Christianity Is A Harmful Delusion

[Brother Jeff]

Does Christian religious belief qualify as a delusion and, if so, is the Christian delusion harmful to believers? I believe that both questions can be answered in the affirmative, for the following reasons.

 

A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. The Christian delusion happens to fall under all three aforementioned categories.

 

Most, if not all, of the foundational beliefs which define the Christian religion and which Christians of course hold dear, are demonstrably false. Ample proof of that fact is readily available to any open-minded person willing to consider the relevant facts, not just on this site but on many other sites across the Net, such as Paul Tobin’s excellent Rejection of Pascal’s Wager.

 

To non-Christians, Christian beliefs definitely qualify as fanciful. A three-in-one (or is that one-in-three?) god, a magical god-man whose magic blood magically redeems those who believe in his sacrifice (to himself?), angels, demons, souls, heavenly and hellish realms, magical undeadenings (resurrections), talking animals, magic fruit, magic trees, flying people, magically undead people — and the list of fanciful beliefs and claims (of which I have just barely scratched the surface) goes on seemingly endlessly. One particularly absurd claim made by Christians, in my opinion, is the notion that a collection of ancient religious mythology written by mostly anonymous Bronze Age authors – which is riddled with contradictions and scientific, factual, and historical errors – is “divinely inspired” and “inerrant/infallible”. Of course I adhered to that belief when I was a Christian, but it’s plainly obvious to me now how ridiculous such a belief was and is.

 

Christian clergy and apologists routinely deceive Christian believers, and for good reason. Not a shred of credible, verifiable evidence capable of withstanding critical scrutiny exists to support Christian beliefs. Willful dishonesty and deception largely define the Christian apologetics enterprise as does their vested interest in keeping the flock ignorant and denying observable , demonstrable reality. This is true not just concerning the Bible and its many problems, but also concerning the origins and age of the universe, the earth, and mankind. The dishonesty, ignorance, and the refusal of Christian clergy and apologists to deal with the facts concerning their own holy book is disturbing enough, but the intentional dishonesty with the facts routinely displayed by creationists in their absurd attacks on the theory of biological evolution reaches truly appalling (and contemptible) levels.

 

No delusion can be said to be healthy to cling to as a delusional person, by definition, is not dealing with reality on some level. But to be wrapped up in a religious delusion based on all three defining categories strikes me as particularly harmful.

 

Thoughts?

 

LINK: http://refutingchris...rmful-delusion/

[Realist]

.... well put Brother Jeff!

 

Another part of the "delusion" I find very harmful is the devisiveness that fundamentalism causes.

 

Dr Marlene Winell put it very well in the "podcast" section under the post "The Search for Meaning." She basically states this:

 

"One of the huge reliefs of leaving the fold was being allowed to appreciate and love people for who they are than instead of for their category." "People are either saved or damned. Either an object of conversion or fellowship."

 

I have found this situation very real in my own birth family. There is that EXACT feeling Dr Winell describes which devides families rather than uniting them.

[qec]

.... well put Brother Jeff!

 

Another part of the "delusion" I find very harmful is the devisiveness that fundamentalism causes.

 

Dr Marlene Winell put it very well in the "podcast" section under the post "The Search for Meaning." She basically states this:

 

"One of the huge reliefs of leaving the fold was being allowed to appreciate and love people for who they are than instead of for their category." "People are either saved or damned. Either an object of conversion or fellowship."

 

I have found this situation very real in my own birth family. There is that EXACT feeling Dr Winell describes which devides families rather than uniting them.

 

 

And I think viewing 98% of the human race as "delusional" for believing religious or spiritual sentiments can divide too... Good luck with your "delusional" family members. I mean sure it's a delusion of sorts, but I think putting too much emphasis on the black and white delusional thinking of extreme fundamentalists misses the good in religion too, and, ironically, risks falling into a similar sort of black and white thinking of extreme fundamentalism: you are either "delusional" or "not", you either "embrace reality" or "believe in religion/spirituality". The fact of the matter is that plenty of religious people do good as well as evil because of the thinking they engage in, even if it is fairly delusional. By just emphasizing the negative it makes Atheists look like extremists...

[qec]

Willful dishonesty and deception largely define the Christian apologetics enterprise as does their vested interest in keeping the flock ignorant and denying observable , demonstrable reality.

 

 

Um, I just had to point out Brother Jeff, that if you are actually delusional, then you are by definition fairly incapable (not totally) of being willfully dishonest and deceptive in the areas regarding your delusion because you actually believe your own bullshit (hence the delusion). I don't think most apologists are knowingly lying, because I see no evidence that they are. In fact, all the evidence I see is that they can't deal with something other than their belief system, so that plus confirmation bias means that they must keep lying to themselves just as much as they lie to others. That's a different animal apart from willful dishonesty: they are usually not conscious of the fact they are being dishonest.

 

People like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Rick Warren, etc strike me as being willfully dishonest. Most apologists on the other hand, probably believe their own bullshit even more then the people they are trying to convince.

[Shyone]

Willful dishonesty and deception largely define the Christian apologetics enterprise as does their vested interest in keeping the flock ignorant and denying observable , demonstrable reality.

 

 

Um, I just had to point out Brother Jeff, that if you are actually delusional, then you are by definition fairly incapable (not totally) of being willfully dishonest and deceptive in the areas regarding your delusion because you actually believe your own bullshit (hence the delusion). I don't think most apologists are knowingly lying, because I see no evidence that they are. In fact, all the evidence I see is that they can't deal with something other than their belief system, so that plus confirmation bias means that they must keep lying to themselves just as much as they lie to others. That's a different animal apart from willful dishonesty: they are usually not conscious of the fact they are being dishonest.

What is Pious Fraud? Apologetics? Surely you know, and they know that they are being deceptive, but they are not atheists.

 

I therefore see evidence of willful dishonesty and deception. It's lyin' for Jeebus, so it's ok, but it's still lyin'.

[Vixentrox]

It is indeed a harmful delusion but the degree of harm ranges from a mild cold type of harm to bubonic plague.

[qec]

Willful dishonesty and deception largely define the Christian apologetics enterprise as does their vested interest in keeping the flock ignorant and denying observable , demonstrable reality.

 

 

Um, I just had to point out Brother Jeff, that if you are actually delusional, then you are by definition fairly incapable (not totally) of being willfully dishonest and deceptive in the areas regarding your delusion because you actually believe your own bullshit (hence the delusion). I don't think most apologists are knowingly lying, because I see no evidence that they are. In fact, all the evidence I see is that they can't deal with something other than their belief system, so that plus confirmation bias means that they must keep lying to themselves just as much as they lie to others. That's a different animal apart from willful dishonesty: they are usually not conscious of the fact they are being dishonest.

What is Pious Fraud? Apologetics? Surely you know, and they know that they are being deceptive, but they are not atheists.

 

I therefore see evidence of willful dishonesty and deception. It's lyin' for Jeebus, so it's ok, but it's still lyin'.

 

 

My point is that most of them dont see it as lying precisely because it's for Jeebus. That's because they lie to themselves first, and then to the people they are trying to convince. Lying to themselves first means they are far less conscious of the fact they are lying to other people. I am not saying that makes it OK, I am just saying that they are not being willfully dishonest and deceptive as it's being put, as if they are somehow fully conscious of it; if they were mostly conscious of how they were lying then they would be Atheists using Religion through apologetics to make money rather than suffering religious delusion. I think if most were conscious of it at some point in their lives, then they would be Atheists and quit lying to themselves and then others. This doesn't just apply to Christian apologists, it also applies to apologists of any religious/spiritual system.

 

Willfull dishonesty implies a level of consciousness that most of those apologists, simply don't possess. If they did possess that level of consciousness then it would follow that they didn't believe the religion they were defending and were just using that religion to make money off of other people when in fact they didn't believe most of it. I will concede that some religious people are like this, but those are few and far between. L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith were like this, and it's quite possible that Jesus and the apostles were like this (supposing they actually existed), but the average apologist? Nah. It should also be pointed out that in the case of Hubbard, eventually (later on down the line), he too started believing his own bullshit. Anyway.

[Shyone]

Willful dishonesty and deception largely define the Christian apologetics enterprise as does their vested interest in keeping the flock ignorant and denying observable , demonstrable reality.

 

 

Um, I just had to point out Brother Jeff, that if you are actually delusional, then you are by definition fairly incapable (not totally) of being willfully dishonest and deceptive in the areas regarding your delusion because you actually believe your own bullshit (hence the delusion). I don't think most apologists are knowingly lying, because I see no evidence that they are. In fact, all the evidence I see is that they can't deal with something other than their belief system, so that plus confirmation bias means that they must keep lying to themselves just as much as they lie to others. That's a different animal apart from willful dishonesty: they are usually not conscious of the fact they are being dishonest.

What is Pious Fraud? Apologetics? Surely you know, and they know that they are being deceptive, but they are not atheists.

 

I therefore see evidence of willful dishonesty and deception. It's lyin' for Jeebus, so it's ok, but it's still lyin'.

 

 

My point is that most of them dont see it as lying precisely because it's for Jeebus. That's because they lie to themselves first, and then to the people they are trying to convince. Lying to themselves first means they are far less conscious of the fact they are lying to other people. I am not saying that makes it OK, I am just saying that they are not being willfully dishonest and deceptive as it's being put, as if they are somehow fully conscious of it; if they were mostly conscious of how they were lying then they would be Atheists using Religion through apologetics to make money rather than suffering religious delusion. I think if most were conscious of it at some point in their lives, then they would be Atheists and quit lying to themselves and then others. This doesn't just apply to Christian apologists, it also applies to apologists of any religious/spiritual system.

 

Willfull dishonesty implies a level of consciousness that most of those apologists, simply don't possess. If they did possess that level of consciousness then it would follow that they didn't believe the religion they were defending and were just using that religion to make money off of other people when in fact they didn't believe most of it. I will concede that some religious people are like this, but those are few and far between. L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith were like this, and it's quite possible that Jesus and the apostles were like this (supposing they actually existed), but the average apologist? Nah. It should also be pointed out that in the case of Hubbard, eventually (later on down the line), he too started believing his own bullshit. Anyway.

I think they are honest when they say the believe in Jesus and all that, but when they know what they are doing is untruthful, it's willful dishonesty. Lying for Jesus is still lying. It's just not honest, and not because they are claiming something they don't know like Heaven is paved in gold, they do know that what they are saying is the opposite of the truth. Consciously.

 

The person at the Center for Creationism, or whatever it was called, that fabricated a dinosaur footprint with a human footprint inside knew exactly what he was doing. He was creating something that he claimed was discovered. There is no way to call that an honest mistake. He may have thought, "There must be such a fossil, but we just haven't found it, so I'll make one." That is dishonest. And there is no way he could have later convinced himself that the fossil was discovered after he had fabricated it.

 

And, if confronted, he would lie again; probably saying, "I never meant to imply that this was discovered, just that this is what it would look like and what it will look like when we find it."

 

Apologetics that make up fanciful stories to tie things together know that they are creating stories even if they justify it by saying, "It must have been that way even if it isn't written." The entire endeavor is a conscious effort to make a lie into the truth despite overwhelming evidence that it is a lie.

[Brother Jeff]

Willful dishonesty and deception largely define the Christian apologetics enterprise as does their vested interest in keeping the flock ignorant and denying observable , demonstrable reality.

 

 

Um, I just had to point out Brother Jeff, that if you are actually delusional, then you are by definition fairly incapable (not totally) of being willfully dishonest and deceptive in the areas regarding your delusion because you actually believe your own bullshit (hence the delusion). I don't think most apologists are knowingly lying, because I see no evidence that they are. In fact, all the evidence I see is that they can't deal with something other than their belief system, so that plus confirmation bias means that they must keep lying to themselves just as much as they lie to others. That's a different animal apart from willful dishonesty: they are usually not conscious of the fact they are being dishonest.

 

People like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Rick Warren, etc strike me as being willfully dishonest. Most apologists on the other hand, probably believe their own bullshit even more then the people they are trying to convince.

I hear what you're saying, but most apologists have ready access to current biblical scholarship and therefore they have no excuse not to be well aware of the facts, unlike average everyday Christians. And yet, they ignore or deny established facts that they don't like on a regular basis. Granted, they are under the influence of a strong delusion but still, I see that as intentional dishonesty. And when they lie to Christians about the bible, they are being intentionally deceptive, IMHO. At the very least, both sides of the argument should be presented, but of course no apologist is going to do that since the arguments in favor of belief are so weak!

 

As apologists go, I find the willful dishonesty and almost constant lies coming from the creationist camp the most appalling. IMHO, they are contemptible people, and I absolutely despise them.