, believing it is another. For instance, if I was going through a tough time and escaped to a fantasy by reading Catcher In The Rye it would be one thing, if I read Catcher In The Rye and then believed I was Holden Caulfield that would be delusional. Side: He is
1
point
1
point
Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument. If you are believing that you have an imaginary friend who guides you through the troubles of your life, then yes, that is indeed a delusion. Side: He is
1
point
Actually, most people who has imaginary friends are aware that it is "imaginary". Humans are born with a need for attachment whether real or not. It is a normal psychological defense. A sample is the so called "Waifus" of Otaku culture You can have a rich imagination without losing your concept of reality. If you cant, then it is not called "Delusion" Side: He isn't
1
point
So, allow me to clarify: When you get to a tough point in your life, instead of thinking logically as to how to solve your problems you invent an imaginary father figure and even though you know that this figure is not real you claim that he guides you through the troubles of your life? Side: He is
1
point
Its called creating a companion. Everyone needs someone who can understand their pain. Those who cannot find one are left with the choice of either bearing it by himself or pretending to have someone who carries it with you. Its one of the victimless lies in life that will give you happiness Side: He isn't
1
point
Hah, imaginary friend, Right. LOL Do you feel the ambition deep down to figure out the truth? I do. Yet you have problems with those that believe, as if it affects you? lol! Get over yourself. We're all trying to figure out WHAT THE FUCK is going on. Yet you get mad at people that believe in anything. Nice job. Side: He isn't
|