How do we know that Christians are Delusional?

Well it's clear if you attack the belief of a fanatic, in their eyes, you're attacking the fanatic themselves. The belief, it's assumed validity, the continued faith in said belief, all of these things comprise too important an element of self identity to separate it all out and have an open discussion. It's genuinely hurtful or dangerous to them, we can be in NO doubt about this IMHO.

In terms of sugar coating, what do you want to achieve when you talk to certain religious types? I assume in the case of the video the hope is some form of positive resolution involving tinted glasses being removed. If this is the case, talk of delusion will send them further into their caves of hiding because it's all so tribal. It's always a me vs them mentality with fanatics because it is, in my eyes, the sense of being aligned with "truth" that is most important. Questioning, wrongness or even, "more than one way to god" mentalities are too dangerous, I honestly think doubts may be blocked out like the mind seems to block out other unnecessary data, honing in on the important stuff at any one time. It's for this reason that I think fanatics if there are changes, need to see for themselves. We need more comparative religion but more than that we need to promote the idea that religions should be about promoting peace rather than supposed truths. The reason I mention the idea of promoting other religions in the face of fanatics rather than just telling them they're wrong is simply because of the tribal element to being told of such delusions. If there is a shift in mentality to consider religion in terms of peace instead of truth, firstly it's not too big a jump into obscurity for them, secondly the tribal mentality is naturally dissolved to an extent and thirdly their sense of self identity need not be attacked.

Unfortunately I've never really had any success with discussing religion in general with fanatics so it's certainly a problem but as I say, if you want some positive resolution, the video approach above seems really unhelpful to me. I guess you could argue for some shock and awe tactic but I don't hold much hope for that. Also, I specifically talk of fanatics because it is the hateful, closed off and divide and conquer mentality we should be primarily addressing. If you're concerned with peace and good will rather than childish scripture, I'm right, you're wrong debates then you would always maintain a healthy balance between what you believe in and what compares well with the rest of the world. Maybe we just need better religious, ethics and social value classes in shools thereby looking to the future instead.

0 Replies

(Thank you Ashers, for your considered response)

Ashers wrote:

Well it's clear if you attack the belief of a fanatic, in their eyes, you're attacking the fanatic themselves. The belief, it's assumed validity, the continued faith in said belief, all of these things comprise too important an element of self identity to separate it all out and have an open discussion. It's genuinely hurtful or dangerous to them, we can be in NO doubt about this IMHO.

I agree, it's probably ineffective to use reason in the face of delusion. The existence of the delusion is an indication that reasoning is already impaired.

Ashers wrote:

In terms of sugar coating, what do you want to achieve when you talk to certain religious types? I assume in the case of the video the hope is some form of positive resolution involving tinted glasses being removed. If this is the case, talk of delusion will send them further into their caves of hiding because it's all so tribal.

So videos of this nature, no matter how logical and obvious, will be ineffective in breaking the delusion. I think I agree.

Ashers wrote:

It's always a me vs them mentality with fanatics because it is, in my eyes, the sense of being aligned with "truth" that is most important. Questioning, wrongness or even, "more than one way to god" mentalities are too dangerous, I honestly think doubts may be blocked out like the mind seems to block out other unnecessary data, honing in on the important stuff at any one time. It's for this reason that I think fanatics if there are changes, need to see for themselves. We need more comparative religion but more than that we need to promote the idea that religions should be about promoting peace rather than supposed truths.

It's an interesting approach, trying to have religion promote peace instead of truth. But organized religion is primarily about control. The core tenets of Christianity were originally about peace, yet the mainstream practitioners have already strayed from their own path.

I'm not sure you could ever get organized religion to put its primary goal of expansion on the back burner.

You're essentially asking to use the delusion as a form of control to induce peace before reveling the delusion to everyone. That's manipulative in its own sense. Probably more honorable just to reveal the delusion up front.

Ashers wrote:

Unfortunately I've never really had any success with discussing religion in general with fanatics so it's certainly a problem but as I say, if you want some positive resolution, the video approach above seems really unhelpful to me. I guess you could argue for some shock and awe tactic but I don't hold much hope for that. Also, I specifically talk of fanatics because it is the hateful, closed off and divide and conquer mentality we should be primarily addressing.

I think the video takes a different approach and specifically doesn't worry about fanatics because they are inherently unreachable. The video starts off by assuming the person watching is a educated, intelligent, functional member of society. Granted fanatics could play this role, but more importantly, there are many people who 'are' educated, intelligent and functional, and yet they are delusional (by strict definition) in their religious beliefs.

Ashers wrote:

If you're concerned with peace and good will rather than childish scripture, I'm right, you're wrong debates then you would always maintain a healthy balance between what you believe in and what compares well with the rest of the world. Maybe we just need better religious, ethics and social value classes in shools thereby looking to the future instead.

The video is making a point that the world is not in a healthy state if a majority of its population is delusional. That's partly why it's so "in your face" about what it is saying. My normal reaction to religion is "let it be, as long as it's not forced on me", but the video is saying that there is no escaping the effects of mass delusion on the population of a planet, we are all at risk from it.

How do we respond if the video is correct?

Is a populations' freedom to choose (to be delusional) of greater value than its collective mental health?

0 Replies

Ashers...A very thoughtful response. The maker(s) of this video clearly has an abrasive, confrontational approach that is unlikely to be productive. Also, I get the sense that this person thinks anything smacking of spirituality is hooey. In short, he may be as much of a fanatic as the people he is criticizing. Yes, dogmatic faith in religious doctrine is a very limited understanding. However, there is real spirituality. A better approach might be to expose the dogmatic religious types to ideas about transformation of consciousness and inner peace, and ways to validate their religious impulse through direct experience.

I don't have a lot of experience with religious fanatics, however, sometimes it is helpful to shock them, not with something confrontational, but with a different take on their own religious tradition, or pointing out the connections between their religion and others. On another religious chat room there was some guy going on about Jesus being the only way to salvation. I posted as if I were a Hindu and asked him if he believed that I was going to hell. It took him by surprised since he didn't want to insult me. When he started telling me what Hindus believe and how it differs from Christianity, I corrected him and showed him the similarities. It was an interesting exchange.