Believing Is Delusion - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Believing Is Delusion
in Religion

By WowsilWowsil 47 Pts

Are religious followers deluded?

A look at the definition of "delusion" may give us a clue.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

The fact is:

religion is an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument.

Therefore:

religious people are deluded, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.


someone234VaulkErfisflatwith_all_humility
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • No, an idiosyncracy is "a mode of behaviour or way of thought peculiar to an individual."

    Ergo a believer in a widespread religion would not have an idiosyncratic belief but a normal belief and therefore not be delusional.
    with_all_humility
  • Interesting question ,believers are victims of indoctrination,  when one as an infant is exposed to religion and lives within a society where family , friends and the society where  they live believe likewise well the consequences are inevitable. Religions  totally rely on this system otherwise their endeavors would mostly fail . Children mostly do not question their parents beliefs as they’re  thinking “ if they’re doing it well it must be alright “ any questions are easily brushed away

    If children were not exposed to religion till adulthood most would laugh it away for the nonsense it is , a friend of mine an Atheist who never took his child to church or temple gave his 14 year old daughter a Bible to read when she was 13 , she fell around the place laughing after two hours reading I know  exactly how she feels .

    Delusion it is not when a child is involved as they’re force fed the nonsense an adult who embraces religion is I think deluded 
    with_all_humility
  • Strong beliefs have the self-fulfilling property. However strange what you believe in may be initially from the logical perspective, over time the belief works for itself, and evidence (even if not strictly logical) appears and piles up. Is it reasonable to call the person deluded at that point? I do not think so.

    Consider Joan of Arc. One day, a girl appeared from a village; weak, uneducated, not even beautiful girl that said that she will save France by the will of God. As religious as France was, few took her seriously. But she persisted. She walked around and talked to people, and demanded to see the king. She did see the king eventually, and the king was impressed with her passion and gave her a high military position. Knowing nothing about the battlefield, she nonetheless inspired soldiers to do the impossible - and, indeed, France was saved from forever breaking under the British boot.

    Where did her belief that she was a God's messiah and would save France come from? Maybe she saw a strange dream and thought it a heavenly sign. Maybe someone from the local church told her that she might save France. Maybe she even just made it up. But her belief and conviction were so strong that she indeed did something that, from a logical perspective, was not realistic.

    Many people who employed logic had every reason to say that France was a history. A girl who believed she was a chosen of an ethereal deity acted on her belief and proved those people wrong. Belief triumphed where the reason failed. Who was deluded after all?

    ---

    I do dislike religion, and I do agree that it is not based on logic. One should not build their world view on something that is written in ancient books and has no objective evidence, in my opinion. My point though is that there are many approaches to anything. Religion indeed can do something to some people that reason cannot.

    Nick Vujicic was saved from committing suicide when he believed that the god gave him a purpose. Was he wrong? Well, his belief was not based on logic. Yet it worked miracles for him, making him into one of the happiest people on Earth despite all odds.

    We humans are not rational creatures by nature. Sometimes utilizing our irrationality the right way can be the trick to solving a very difficult problem, that otherwise looks untackleable.
  • The creator of this debates believes that believing is delusion.

    Lmao...
    Agility_Dude
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1426 Pts
    Wowsil said:

    Are religious followers deluded?

    A look at the definition of "delusion" may give us a clue.

    Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

    The fact is:

    religion is an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument.

    Therefore:

    religious people are deluded, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.


    Agreed, the religion of big bangism has gathered a great many followers over the last few decades. These people hold an idiosyncratic belief despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Well God has not been disproven/contradicted by reality, so it’s not a delusion.
    Agility_Dude
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1426 Pts
    funperson said:
    Well God has not been disproven/contradicted by reality, so it’s not a delusion.
    Exactly, and can atheists say the same about the big bang religion, and even half of it's pseudoscientific assumptions and conjecture? Nope.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JudaismJudaism 150 Pts

    To ALL:


    Believing is delusion, oh, really? I don't think so. Einstein believed in some sort of G-d, even though it wasn't exactly the Torah's HaShem. Newton believed in a G-d, he studied the Book of Revelation as much as his physics. So did Lincoln. Even Hitler - though he wasn't exactly Catholic, he was more along the lines of borderline paganism - believed in some sort of god. Though the guy should burn in hell for all eternity, it would be dishonest to say he had a low IQ, I mean, he did upstarted a whole nation which was worse than the depression going on in America. That's something, no wonder FDR admired him before the War. What about Bill Maher? Famous, right? Funny, and an atheist. Certainly, he's too bright to be dupped into this delusion called religion, right? Well, think again. Before Bill was an atheist, he was a firm believer in G-d, for forty years, if memory serves me right. What does that tell you? Did he suddenly wake up all the wiser one day at 40? Ridiculous. That's not how IQ works, either you're born bright or you never have it. It doesn't grow. Therefore, Bill must have always been this bright since birth. So what is it? 

    Another case in point.

    Chris Hitchens. A great mind, nonetheless. One to aspire after. No one would say he was dumb by far. But what did he say of people of faith? That they were fools. Really? Does that count his own brother, Peter Hitchens, a firm believer in Christianity? Nah. Their IQs must be around the same. Statistics, if they're right, tell us that the intelligence of brothers (or sisters too) can only be separated by 12 points at the most. So, fine, let's say Chris was smarter than Peter. It's only by 12 points. If, let's say for argument's sake, Chris' IQ was 160, than Peter's must be 148. That's still Mensa. End of story.

    So what is it? My theory of perspective. It has nothing to do much with the environment, as the two Hitchens brothers obviously grew up together, yet, each going his own path of belief in life. Therefore, it must be perspective. That entails with science. Science tells us that each human brain, from the beginning of the universe to the end of time, is unique. No one is alike, we all think different, and that's a good thing! Point is, it's a lie to say that religion is a delusion, or that people of faith must be dumber for following an ancient book of laws, such as the Torah. Everyone follows laws. We have a modern book of laws, yes, it developed over time, but the premise is the same. We follow what someone else tells us. It's not mocking our intelligence, the great philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, if memory serves me right, once said that man had to break out from the darkness of the survival instinct by introducing himself laws. They chose a king, and he made a contract of laws with the people all are to follow for all time in peace to preserve peace. Dah, that's exactly the same thing the Torah's doing when Moshe Rabbeinu came down with what Christians call the 10 commandments, and more. Without laws, we'd kill each other, without American laws banning slavery, how many dumb Whites out there, down south, do you think would justify slavery with anything they could think up of? The US is a Capitalist nation, anything would happen as long as it made money. What about text books in High School, Collage, etc.? Some of that stuff in there is ancient, everyone studies the philosophies of Aristotle, and modern thinkers base themselves off of the past, I think it was Newton who once said that we stand on the backs of giants. What does that tell ya? That we CAN learn some wisdom from the past.

    But is the Torah relevant? Is the Magna and US Constitution reverent? All three are relevant. So are Plato's writings of old. . . . So yes, you're only cheated yourself if you think the Torah isn't relevant. 

    In the end, we all have now seen the truth, at least as I see it. Men, from any age, no matter how smart, can choose to believe or suspend that belief until they get old and fearful of death. It doesn't matter. We've seen that there are countless individuals, both past and present, who were geniuses in one field or another, take Francis Sellers Collins for instance, who believe in G-d. They don't think for a second that a house can build itself without an architect, how much more creation? Therefore, it's all just a matter of perspective. Chris and Peter Hitchens prove it. One can't be too much smarter than the other; Bill Maher proves it, he didn't get smart one day at forty, after having been a dummy all his life; Lincoln and Einstein prove it, having followed on god or another. 

    Therefore, the conclusion some hold, that religion is a delusion designed for idiots, can be nothing short of a lie
    with_all_humility
  • JudaismJudaism 150 Pts
    HaShem told the prophet Iyov that he wasn't there when G-d laid down the foundations of the universe. The sad truth is that neither of us where there. . . the argument for or against G-d is only a matter of choice. None of us have the faintness clue what happened in the beginning because we weren't there. Simple enough to understand, right? So why do atheists believe what they wish to believe? Why do they believe that the universe is a cold, dark place with no purpose in it; that loved ones are lost at the moment of death, or that there could never be any hope for peace and justice, that everything's just relative, meaning, Hitler could be right - its his opinion to exterminate 6 million people. Why? Because in truth, these people, these atheists. . . they want the universe to serve no purpose; they wanted loved one's to be dead and buried; they want to have no immediate consequence for their actions when they pass on; they want no peace nor justice. Why they want all this, you'd have to take it up with them. I don't know their thoughts, like the Rambam once said, if I knew Him, I'd be Him, right? I don't know. 

    And THAT should be the real discussion. Not this mockery we people of faith face each living day. It seems that atheists are nasty people because they DON'T have G-d in their lives. No wonder. Really? No wonder. Why? Because they choose to live in sin, and G-d is against their immoral character, so they'd want none of it. So what are they left with? To treat others as dirt. They're upset because they think they've found that there's no G-d, and are very hurt by this fact, and that others can live with hope after death. That's all there really is to it. Amazing, isn't it? These people live in a society where they believe the lower class worships idols, but if no one believed in G-d, what kind of a civilization would be left, if we all really did just come from an animal with no supervisor (Judaism has always promoted evolution)? Everyone would rape and kill each other, that doesn't sound too nice, does it? These people take the morals of Judaism, and apply it to civilization without paying the dues. 

    This is why these people run from the question why they DON'T want a G-d. I'm glad I've given them a very good Jewish kicking to the shin!
    with_all_humility
  • @Judaism

    There is a fine example of delusion in print ....thank you for proving the point ......next 
  • VaulkVaulk 504 Pts
    Well, then I suppose the people responsible for birthing the most powerful, the most successful and the best place to live in the World were all delusional.  Sounds like we could use some more delusional people in the World.
    someone234Jamahoo
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    From my point of view, the US succeeded as a country despite being highly religious, and not because of it. The main contributing factor to its success was the ideas of individual freedom promoted by the Founding Fathers and to put into the laws of this country (which, by the way, explicitly exclude the religious factor from the governmental work).

    People deluded in some aspects, can be brilliant in others and use that brilliancy to create something wonderful. Robert Fischer was a conspiracy theorist who believed in a group of Zionists ruling the world from the shadows, but that did not prevent him from becoming the champion of the world in chess. Believing in the Zionist conspiracy definitely was not the reason he won the championship, don't you think?
  • JudaismJudaism 150 Pts
    Guys, have you ever been on an anti-Semite site before? They're real fun, a piece of work. I know some have obviously visited those sites in the past, including me, and they're horrendous. The things they say about us. . . you wouldn't believe them. One such grievance is to deny the Shoah (Holocaust). I don't know why, perhaps they'd - those Neo-Nazis - feel better when they tell themselves that Hitler was really just a good guy, that he was just misunderstood. That he never murdered a Jewish baby in his life. Fair, I'm not sure if Hitler himself ever committed such an atrocity, but he sure ordered it. Nevertheless, how do we protect our kids from being dupped into this mindset? How can we be sure that someday, in the third, or even fourth generation, they too won't go to school, and learn about these diners, and as a result, start to believe the lie? My family, those whom I know, those you LIVED the Holocaust, can never forget. I will never forget when I presented a gift to a Holocaust survivor when I was young. As long as I live, my eyes will remember his number, as well as his story.

    Since those few times in which I've visited such sites, I've never gone back. How could I? How could I - out of all people - begin to believe the lie? The lie that the Jewish people are wrong, that we control the world? That we invented the Holocaust to gain world support for Israel. If I continued visiting those sites, I'm sure, I'd be a self-hating Jew too. Luckily, for my sake, that didn't happen. It was wise to quite, to re-examine the evidence. I always knew such slander to by pure myths, and no matter how good the arguments, they will never convince me for a second that the Holocaust never happened. It can't. If it does, I've failed as a Jew, and not only that, I've failed my family. I've failed as a person. 

    But again, I may be fine, but not my children, and their children, and their children's children. How can we help? How can we make sure that their young minds won't be crushed into believing their ancestors to be nothing more than the stigma most present our people to be? How can we know they too won't fall into the trap set out by our enemies, those Holocaust diners? Those myth-makers? Their is an answer. I once read about it in a book, it was purposed by someone, but then quickly abandoned. I don't recall the book, nor the person who thought up this idea, but I will say this, it was surely ingenious. If it's not too much a hassle, I'd love to present it right here, right now. Thanks in advance, I'm sure you'll grow to appreciate it later.

    The idea is that you preserve the memory of the Holocaust like this: remember the one story regarding the Baal Shem Tov? It goes like this: he always wanted to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, but he never got there, he reached as far as the Greek Isles, and then he nearly met death, and never attempted it again. One day, he had reached Constantinople, it was the last day of Pesach, so he made thanksgiving to Adonai, and told his descendants to do the same, each year, forever. So what do some Jews do? At the end of Pesach, they sit together and recount the story of the Baal Shem Tov's rescue from the storm at sea, the storm which nearly killed him. This practice has now been going on for generations. Yes, it could be said that we Jews sure got good memory. After all, all of Bereshit and the First Book of Chronicles is about genealogical record (and no, they weren't kept in the Beit HaMikdash when they burnt it down). For centuries, now, Jews have kept track of an oral tradition, spanning as far back as the days of Moshe Rabbeinu. For instance, the Talmud Bavli, in Baba Batra 91a, states that Avraham's mother was Amathalia, the daughter of Karnebo. Now, I get it, most people would laugh at that. How could some rabbis, living generations later, know that? They clearly just made it up, its not in the Bible. Not so fast. It wasn't long for some serious archaeology to discover, in some old Babylonian records in Ebla - as expected - the very name. And it wasn't just any name, but a royal title. There! Bible critics are now the one's being laughed at, after all, we've got proof of Avraham's grandfather! 

    Can we get side-tracked for just a minute? Look at the Christian Bible. There was a study done not long ago which opted that there are - at max - 150,000 variations. This is because there were so many copies, so many mistakes. When you do the math, you'll find that 400 of these variations affect the interpretation of the text, and 50 are the exact result of this! Now, compare this to the Jewish Bible. After more than double the centuries, in double the horrendous conditions (our persecutions by other nations as well as many communities being utterly isolated from one another), the same study found that there was only one Torah - from all over the world, literally, from Siberia to Yemen, and of course, this is not to mention that they were all hand-written, too! Between all these thousands upon thousands of copies, there were only nine variations. Nine! Contrasted to a mega 400,000! These resulted in some words being misspelled here and there. None of them affect to meaning of the text. How can this be possible? Perhaps its because, for generations, Jews have been told to copy these texts publicly, and then all of the people would learn it by heart, so if there was a mistake found, it could be corrected. It goes unsaid that this wasn't the case with the Catholic Church for a long time. Now also note that the New Testament isn't even a fraction of the whole Tanakh. That's the real miracle. 

    See? We Jews are good with passing information down the line. Our transferal process has some credibility, it's by no means perfect, but it's as best as it can get. That's good to hear. It helps. But it's not enough. Our children may still end up denying that the Holocaust ever took place. I'm going to continue the idea now, please stay with me here.

    So here's the idea, all of that above were just examples: man has two abilities to gather new information, primary and secondary sources. We can read documents, watch films, but all of these can be misleading, any dummy can learn Photoshop. . . or. . . we can hear it for ourselves, from those who witnesses such events. Primary knowledge. If we don't learn our lesson, if we can't preserve the memory of the Holocaust, our children's children will grow up thinking that those Nazis who smashed the skulls of children, and then went to listen to Mozart and commit other acts of atrocities, are nothing but myths. And each year, more survivors die. Our descends sadly won't be able to hear their voices first hand. Primary will become secondary, and that will be it. . . . Unless we do something about it. Unless we prove, once and for all, that their memory isn't lost. That There is integrity. This was the plan. . . .

    Every year, all the surviving Holocaust members, and their decedents, travel to Yisrael. There, even though the logistic problems will be mounting, they recite to all what happened. It's an international convention, all are welcomed to come. Their accounts are then put on paper, and read aloud to the public in front of all the survivors to make sure it's right, than they all sign their names as proof of that. This document is then known as the Shoah Manifesto. The survivors, and their children's children, make an origination. A society to protect and defend the truth of the Holocaust. The society creates rules all are to follow, this will help keep it alive in their hearts for the coming generations. Each week, the members of the society meet to pay their respects to the victims and read sections of the Manifesto aloud. Three times a year, they commemorate that fateful day when all came to create the Manifesto by committing themselves to unique ceremonies. One such festival is called the Festival of Liberation, on that day, members eat crusts of bread the symbolize what their ancestors had for food at Auschwitz, Dachau, and Treblinka, as well as remember the liberation. Another festival is the Festival of Ships, on this day, all members leave their homes to live on ship-like dwellings to commemorate departure from Europe to the United States. Again, they also read the Manifesto publicly. On the Festival of the Formation of the Society, members gather together to read the entire Manifesto. For every child born into the Shoah Society, they're given a blue numbered tattoo on their right forearm, this is done so that they never forget what their ancestors witnessed. As they mature, they're to memorize the whole Manifesto, and on their thirteenth birthday, are expected to join the community of Shoah Witnesses. They are forbidden to marry outside of the Society, this is done so that they may maintain the integrity of their mission as witnesses. Of course, anyone can join the group, all they have to do is adopt all its rulings. 

    Members of the Shoah Society are also demanded to wear on their outer garments, yellow Jude stars; they cannot accept any products manufactured in Germany; they wrap affix scrolls containing selected parts of the Manifesto, in tubes wrapped in barbed wire, and place these on their doorposts. Finally, each Shoah Witness must fulfill his or her mission in life by producing a hand-written scroll of the entire Manifesto, preferably once in their life. 

    These rules cannot - under any condition - be violated. If a person so chooses to wear a pink star, he or she is excommunicated from the community. All of these rules, of course, were all written in the very first Manifesto, so there are no exceptions, no additions, no subtractions. It cannot be altered, ever. In the Manifesto itself, it demands its fellow Shoah Witnesses to distribute hundreds, if not thousands, of copies of itself to be passed along, around the world, for future verification. Each family is to personally own a scroll containing all its legalities and descriptions of the event. They're to read it daily. This serves as a living testimony to the memory of the Holocaust. Lastly, a huge marble slab is to have been recorded to have been presented to the original survivors that day when they visited Yisrael to draw up the Manifesto, it can, of course, still be seen today, in Yisrael. This was done so that future generations could match their scrolls perfectly with the marble slab, the heart of the Shoah Society's geographic location. This, again, is to preserve the integrity of the event.  

    Over the next several hundred years, many members choose to leave the Soceity all together, still, many are true to their mission in life: to promote the truth and accuracy of the Holocaust. After a few generations, there are millions upon millions of Shoah Witnesses. They're are over a billion copies of the Manifesto, and the memory of the Holocaust survivors is not lost for the ages. These people need not only recognize each other based on their personal copies of the Manifesto, you can spot one just by the manner of their dress, or the customs to do at home and abroad. But it can all only work if it's a closed system, no room for rumors to spread. The integrity of the Holocaust must be kept pure if it is to survive. False stories cannot circulate while disregarding what's written in the scroll. The point is that it happened. The Holocaust was once a real world event. After all, who could have penetrated such a lie, where could it have been conceived? How could a whole society be tricked, at any point in time, to following its strange traditions if it weren't all true? It has to be true. So many people couldn't have been dupped in one day had the Holocaust never happen. The members of the Society not only testify that the Holocaust happened - as an event - they also testify to the authentic creation of the Manifesto itself, and from there on, it speaks for itself. After all, the whole Manifesto was deemed and approved by the original survivors, and its wide distribution confirms it. There are no altered copies of it in existence. The credentials of the Manifesto are that of a genuine testimony of the survivors who faced the ovens, rape, and torture at these camps, year after brutal year. Those who read the Manifesto cannot but help hear the courageous, yet pain-filled voices of its authors over the great chasms of time. 

    What do you think? A creative idea, nonetheless, right? Pretty impressive, I think. Of course, none of the such will take place in our lifetime, nor our children's children. 

    But did you get my point? It was all an analogy. Because something of this sort did happen once before, though it had nothing to do with the Holocaust. It had to deal with HaShem's revelation to the whole Jewish people; tradition tells us that there were millions of witnesses, it must have been a huge event. Today, as centuries before them, Jews, the world over, still follow the strict customs and traditions of our elders. . . those who witnessed the mountain burn with the passion of love. 

    Earlier, G-d had the Hebrews slaughter the lambs as a commemoration for Pesach - our deliverance from the land of Egypt. These lambs represented the false gods, and served to illustrate that fine point. G-d was pretty much saying that He could end the lives of the gods at a moment’s notice, and whereas the gods of Egypt couldn’t escape the flames the Israelites sent them too, G-d not only survived it, but thrived in it. It is through the fire at Mount Sinai that the Ein Sof declared to us the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), the Torah - in full, in both its written and Oral form, and made in Hebrew what’s called a “ketubah,” or a marriage contract. Essentially, G-d was marrying the nation of Israel; and we were the bride. He proposed to us by giving us the Torah, and we accepted. It’s really a beautiful illustration at describing our relationship with Him. Here, take a look:

    ". . . Beware and watch yourself very well, lest you forget the things that your eyes saw, and lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life, and you shall make them known to your children and to your children's children, the day you stood before Adonai your G-d at Horeb, when Adonai said to me, ‘Assemble the people for Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.’ And you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire up to the midst of the heavens, with darkness, a cloud, and opaque darkness. Adonai spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice. And He told you His covenant, which He commanded you to do, the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.” - Devarim 4:9-13

    By this account, the whole nation of Israel experienced the revelation of Sinai en masse, and each one, individually, accepted the Torah as his or her life-guiding force into a personal and spiritual relationship with G-d. Hence, the Passover lamb symbolizes the fear and end of the pagan gods as well as it symbolizes our marriage with the one G-d, the one Who defeated the enemies of Israel, and married them with the passion of fire. And our G-d lives to this day, in all His glory.
  • edited August 10
    How ironic, the Bible speaks of those who refuse the truth or don't believe in Christ will be given unto strong delusions.

    2Th 2:9-12  The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  And for this reason, God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

    So who is having delusions, the saved or those who refuse the truth?
  • JudaismJudaism 150 Pts
    with_all_humility did you read my last few posts?
  • edited August 11
    MayCaesar said:
    @Vaulk

    From my point of view, the US succeeded as a country despite being highly religious, and not because of it. The main contributing factor to its success was the ideas of individual freedom promoted by the Founding Fathers and to put into the laws of this country (which, by the way, explicitly exclude the religious factor from the governmental work).

    People deluded in some aspects, can be brilliant in others and use that brilliancy to create something wonderful. Robert Fischer was a conspiracy theorist who believed in a group of Zionists ruling the world from the shadows, but that did not prevent him from becoming the champion of the world in chess. Believing in the Zionist conspiracy definitely was not the reason he won the championship, don't you think?
    I would argue the opposite, the strength the US now has is because of what others had done before the 60's.  Up until the social movements of the 60's primarily based on existentialism.  Most American families were religious, considerably more religious than today.

    In 1966, some 98 percent of Americans said they believed in God, according to a Gallup survey. When Gallup and Pew Research surveyed Americans in 2014, the number had dropped to 86 percent and 89 percent respectively. Among the youngest adults surveyed by Pew, those born between 1990 and 1996, the share of believers was just 80 percent.

    In 1948, Gallup found that about 91 percent of Americans identified as Christian. That number took a big dip in subsequent decades and continues to decline in recent years. From 2007 to 2014 alone, the percentage of Americans who identified as Christian fell from 78.4 percent to 70.6 percent.

    In 2007, 56 percent of Americans said religion was very important in their lives. Measures of this question from the 1950s and 1960s showed that at that time, over 70 percent of Americans said religion was very important in their daily lives.

    In a 1937 Gallup Poll, 73 percent of Americans said they were church members. That percentage fell to around 70 percent in the ‘60s and ‘70s. By the 2000s, that number hovered around 60 percent.

    Here are quotes from former leaders of and in our nation:

    George Washington:  

    "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible".

    "You do well to learn our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ"  (written by his aid).

    Patrick Henry:

    "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    John Jay: 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the USA.

    "... it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their leaders".

    John Adams: 

    "I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world".

    Benjamin Franklin:

    "I think the system of morals and (Christ's) religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see".

    John Hancock:

    "... to cause the benign religion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be known, understood, and practiced among all the inhabitants of the earth".

    Thomas Jefferson:

    "I am a real Christian - that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ".

    Abraham Lincoln:

    "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty".

    Ronald Reagan: 

    "Without God, democracy cannot and will not long endure".

    Martin Luther King:

    "I just want to do God's will".

    While the forefather did understand the need to separate church from state, not because they did not believe in God, but because of how power had corrupted religious leaders in Europe. God never established a country to be run by a church.  He did set aside Israel to be a holy nation, but man failed there as well due to the corruption of power.

    However, I would contend that when America was "more" religious or had more respect for God, people had more of a sense of devotion to our country.  Just like WWI and WWII people did not burn draft cards in protest.  I would argue that the success of America was because of it being a Christian nation in the past.  



  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    Your argument is shallow and amateurish to say the least.
    My argument clearly stated "religious belief" and was fully backed up.
    Either you have a valid argument or you concede to the original post but being stupid hardly enhances what little credibility you seem to have.@someone234
  • @Wowsil

    You say:

    Therefore:

    religious people are deluded, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

    Is this a general claim of your own or do have a specific  disorder that is published in the DSM?

  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    The Bible speaks of many things, most of which have proven to be untrue. Therefore, anyone who bases his beliefs on what one perceives as Bible-related is clearly deluded.Furthermore, proclaiming that others who do not agree with such morbid and erroneous beliefs is scare-mongering and is nothing short of pure evil.@with_all_humility@Joeseph
    with_all_humilityAgility_Dude
  • Judaism said:
    with_all_humility did you read my last few posts?
    No, I read a little bit of them...You write too much sometimes for my attention span.  I did watch your video though.  What did I miss in your other post? LOL
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    Yes, I agree with you there.
    We all suffer from delusions from time to time and we all have our escapes from reality.
    My concern with religion, however, is that religious followers are deluded full-time and that delusion permeates through their everyday thinking and reasoning.  @MayCaesar
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    How could something so ridiculous and unproven in the first place be disproven?
    Belief in God is idiosyncratic.
    Try again.@funperson
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    Unfortunately, I think children can be deluded and in many cases, their delusion is accompanied by utter fear. I would tend to call this child abuse.@Joeseph
  • Wowsil said:
    The Bible speaks of many things, most of which have proven to be untrue. Therefore, anyone who bases his beliefs on what one perceives as Bible-related is clearly deluded.Furthermore, proclaiming that others who do not agree with such morbid and erroneous beliefs is scare-mongering and is nothing short of pure evil.@with_all_humility@Joeseph

    So, you have no evidence of delusion other than your personal opinion.  There's a fallacy!

    What in the Bible has been proven to untrue?  You keep making general claims, give us something tangible.  Dealing with opinions and general claims is like trying to write wet toilet paper.

    "Furthermore, proclaiming that others who do not agree with such morbid and erroneous beliefs is scare-mongering and is nothing short of pure"

    • Who's scare-mongering? If anyone is scare-mongering it might be you calling people who are religious delusional.
  • funperson said:
    Well God has not been disproven/contradicted by reality, so it’s not a delusion.
    This is an interesting point. Technically, something that has not been disproven, but that has not featured any evidence either, can either exist or not exist, and choosing either of the two positions is not a delusion as per definition of the world.

    For example, I can say, "I believe that unicorns roam the fields of Iceland!", and since my claim is impossible to strictly disprove (no matter how hard you look, there could be hidden unicorns somewhere you have not noticed), I am not being deluded.

    Normally we choose to assume that something featuring no evidence does not exist. We tend to take it almost as a logical fact. However, this conclusion rests on a very subjective logical construct, Occam's Razor, which states that out of two theories describing the entity correctly, the one having fewer assumptions made should be left over. Occam's Razor is a practical guidance, but it is not a strict logical rule, hence people not following this rule cannot be called deluded just based on this.

    I have not thought about this before I looked at your argument, but now I see that the implications of this notion are very interesting and counter-intuitive. It is very hard to be objectively deluded. Even mentally ill people do see what they see, even if they interpret it the wrong way because of their brain's malfunction. So are mentally ill people deluded? How can anyone from the outside prove that what they see is not what they experience? 
    with_all_humilityfunperson
  • someone234someone234 572 Pts
    edited August 11
    Wowsil said:
    Your argument is shallow and amateurish to say the least.
    My argument clearly stated "religious belief" and was fully backed up.
    Either you have a valid argument or you concede to the original post but being stupid hardly enhances what little credibility you seem to have.@someone234
    Calling me stupid hardly increases your validity either you filthy scumbag hypocrite. Don't dish out ad hominem insults if you don't want to be wiped across the floor without mercy.

    You call it delusional to believe in your title and didn't specify religious affiliation at all. If you find it delusional to be affiliated with a religion, perhaps you're the delusional one. Do explain how the atheist reality originated. I'm interested to know what kind of putrid excuse of an explanation you offer.

    You want to get harsh with me, I will break you.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • dboxdbox 8 Pts
    @Wowsil

    Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

    It is interesting that you deleted this bolded portion from your definition...I wonder if it is because you recognize that the generally accepted reality is that God exists (in the recently published Oxford Handbook of Atheism, there are approximately 450-500 million non-believers in God worldwide, which amounts to about 7% of the global adult population). This is after the numbers of atheists has grown significantly over the past decades. Be honest in your presentation of information @Wowsil. If your position is so defensible, it should not require changing definitions to defend. 


    Delusion: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

    Let's see the indisputable evidence to the contrary. 
  • @with_all_humility

    While, indeed, religion has always been important in the American society, and while all Founding Fathers believed religion to be an essential element in a united free society - it is important to note that religious beliefs can manifest differently, and interact with other parts of human's consciousness differently.

    There is a strong difference between religion-based society, and religion-featuring society.
    - In the former case, religion defines individuals' world view at large, it penetrates each part of both the individual and collective consciousness, it serves as a primary moral guide and forms the dominating world view in the society. Examples of such societies nowadays would be: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia.
    - In the latter case, religion supplies the dominant ideological world view; it affects certain aspects of how individuals and collectives see the world, but it is not a primary source of mental and emotional patterns. Examples nowadays would be: Qatar, Greece, the US.
    In both cases, the actual number of believers and those who hold their beliefs high on their priority list can be overwhelming. In fact, nothing prevents the latter case from existing in a society where 100% of people share the religious beliefs. 

    I think the latter has been the case in the US. One of the core reasons the secessionist movement was so overwhelming in the US is the desire to escape the religious tyranny of Europe and to be free to practice one's religion in peace, without being overwhelmed by controlling sentiments from churches and theocratic governments.

    The ideals of individual freedom, of private property, of free market, of religious equality - all these ideals could exist freely outside the religious ideologism. In the US, religion supplemented people's conviction in these ideals, justifying them by attributing them to the God's will.

    In my opinion, the nation could have been just as successful in combination with any other popular religion: Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism... Even Atheism and Agnosticism could work just as fine. When religion is now what dictates the dominant ideology, but what supplements it and provides justification for it, then the exact religion choice is not of a major importance.
  • @Wowsil Just because something is not proven it doesn't mean it is not true, that would be an argument from ignorance (I'm not calling you ignorant, that's just the name of the fallacy).
    @MayCaesar yea it's near impossible to prove what's true and what's not. Descartes thought the only thing you can actually prove is that you can think, nothing else.
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    (No, an idiosyncracy is "a mode of behaviour or way of thought peculiar to an individual."
    Ergo a believer in a widespread religion would not have an idiosyncratic belief but a normal belief and therefore not be delusional.) 

    You are making the mistake of using the "ad populum" fallacy.
    For example, the German people democratically voted Hitler into power on a mandate of anti-Semitism. That does not make such a belief right or "normal"
    In the case of belief in God, the belief is founded on absolutely no evidence or rational reasoning whatsoever, clearly making it an idiosyncratic belief whether it is held by one person or a million people.@Ampersand
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    "Just because something is not proven it doesn't mean it is not true, that would be an argument from ignorance (I'm not calling you ignorant, that's just the name of the fallacy)."
    Your statement is totally absurd and therefore invalid.
    I could equally make a claim such as "just because the existence of green fairies is not proven it doesn't mean they aren't true" or any other ridiculous contrivance.
    The existence of God is a ridiculous contrivance based on superstition, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it and any anecdotal accounts are unsupported.

    What is your point anyway?
    Are you trying to use the feeble reasoning of "anything is possible"?

    The claim that "God exists" is a positive assertion and because there is no evidence in support, that claim can be dismissed without evidence.@funperson
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    The definition I used is from the Oxford dictionary and is unedited.
    Making the mistake of using the "ad populum fallacy" gives absolutely no credibility whatsoever to your failed and flawed argument.@dbox
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    "Calling me stupid hardly increases your validity either you filthy scumbag hypocrite. Don't dish out ad hominem insults if you don't want to be wiped across the floor without mercy.
    You call it delusional to believe in your title and didn't specify religious affiliation at all."
    ....I did quite clearly in bold and it is still there in writing for all to see...
    "Are religious followers deluded"
    And....
    "religion is an idiosyncratic belief..." 
    Also....
    "religious people are deluded...."

    Hence my reasoning for the well-earned and appropriate label of "stupid".

    Now, go ahead, wipe the floor with what little credibility that you may have.@someone234
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    Are you serious in thinking that the Bible is not full of untruths?
    Do you really need someone to list the hundreds upon hundreds of myths, allegories, speculations and outright lies printed in the Bible?

    "So who is having delusions, the saved or those who refuse the truth?"
     ...saved from eternal damnation as per the absolute speculative lie you quoted from the Bible?

    That is exactly what I mean by pure evil and that is exactly what you are preaching.....lies and evil.@with_all_humility
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    "You say:

    Therefore:

    religious people are deluded, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

    Is this a general claim of your own or do have a specific  disorder that is published in the DSM?"

    This is not a general claim of mine, it is a specific claim.
    The definition is taken from the Oxford dictionary.
    If you look at the DSM, religious belief is covered however you will note that in respect of delusion it uses an "out clause" which renders their definition as ambiguous, to say the least.@with_all_humility
  • @Wowsil

    Children are force fed religious nonsense from infancy and have no choice in it they know no better , Indoctrination is incredibly effective at doing its job , I get what you’re saying and I guess my sympathies like you’res lies with the kids , I do agree that it’s child abuse 

    Actually that’s a good title for a new debate 
    Erfisflat
  • Wowsil said:
    (No, an idiosyncracy is "a mode of behaviour or way of thought peculiar to an individual."
    Ergo a believer in a widespread religion would not have an idiosyncratic belief but a normal belief and therefore not be delusional.) 

    You are making the mistake of using the "ad populum" fallacy.
    For example, the German people democratically voted Hitler into power on a mandate of anti-Semitism. That does not make such a belief right or "normal"
    In the case of belief in God, the belief is founded on absolutely no evidence or rational reasoning whatsoever, clearly making it an idiosyncratic belief whether it is held by one person or a million people.@Ampersand
    No, you are making the ad populem argument and have done so falsely.

    YOUR definition is specifically based on the belief being idiosyncratic. You provided that definition, not me.

    It is also unclear if you even know what the word means, despite me providing a definition, and something is not idiosyncratic just because it is not rational. Widely held beliefs that are the norm by definition cannot be idiosyncratic because that is the opposite of what the term means.
  • Wowsil said:
    "Calling me stupid hardly increases your validity either you filthy scumbag hypocrite. Don't dish out ad hominem insults if you don't want to be wiped across the floor without mercy.
    You call it delusional to believe in your title and didn't specify religious affiliation at all."
    ....I did quite clearly in bold and it is still there in writing for all to see...
    "Are religious followers deluded"
    And....
    "religion is an idiosyncratic belief..." 
    Also....
    "religious people are deluded...."

    Hence my reasoning for the well-earned and appropriate label of "stupid".

    Now, go ahead, wipe the floor with what little credibility that you may have.@someone234
    Sure thing. Since you ignored me asking you to explain things about atheism, I'll do that to your new thread: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/2442/why-are-theists-deluded

    In the future, I suggest learning the English language and words like 'credibility', 'believing', 'delusion' and 'title' before trying to be witty and rude.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    The definition is from the Oxford dictionary and your definition of idiosyncratic conveniently omits "a distinctive or peculiar feature or characteristic of a place or thing" and my argument remains valid.......a believer of God is deluded.@Ampersand
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    Creating diversions to an argument and making up some and bull story about the title is getting more stupid by the minute. The facts speak for themselves as per what I pointed out to you and continuing to make unfounded and ridiculous attacks on the thread instead of making a valid argument only digs you further into the ditch of stupidity.@someone234
  • someone234someone234 572 Pts
    edited August 11
    Wowsil said:
    digs you further into the ditch of stupidity.@someone234
    I am digging your grave of stupidity and you are willingly laying yourself down in it. Enjoy your lack of afterlife, atheist.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • pocopoco 81 Pts
    you: 

    Are religious followers deluded?

    A look at the definition of "delusion" may give us a clue.

    Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

    The fact is:

    religion is an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument.

    Therefore:

    religious people are deluded, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.


    me:  Since you have definitively stated that, "religion is an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument," you must tell us how "reality or rational argument" is contradicted by a belief in God, using reliable sources of course.

    It's up to you to prove what you say is actual truth, not assumptions or opinions.  & since I have not stated anything here but my challenge to you re your claim, it's incumbent upon you to prove your claim is indeed a fact.  The floor is yours. 




  • @Wowsil right, if green fairies are not disproven then that certainly does not mean they exist, but it also does not mean they don’t exist. When people say God exists, they do have evidence, albeit kind of weak evidence. For example, people say the universe requires a creator, therefore there is probably a God. So it’s not proof, but that claim requires evidence to disprove.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1426 Pts
    I'm still wondering when the OP is going to show how theism is contradicted by reality or rational argument. I agree that religions are often contradictory with reality, for instance the belief in the spinning pearoid that came about by pure random cosmic luck after nothing exploded into nothing and created everything (talk about irrationality), but the simple belief in God does not contradict any reality, or rational argument.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Wowsil said:
    "You say:

    Therefore:

    religious people are deluded, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

    Is this a general claim of your own or do have a specific  disorder that is published in the DSM?"

    This is not a general claim of mine, it is a specific claim.
    The definition is taken from the Oxford dictionary.
    If you look at the DSM, religious belief is covered however you will note that in respect of delusion it uses an "out clause" which renders their definition as ambiguous, to say the least.@with_all_humility
    I looked up the Oxford Dictionary on religious and it says...
    • Relating to or believing in a religion.

      ‘both men were deeply religious and moralistic’
      ‘religious music’
      More example sentences
      Synonyms
      1. 1.1 (of a belief or practice) forming part of someone's faith in a divine being.
        ‘she has strong religious convictions’

      2. 1.2 Belonging or relating to a monastic order or other groups of people who are united by their practice of religion.
        ‘religious houses were built on ancient pagan sites’

      3. 1.3 Treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship.
        ‘I have a religious aversion to reading manuals’

    religion

    NOUN

    mass noun
    • 1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

      ‘ideas about the relationship between science and religion’
      More example sentences
      Synonyms
      1. 1.1count noun A particular system of faith and worship.
        ‘the world's great religions’
        More example sentences
        Synonyms
      2. 1.2count noun A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
        ‘consumerism is the new religion’

    I don't see the mention or notion of being religious as being delusional.  Perhaps you can help point out your claim in the above citation from the Oxford Dictionary.

    For the word Delusion, it states...

    NOUN

    • An idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

      ‘the delusion of being watched’
      More example sentences
      Synonyms
      1. 1.1mass noun The action of deluding or the state of being deluded.
        ‘what a capacity television has for delusion’

    When asked about religion versus delusions, Jennifer Wright, Clinical Neuropsychologist is quoted as saying...

    "There are also different classes of disorders, and some of them fall under an umbrella of what is called “psychotic” disorders. Psychotic disorders all share the similarity that the person harbors a belief or experience that is outside the parameters of reality. They use very bizarre logic, that isn’t logical at all, and the things they say can even come across as disjointed and way off topic. They hear voices that are not there, they may see things as touchable and as obvious to them as the floor underneath your feet. And they may harbor beliefs that are patently and obviously not true and impossible. This doesn’t mean just any common religious belief, such as the idea that there is a God (or several Gods), or that Jesus lived or performed miracles. While those ideas may not really be grounded in science (e.g., the idea of walking on water), they fit a cultural “norm,” and they are often just ways or metaphors of trying to understand the universe and life beyond the physical present. The beliefs in delusions fall much much farther off the mark. They may be shared by others (called a “folie a deux”), but they aren’t shared by large swathes of the population. Believing in Jesus and that he walked on water is a religious faith belief; believing that your 9-month-old daughter is the Virgin Mary and throwing her into pools of water to prove she will float is a delusion."

    So again I will affirm that we are dealing with an opinion and not a fact-based claim.   
  • edited August 11
    MayCaesar said:
    @with_all_humility

    While, indeed, religion has always been important in the American society, and while all Founding Fathers believed religion to be an essential element in a united free society - it is important to note that religious beliefs can manifest differently, and interact with other parts of human's consciousness differently.

    There is a strong difference between religion-based society, and religion-featuring society.
    - In the former case, religion defines individuals' world view at large, it penetrates each part of both the individual and collective consciousness, it serves as a primary moral guide and forms the dominating world view in the society. Examples of such societies nowadays would be: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia.
    - In the latter case, religion supplies the dominant ideological world view; it affects certain aspects of how individuals and collectives see the world, but it is not a primary source of mental and emotional patterns. Examples nowadays would be: Qatar, Greece, the US.
    In both cases, the actual number of believers and those who hold their beliefs high on their priority list can be overwhelming. In fact, nothing prevents the latter case from existing in a society where 100% of people share the religious beliefs. 

    I think the latter has been the case in the US. One of the core reasons the secessionist movement was so overwhelming in the US is the desire to escape the religious tyranny of Europe and to be free to practice one's religion in peace, without being overwhelmed by controlling sentiments from churches and theocratic governments.

    The ideals of individual freedom, of private property, of free market, of religious equality - all these ideals could exist freely outside the religious ideologism. In the US, religion supplemented people's conviction in these ideals, justifying them by attributing them to the God's will.

    In my opinion, the nation could have been just as successful in combination with any other popular religion: Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism... Even Atheism and Agnosticism could work just as fine. When religion is now what dictates the dominant ideology, but what supplements it and provides justification for it, then the exact religion choice is not of a major importance.
    MayCaesar,

    Appreciate your perspective on the role religion played in our American society through the ages.  

    I agree, there is a strong difference between religion-based society and religion-featuring society.  I would say that we were a religion-based society that moved to a religion-featuring society.  As previously stated our forefathers and the first Americans were a religion-based society.  However, today America is definitely a religion-featuring nation.

    I agree as well that the forefather overwhelming desired to escape the religious tyranny of Europe and to be free to practice one's religion in peace, without being overwhelmed by controlling sentiments from churches and theocratic governments.  Government or ruling class should be free from the church or religious body.  Not only tyranny but when a dictator is claiming everything in the name of God.  It leaves the devout believer unable to argue in defense of oneself.  The corrupt religious figures down through that ages have done many hanious things...and they still continue to this day.

    The ideals of individual freedom, of private property, of a free market, of religious equality - all these ideals could exist freely outside the religious ideologism.  (I agree, but they also exist within the confines of the New Testament teachings)

    In my opinion, the nation could have been just as successful in combination with any other popular religion: Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism... Even Atheism and Agnosticism could work just as fine. When religion is now what dictates the dominant ideology, but what supplements it and provides justification for it, then the exact religion choice is not of a major importance.  

    (Let me ask you this, have you every severed in the Military?)  Many men and women have done gone to war not only for the country but in the name of God. Now Islam is a warning religion/nation (even foretold in the Bible) One or two of the religions you listed are heavy on the pacifist side

    Let me say, I believe you make some excellent points and perhaps I'm splitting hairs with you. However, I mean no offense and appreciate the well-articulated response. 
  • @poco

    I asked Mr. Opinion (Wowsil) the same thing... :D
  • Wowsil said:
    Are you serious in thinking that the Bible is not full of untruths?
    Do you really need someone to list the hundreds upon hundreds of myths, allegories, speculations and outright lies printed in the Bible?
    • Ah...Yeah!
    "So who is having delusions, the saved or those who refuse the truth?"
     ...saved from eternal damnation as per the absolute speculative lie you quoted from the Bible?
    • And you know this to be a lie how???

  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts

    me:  Since you have definitively stated that, "religion is an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument," you must tell us how "reality or rational argument" is contradicted by a belief in God, using reliable sources of course.

    You have twisted the argument conversely.

    Nevertheless, there is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of God.

    There is no rational reason to believe there is a God despite numerous anecdotal affirmations.

    The fundamental cornerstone of religious belief is that God created the universe of which there is no evidence.

    Also, the belief that God created life has been completely contradicted and discounted by the irrefutable evidence supporting evolution by natural selection.

    I humbly give the floor to you.

    @poco
  • WowsilWowsil 47 Pts
    "When asked about religion versus delusions, Jennifer Wright, Clinical Neuropsychologist is quoted as saying...
    ....So again I will affirm that we are dealing with an opinion and not a fact-based claim."
    Let's stick with established, balanced facts, shall we?
    The passage you quoted is opinion, not based on facts but on a predetermined mindset of "alternative" science and therapies, for example, hypnotherapy, somatic psychotherapy, and Hakomi. 
    It is an extremely biased account and has no substantive reasoning behind it whatsoever.@poco


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch