<p>Saw this morning that the rapture has been rescheduled for October 21st. and Hunt are you from Oklahoma?</p>
<p>Well, if I’m going to be the judge of what is insulting or not, I guess I’d say that I wouldn’t feel insulted if you say that religious belief is “irrational.” I’d even agree. But when you say that it’s delusional, you seem to be saying that it’s the product of a mental illness. Is that really what you mean, or is it just a bit of hyperbole? Like if I were to say that Newt Gingrich is delusional if he thinks he’s going to be President? I don’t really think Newt is suffering from a pathological delusion.</p>
<p>I’m not from Oklahoma–why, do people there also say “bless their hearts?”</p>
<p>^^ I guess I do not attribute all delusions to mental illness. I checked the dictionary and the psychiatric definition is listed as the second one, the first being ‘a mistaken belief, idea or opinion’. But okay, at least I see the reason people feel offended by the word, and it may be the case that common usage refers more to the mental illness part. </p>
<p>Thanks for clearing up my delusion about the meaning of the word delusion. Bless your lungs!</p>
<p>I will henceforth avoid the term delusion and instead just say plainly: There is no God.</p>
<p>Would you consider it an insult to say today to someone that he is delusional about the Earth being flat? Or just ‘irrational’?</p>
<p>ETA: I have not read the book “The God Delusion” though I have heard of it. It doesn’t interest me much. </p>
<p>I used to be more private about my atheism but have been more willing too bring it up now. I used to have a negative opinion of strident ‘in your face’ atheists, but now I am not so sure they should be vilified so much. There is so much ‘in your face’ religion these days, that a few extreme atheists might be a good antidote. I myself am now a lot more likely to speak up about my conviction that there is no God. More atheists need to be “out”, so that others feel more comfortable being open about their lack of belief.</p>
<p>vicariousparent, as Nrdsb points out, the word “delusional” is not a neutral word. Saying God is a delusion is categorizing the beliefs of Christians, rather than merely stating your own. I’m not sure if you posed a real question or a hypothetical one, but a non-confrontational way to say God is a delusion would to state your own conclusions without editorializing on ours. E.g., “I don’t believe God exists”, as opposed to “you are delusional for believing in God”. I personally don’t get too wrought up about it either way, since intent is more important, and that would only be apparent if we spoke IRL.</p>
<p>One reason that atheists are not attractive to voters is obviously that they are a minority. But another important reason is that if you don’t believe in God, then it is harder for voters to know what you believe in. Religious faith (even if only espoused, not truly believed) at least puts you in a bucket of general philosophical approaches to life. But where does one put the atheist? Equality, war, abortion, marriage, death penalty? There is no philosophical construct to readily understand, so it’s distracting for many voters.</p>
<p>edited to add: just saw your post, thanks.<br>
With respect to the earth being flat: Don’t think you can really equate God to the shape of the earth. One is not provable, and the other is. Does one “believe in” black holes?</p>
<p>
I guess it would depend on why he believes that. If, for example, he was a child who had been taught that, I wouldn’t say he was delusional, just misinformed (a potential other word to use if you think religious people are wrong). If he stated that he won’t believe that the Earth is round without seeing specific proof with his own eyes, I guess I’d call him an extreme skeptic, but perhaps not delusional. If he says that the voices in his head told him the Earth was flat…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a voter thinks that a politician who says he believes in God will guide his actions according to religious values, then the voter is delu… er…misinformed.</p>
<p>I think the voter does nt believe in a non-believer?</p>
<p>No, vicariousparent - you were right the first time. Thinking that politicians follow their religious beliefs is delusional !! </p>
<p>But I think you understand what I’m saying, yes? It’s a shorthand for knowing what some of the values of the person either are, or are claimed to be. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, since so many pols claim to believe in God when their actions indicate the opposite. If someone claims to be a strong Catholic, you have at least a decent chance of knowing how they’ll vote on abortion-related issues. If someone claiims to be a Southern Baptist, you can predict at least a range of reaction on many issues. But if someone says they’re atheist, where does that put you? Although many would, I personally wouldn’t vote against an atheist per se, although I would need to know what the person’s value system was. That’s all.</p>
<p>What if the politician says s/he is an atheist but believes in following (in addition to the US Constitution) the general ethical principles of the Judeo-Christian world- not because of a fear of God, but because they seem like a nice set of principles that have worked well over the centuries.</p>
<p>Because that is probably what I would say in the remote chance I decided to run for any election (e.g. the condo board of my retirement community).</p>
<p>It should nt be hard to win an election in a smaller community since you should already know who likes you and trusts you. You can also win in a larger setting as long as someone opposing you does nt run ads disparaging your atheism. It is hard to predict what a larger population does with the information they have.</p>
<p>People say Mitt Romney cant win because he is a Mormon. How far off is he from being an atheist if mormonism is what makes him unelectable?</p>
<p>For the record, I am NOT an atheist. I consider myself a follower of Jesus (among others), am a Quaker and believe that much can be learned through the life and teachings of Jesus, read the Bible (including the Old Testament in Hebrew), don’t consider God a delusion (could be a mistake or an error, but not by its nature a delusion), and think that a belief in the Rapture or the Second Coming, whether it occurs on May 21st, October 21st, or “before 2050” is delusional (and pathological) when people act upon it. </p>
<p>The reality is that the end time didn’t happen - not for Jesus (as he seemed to believe), not for his immediate followers (as they prepared themselves), not for the generations that came after. Hence 2,000 years of spin. “A delusion is a belief that is either mistaken or not substantiated that is held with vehemence.[1] In psychiatry, it is defined to be a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process) and is held despite evidence to the contrary.[1]” And I think this delusion has proven itself historically to be harmful, dividing communities, and nations, and alienating people from each other. (And, no, I don’t think any other delusion has done the world any better. It is the nature of delusions that they are pathological.)</p>
<p>Mini–we’re very close in beliefs. I am not a Quaker, though I could easily be, and my H attended a Meeting for a while, but otherwise your first paragraph sums up my beliefs well. (Ok, I can’t read Hebrew–but I do try to study the different ways that translation becomes interpretation.)</p>
<p>Well, bless your hearts, whether you are atheists or not.</p>
<p>Wow, I’ve never even suggested I was an atheist–far from it.</p>
<p>But bless your heart, too, Hunt.</p>
<p>Bless all our hearts, every one!</p>