Thread: Are theists insane?

I have this theory: that anyone who claims "All theists are insane" have unrealistic ideas of what it means to be theists.

It is not necessary that you be insane to have unrealistic ideas, because there are very rational reasons to lie, and it has been shown that if you believe a lie, it is easier to convince others of it's truth.

There are also other rational reasons for believing things that are wrong, that don't imply deception: for example, faith is both a means an end, for many theists.


So please, if you believe theists to be insane, say so, but include two things

1: the definitions you are using for insane and theist
and
2: evidence that the two are, have been, or ever will be, the same

I think the strict psychological definition for delusion requires that the individual believe something which is not commonly believed, whether it is wrong or right is irrelevant. So, if you lived in a village 3000 years ago and believed that thunderstorms were a sign of the wrath of the gods, just like all your peers believed, then that wouldn't be a delusion in the psychiatrical sense. Even though we know it to be false today.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I have this theory: that anyone who claims "All theists are insane" have unrealistic ideas of what it means to be theists.

Indoctrination into a cult is a form of child abuse, one that can and does cause mental disorders. Scores of examples of atrocities in the name of a god are littered throughout history and continue today, often from people who would rarely if ever lift a finger in violence.

Surely, this is insanity from the effects of indoctrination.

And, if you continue to follow and promote an organization that has such a reputation, an organization entirely committed to the continued indoctrination it fosters within, then you are also insane.

It is not necessary that you be insane to have unrealistic ideas, because there are very rational reasons to lie, and it has been shown that if you believe a lie, it is easier to convince others of it's truth.

It's important to understand the real value of a lie and it's effects on the individual and society.

The insanity of religion has warped the thinking processes of mankind for centuries, and it's effects have pervaded all aspects of the individual and of society to the point that any given concept can appear to be completely irrational yet taken for granted by society as the norm.

Our societies are entirely constructed from the decision-making processes of the insane. It's what we've become and who we are.

Of course, it isn't what mankind was intended to become, and whatever potential we may have achieved had it not been for cult insanity, that potential may be lost forever.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

I think the strict psychological definition for delusion requires that the individual believe something which is not commonly believed, whether it is wrong or right is irrelevant. So, if you lived in a village 3000 years ago and believed that thunderstorms were a sign of the wrath of the gods, just like all your peers believed, then that wouldn't be a delusion in the psychiatrical sense. Even though we know it to be false today.

I know how this is going to sound, but I think the question is relevant to the discussion...

Is ignorance an excuse for insanity?

I'm not even sure where I'm going with this question.

This.

" if you continue to follow and promote an organization that has such a reputation, an organization entirely committed to the continued indoctrination it fosters within, then you are also insane."

America is renknowned for higher portions of religious people who do not believe in organized religions. You haven't mentioned these people who do not follow or promote any organization but only promote their own ideals, that may or may not be influenced by such organizations, but who is to say they are influenced any more or less than you or I?

Indoctrination? What constitutes this?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

America is renknowned for higher portions of religious people who do not believe in organized religions. You haven't mentioned these people who do not follow or promote any organization but only promote their own ideals, that may or may not be influenced by such organizations, but who is to say they are influenced any more or less than you or I?

Would that be the Christians who claim they have nothing to do with Christianity, for example?

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

I think the strict psychological definition for delusion requires that the individual believe something which is not commonly believed, whether it is wrong or right is irrelevant.

Yeah, the actual wording is "A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture."

In other words, it's not delusional (at least, not delusional in the clinical sense) to believe something that on the face of it seems totally nuts so long as everyone else in your village/country/whatever agrees with you.

It would be those who believe in God(s), but are not members of any religious organization. Some Christians may fit this description, but it seems arbitrary to single them out, although it would make for a good beginning to a straw-man.

"The insanity of religion has warped the thinking processes of mankind for centuries,"

I refute this idea, that insane religions corrupt otherwise sane people. It's somewhat of a chicken and the egg thing, except in this circumstance, determining which came first is much simpler, since beliefs don't exist without the mind to believe, it is only reasonable to conclude that insanity in people breeds insanity in, not just religion, but all aspects of the insane individuals life.

So in the same sense that a chicken egg wont mature and hatch without the warmth of it's parent; ideas cannot hatch into ideologies unless held for long enough in one's thoughts.

Ideas are not something seperate of humanity, infecting us with their corresponding neural activity and actions, they are a part of such a humanity. If our ideas are insane, we are insane. I'm not refuting that some people are insane, and I'm not even refuting that some theists are insane, being people and all: I'm refuting certain ideas associated with Theism, that are the exception and not the norm, such ideas that serve as premises for the accusation that theism in itself, is insane. In a sense I am accusing the common anti-theist on this forum of using straw man arguments, not just to convince others, but possibly as well to distract themselves from little they know on the subject.

So again, if you have something to say, please do so according to the rules of debate I set forth.

Define Theism and Insanity and provide evidence that supports the two are, have been, and will always be conducive to each other. I know it's a lot to ask, but it's no more to ask than if I were to ask you to take a stance against something you don't understand; which seems to be something many are always willing to do.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

It would be those who believe in God(s), but are not members of any religious organization. Some Christians may fit this description, but it seems arbitrary to single them out, although it would make for a good beginning to a straw-man.

If Christians didn't get their beliefs from the Christian organization, then where? Is this simple observation too allusive?

I refute this idea, that insane religions corrupt otherwise sane people. It's somewhat of a chicken and the egg thing, except in this circumstance, determining which came first is much simpler, since beliefs don't exist without the mind to believe, it is only reasonable to conclude that insanity in people breeds insanity in, not just religion, but all aspects of the insane individuals life.

By simply stating that there are several forms of insanity does not refute anything.

So in the same sense that a chicken egg wont mature and hatch without the warmth of it's parent; ideas cannot hatch into ideologies unless held for long enough in one's thoughts.

Nonsense.

Ideas are not something seperate of humanity, infecting us with their corresponding neural activity and actions, they are a part of such a humanity. If our ideas are insane, we are insane.

Then, you agree with me.

I'm not refuting that some people are insane, and I'm not even refuting that some theists are insane, being people and all: I'm refuting certain ideas associated with Theism, that are the exception and not the norm, such ideas that serve as premises for the accusation that theism in itself, is insane. In a sense I am accusing the common anti-theist on this forum of using straw man arguments, not just to convince others, but possibly as well to distract themselves from little they know on the subject.

That was a long paragraph that said nothing.

Define Theism and Insanity ...

If you lack a dictionary, say so, there are plenty online.

"Then, you agree with me. "

Except with your seeming implication that correlation is evidence of causation.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Then, you agree with me. "

Except with your seeming implication that correlation is evidence of causation.

No one said it is.

You said/implied that insane religions make insane people, no?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

You said/implied that insane religions make insane people, no?

No, I didn't. I said that it is insane to follow ideologies like religion, by definition.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I have this theory: that anyone who claims "All theists are insane" have unrealistic ideas of what it means to be theists.

I have another theory: that anyone who claims "All theists are insane" have unrealistic ideas of what it means to be insane.

"No, I didn't. I said that it is insane to follow ideologies like religion, by definition."

religion
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,"

insane
"not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged."



So if you think there is no cause, nature and purpose of the universe, you are insane. If you think there is... you are also insane. hmmm

Q: Being insane(by definition), do you think you are capable of descerning that which is sane?

Why don't you try a real dictionary that makes actual sense. Whatever you ripped that shitty definition from, it includes philosophies as religion and the big bang.

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster

(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

The argument presented clearly suggests that being religious requires a state of some mild insanity in order to grasp the gross contradictions and inadequacies of current belief forms when applied to reality. Thus, "not of sound mind", with "sound" likely being defined as "accurate depiction of reality".

Religion is the subject, not merely current belief forms(although you can feel free to start here), since I asked for support that believing in religion itself, is insane. I clearly asked, not for support that current forms of religion are insane to believe in, and this might be why the topic hasn't touched base on what about religion could be changed for the better(more sane.) My words were "are, have been, and will always be" specifically stating that the argument is not about current belief forms.

Originally Posted by Darius

Why don't you try a real dictionary that makes actual sense. Whatever you ripped that shitty definition from, it includes philosophies as religion and the big bang.

Yeah, there's nothing more annoying than people who try to redefine religion in a way that would make virtually any philosophy, moral code, system of epistemology, political affiliation, and hair color preference into a "religion". Another obvious problem with his definition is that not only would it include all sorts of things as religions that most people don't consider to be religions (as you already pointed out), but it would also not count things as religions that most people would agree are in fact religions. For example if I believe in, pray to, and make sacrifices to the fire god Mohabon, but I don't think that Mohabon is responsible for creating the universe or giving it purpose, then under his definition it wouldn't be a religion.

Well I did ask for a definition, and I will again: Please define 'real dictionary'

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Well I did ask for a definition, and I will again: Please define 'real dictionary'

I assume me meant a dictionary with definitions that reflect the way people commonly use the word.

For the purposes of this discussion, the relevant definition is "the belief in or worship of supernatural beings, forces, or realities." That's the definition most atheists are using when they say things like "religious people are insane."

I don't think this is an accurate definition.

In some religions God is not a being, a force or a reality, but is all that we can and cannot conceive: This includes but is not limited to that which we understand as natural.

"I assume me meant a dictionary with definitions that reflect the way people commonly use the word. "

Well, I try to avoid assumptions, hence why I asked for his definition. It would have taken him less work to simply define the words as he used them, but apparently effective communication is not a priority.

Something that does exist is natural. If God exists, God is natural.

Now I won't talk about what the majority of individual Theists believe because I don't know, and neither do you. I can tell you what different organizations preach, but determining the relationship between individual believers and institutional leaders is complicated. Consider a place of employment, a school, or a festival: there are those in charge, who coordinate things and say what needs to get done, and there are those they tell, some of which follow more precisely, some of which find unexpected problems and either improvise, cave in, or ask help. We are not an autonomous collective, and in my limited experience with various religious organizations, neither are religious people.

The topic is more complex than some let on, and you are insulting the intelligence, and argument, of atheists everywhere by resorting to such simplifications.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

religion
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,"

Where did you cherry pick that one?

Religion is the belief in the supernatural the controls human destinies.

So if you think there is no cause, nature and purpose of the universe, you are insane. If you think there is... you are also insane. hmmm

Q: Being insane(by definition), do you think you are capable of descerning that which is sane?

Do I have to actually point out the lie you knowingly placed in this post?

How utterly disingenuous of you, Marcus. Sad indeed.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I don't think this is an accurate definition.

As preached in many religions, God is not a being, a force or a reality, but is all that we can and cannot conceive: This includes but is not limited to that which we understand as natural.

What religions are you talking about? The vast majority of religious people seem to agree that god is a being. Please give some examples of religions that believe in a god that is not a being.

I can only assume you have not weighed the value of your words. If what is common is more accurate than what is rare, what is more common is more accurate still.

Well yes, since we're talking about the definitions of words, the accuracy of a definition is directly related to what people most commonly mean when they say the word.

Your definition was not an accurate definition of what people commonly mean when they say "religion," because it would include many things are religions that aren't commonly regarded as religions and exclude many things that most people would agree definitely are religions. My definition might not be perfect, but it's much closer to what people mean when they use the word "religion."

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

In some religions God is not a being, a force or a reality, but is all that we can and cannot conceive: This includes but is not limited to that which we understand as natural.

What is god in those religions?

Well, I try to avoid assumptions...

You go straight to the fallacies?

Now I won't talk about what the majority of individual Theists believe because I don't know, and neither do you.

And, neither do the theists, they merely parrot their tenets and offer whatever flimsy interpretation of those tenets their imaginations can muster. I've read countless versions from theists over the years. Not a single version is the same as any other, it's like "cult fingerprints."

The topic is more complex than some let on, and you are insulting the intelligence, and argument, of atheists everywhere by resorting to such simplifications.

Actually, I think that's what you're doing.

While I admit, the definition I used was not well thought out. I copied and pasted it from dictionary.com, check it out if you don't believe me. I didn't cherry pick it intentionally. Again, we could have avoided all of this if you provided your own definition, then I would understand what you meant. Most words have different definitions, hence the importance of context, but in such a case as this, context will not clarify the meaning, only defining the word will.

Your definitions are not any more useful in this case than my own.

Lets take some time to clarify the meaning of religion. Mine was not well thought out, and yours, while maybe well thought out, are not objective enough, and are not universal to all religions.

Religion: a type of culture, united by it's beliefs in sacredness.

does this do well?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

While I admit, the definition I used was not well thought out. I copied and pasted it from dictionary.com, check it out if you don't believe me. I didn't cherry pick it intentionally.

I checked it out. You did cherry pick.

Again, we could have avoided all of this if you provided your own definition, then I would understand what you meant. Most words have different definitions, hence the importance of context, but in such a case as this, context will not clarify the meaning, only defining the word will.

Your definitions are not any more useful in this case than my own.

Seems then, this thread is not useful based on your admittance.

Religion: a type of culture, united by it's beliefs in sacredness.

does this do well?

Make is simple, direct and relevant.

"The belief in supernatural entities that control human destinies."

Nuff said.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

I think the strict psychological definition for delusion requires that the individual believe something which is not commonly believed, whether it is wrong or right is irrelevant. So, if you lived in a village 3000 years ago and believed that thunderstorms were a sign of the wrath of the gods, just like all your peers believed, then that wouldn't be a delusion in the psychiatrical sense. Even though we know it to be false today.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

It is not necessary that you be insane to have unrealistic ideas, because there are very rational reasons to lie...

There are also other rational reasons for believing things that are wrong.

Yeah. That's what these anti-religion folks are missing. They equate sanity with correctness.

Sanity is "good thinking" in the context of society. Society is not very rational, and that's just right.

Originally Posted by Pong

Yeah. That's what these anti-religion folks are missing. They equate sanity with correctness.

Sanity is "good thinking" in the context of society. Society is not very rational, and that's just right.

I don't think they're associating it with correctness, so much as with whether or not it's reasonable for a person to hold a particular belief based on the information available. A person might have a lot of misleading evidence that causes them to incorrectly think something, but that doesn't mean their belief is insane just because it's wrong. And on the other hand, a person might have a completely irrational, unsupported belief that turns out to coincidentally be correct - but the fact that he's right doesn't make his belief sane.

"Make is simple, direct and relevant.

"The belief in supernatural entities that control human destinies." "

Not enough said. If God exists, god is natural. Implying that God is supernatural is an implication that God does not exist. I do not know whether God does or does not exist, and unless you have proof one way or another, the jury is still hung(and not just for me, but for much of humanity).

God is an idea at least: and a very natural idea, it would seem. Even those who do not believe in the existence of a God, have an idea of God, sufficiently comprehensable to say "such and such an idea has no existential bassis"

Thus the idea of God exists.

Unless you have proof that "such and such an idea has no existential bassis" than the jury is hung, and as has been well established for some time, it would seem such a claim(as well as it's opposite) is unfalsifiable.

Supernatural is an implication that it doesn't exist, since all things that exist are natural, unless we limit the definition of "natural" to be "that which people can understand" which I am not willing to do, since understanding is a completely subjective thing. Everything that exists, exists naturally. So if God exists, God is natural.

Do you have proof that God does not exist?

bear in mind that I make no claims of my own about the existence of God, I do not know, and have not seen any proof, one way or the other.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Not enough said. If God exists, god is natural. Implying that God is supernatural is an implication that God does not exist.

I would assume that by "supernatural" he meant not constrained by the same physical laws of nature/reality that govern everything else - a special case of entity to which "normal" natural laws do not apply, and so are therefor able to do things that would be fundamentally impossible for other entities by virtue of the fact that they don't have to play by the same rules of reality as everyone else.

That's probably how most people would draw the distinction between a supernatural being and a natural being that was merely very strange or powerful.

Obviously he wasn't intending the word to mean that by definition it didn't exist.

Hmm I don't know what your trying to get at or where you were trying to lead this discussion by starting the thread but from what I have gathered you wrote it to find support that religious people are insane? lol this would be true only in it's weakest definitional sense should a religion be proven false but you make it seem as if people should be locked up or doped up with pills for being religious.

You are partially correct critical. I didn't start this discussion to lead it anywhere, never mind to gather support that religious folk are insane. Why you think I did this, I won't begin to wonder, but you can clearly see that I am being objective and not picking sides on the matter.

I do not think theists are insane, any more than I think atheists are insane. "Support" in the form of opinions on a public forum is not evidence either way.

What I am seeking to gather is the opinions of people on this forum on the matter, since there are some malicious anti theists who fail to provide evidence for their views. They are my main target with the question of this thread, which should be evidence enough that I do not agree to their oversimplifications when they answer "yes"

to such an ambiguous inquiry