Is It Really A Delusion?

[Shyone]

Religion is just a common and accepted form of delusion. Being common and accepted does not change the fact that it is indeed a form of delusion though.

 

Religion in our culture gets a pass on a lot of things, but if you don't believe in gods, then it is clearly delusional in every sense of the word.

 

Who would argue that all of the invisible entities that people have claimed to speak with are real? If they aren't real, then it is a delusion. God, Jesus and the Saints get a pass here because it's "common."

 

That only makes it a common delusion.

[Ouroboros]

That only makes it a common delusion.

Yup.

 

Delusion of the masses.

 

Charles Mackay used the term for mass-hysteria and mass-misinformed attitudes, so... I don't feel bad to continue the tradition.

[Mriana]

@Mirana

 

I'm not saying you're wrong here. I've read about the possible existence of a 'God' gene.

 

However, not every disorder necessarily has a genetic component. Disorders can also be the result of learned or habitual behaviors. They can literally be trained into being.

 

I don't doubt that either.

 

I'm more of a mind to believe that religion as a disorder is of the second type. It's a self imposed learned behavior in general. I think the genetic component is minimal if there even is one.

 

It is also imposed on children, but not necessarily self-imposed until adulthood.

 

Here is a great example of self-imposed insanity, posted by Betty Bowers:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36148830/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

 

Talk about Stigmata!

[oddbird1963]

Religion may be 'outmoded', out of step, a throw-back from the past, less developed, hanging on to the past, and so on and so forth, but someone's resistance to change - or more accurately, their difficulty in transitioning to a new system of thought (which can be for a huge host of reasons, cognition being but only one of many), does not qualify as delusional. Someone emotionally resisting an idea because it makes them uncomfortable, to the point they irrationally defend their beliefs to protect them I would not call delusional thinking.

A-Man,

 

I know I posed some questions to you in another thread. It seems this question of "Is religion a delusion?" is a rich question indeed and seems to come up in a lot of discussions. I certainly agree with the desire to avoid being unnecessarily pejorative on the one hand and a desire to be analytically fruitful on the other hand. That is why I posed those questions to you in the other thread. I want some help from the members of this forum in sifting through this powder keg issue.

 

In regards to the paragraph above, I think you are on to something with the various word choices that illustrate the problem with various frames of mind that seem to resist reality.

 

Maybe I am not knowledgeable enough to differentiate between various postures regarding change of perspective in the context of normal growth and development within society AND the pathological inability to face reality known clinically as "delusional." Just what is the difference between a "delusion" in the clinical sense and a stubborn refusal to accept reality? What does a pathological delusion look like?

 

The problem is, Antlerman, if you put the word, "extreme," "unhealthy," "dysfunctional" in front of the words you used, couldn't your very words be used as part of a sound clinical definition of delusion? And, if you accept that premise, what constitutes "extreme," "dysfunctional,' etc?

 

I see more and more what you mean about the word "delusional" being unhelpful in an analytical sense. But I think this is just the problem that the American Psychiatric Association has when defining mental illness. At some point, something is wrong, but it's hard to define in a consistent way what is wrong.

 

I am still left with a nagging sense that something is wrong when people have to go to increasingly absurd extremes to maintain a belief in their system. When this belief system means that parents feel justified in withholding blood transfusions from their loved ones or refusing their kids immunizations, haven't we crossed over into the area of delusion?

[florduh]

Someone may have absolutely valid reasons for continuing a belief in angels and gods, and fairies, and whatnot. The belief is not delusional, but in fact rational

I suppose a valid reason for believing in fairies would be if you are convinced you saw one. It's a rational belief in that narrow context, but better information is available. There are no fairies in existence regardless of what you think you saw. You would be deluded by your mistaken perception.

 

Rational isn't the opposite of deluded.

[Antlerman]

Religion may be 'outmoded', out of step, a throw-back from the past, less developed, hanging on to the past, and so on and so forth, but someone's resistance to change - or more accurately, their difficulty in transitioning to a new system of thought (which can be for a huge host of reasons, cognition being but only one of many), does not qualify as delusional. Someone emotionally resisting an idea because it makes them uncomfortable, to the point they irrationally defend their beliefs to protect them I would not call delusional thinking.

A-Man,

 

I know I posed some questions to you in another thread. It seems this question of "Is religion a delusion?" is a rich question indeed and seems to come up in a lot of discussions. I certainly agree with the desire to avoid being unnecessarily pejorative on the one hand and a desire to be analytically fruitful on the other hand. That is why I posed those questions to you in the other thread. I want some help from the members of this forum in sifting through this powder keg issue.

 

In regards to the paragraph above, I think you are on to something with the various word choices that illustrate the problem with various frames of mind that seem to resist reality.

 

Maybe I am not knowledgeable enough to differentiate between various postures regarding change of perspective in the context of normal growth and development within society AND the pathological inability to face reality known clinically as "delusional." Just what is the difference between a "delusion" in the clinical sense and a stubborn refusal to accept reality? What does a pathological delusion look like?

 

The problem is, Antlerman, if you put the word, "extreme," "unhealthy," "dysfunctional" in front of the words you used, couldn't your very words be used as part of a sound clinical definition of delusion? And, if you accept that premise, what constitutes "extreme," "dysfunctional,' etc?

 

I see more and more what you mean about the word "delusional" being unhelpful in an analytical sense. But I think this is just the problem that the American Psychiatric Association has when defining mental illness. At some point, something is wrong, but it's hard to define in a consistent way what is wrong.

 

I am still left with a nagging sense that something is wrong when people have to go to increasingly absurd extremes to maintain a belief in their system. When this belief system means that parents feel justified in withholding blood transfusions from their loved ones or refusing their kids immunizations, haven't we crossed over into the area of delusion?

Arrrggghhhhh.... I hate it when I'm having the same conversation in two threads! I'm working on a response to your well-put questions in the other thread, and I think I may pull them over into here as I finish my thoughts in response to you. They seem to apply more here (at least they do at the moment). It's much too disconcerting talking on two fronts to the same thing. If I do this, I'll just provide a link over there to here... [/hairpulling]

[Antlerman]

Someone may have absolutely valid reasons for continuing a belief in angels and gods, and fairies, and whatnot. The belief is not delusional, but in fact rational

I suppose a valid reason for believing in fairies would be if you are convinced you saw one. It's a rational belief in that narrow context, but better information is available. There are no fairies in existence regardless of what you think you saw. You would be deluded by your mistaken perception.

 

Rational isn't the opposite of deluded.

But that sort of 'faith' belief isn't about evidence. It's about something else. Any guesses as to what that 'something else' is?

[oddbird1963]

Arrrggghhhhh.... I hate it when I'm having the same conversation in two threads! I'm working on a response to your well-put questions in the other thread, and I think I may pull them over into here as I finish my thoughts in response to you. They seem to apply more here (at least they do at the moment). It's much too disconcerting talking on two fronts to the same thing. If I do this, I'll just provide a link over there to here... [/hairpulling]

 

 

LOL! I know. That's a good idea. Wherever you want to move it. It is an important issue.

[florduh]

Someone may have absolutely valid reasons for continuing a belief in angels and gods, and fairies, and whatnot. The belief is not delusional, but in fact rational

I suppose a valid reason for believing in fairies would be if you are convinced you saw one. It's a rational belief in that narrow context, but better information is available. There are no fairies in existence regardless of what you think you saw. You would be deluded by your mistaken perception.

 

Rational isn't the opposite of deluded.

But that sort of 'faith' belief isn't about evidence. It's about something else. Any guesses as to what that 'something else' is?

I have no idea what you're driving at. I'm just reiterating the original definition I used and applying it to your claim that being wrong can be a rational decision. Simply, if you have the wrong information, or an emotional or psychological need to believe something regardless of reality, it may be rational to believe it. No, it's not about evidence, but perceived valid reasons which pass as evidence.

[Shyone]

Someone may have absolutely valid reasons for continuing a belief in angels and gods, and fairies, and whatnot. The belief is not delusional, but in fact rational

I suppose a valid reason for believing in fairies would be if you are convinced you saw one. It's a rational belief in that narrow context, but better information is available. There are no fairies in existence regardless of what you think you saw. You would be deluded by your mistaken perception.

 

Rational isn't the opposite of deluded.

If you are convinced you saw one, you have either been fooled or have been hallucinating.

 

If one person claims some invisible being is watching everything he does, will punish him if he stops believing in the being, and claims to receive messages from this being that no one else can hear, we rarely have a problem deciding if that person is delusional. If two people have the same story, we call that Folie à deux (madness of two people in French).

 

If 2 billion people have the same story, we call that a religion.

[Antlerman]

I'm consolidating this from another thread into this topic as it is the same discussion....

 

Antlerman,

 

Thinking back to the comments you made in a recent post on this thread, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.

 

1) Regarding Dawkins and the new atheists, how would you describe the mythology and the symbols of their mythic system. If you want to dwell on a specific person, choose Dawkins if you are conversant with his work. I'm having trouble getting my mind around the modern and postmodern mythologies.

 

I think what is absent from them is the collection of narratives disseminated in poetic and literary fashion as with the Homeric works, the sagas of the Norse and the narratives of the old and new testaments.

 

What works of literature bind the non-theistic world view? What narratives? What symbols float around in the virtual reality of adopting minds that provide the inspirational and creative impulses in the new system?

I don’t see mythology as being strictly about narratives and poetic works, nor tales of the supernatural. I see mythology as about a host of ideals captured and communicated symbolically. The symbol of the Modern Man, the Rational Mind, the Enlightenment, Reason, Science, etc are all upheld as symbols of an Ideal. When strung together, symbols into other symbols, they become a mythology. Objects of Faith, in many regards. They are held as the Liberator from the Darkness of Superstition into the Light of Reason; The Beacon of Truth to the Modern Man; The Hope for the Future. I’m using capital letters because it is communicating how it is used, as transcendent ideals, not merely descriptors. These are myths; ideals, hopes, aspirations, beliefs infused into modern narratives.

 

Do these have their hero’s; their champions? Certainly. Name as many as you wish. They are apparent. Humans are in the business of mythmaking, and as modern myth studies have shown, they are about social formations. They are its self-identity, they are its validations in symbols, its understandings of itself historically; your great milestone champions, Voltaire, Galileo, Newton… (Richard Dawkins??), etc. Stories of Columbus as a great explorer of modern vision standing firmly in front of the Church leaders, arguing for a round earth against their flat one (a complete fabrication of history, BTW), are in fact your myths, your stories of the modern man’s image of himself he wishes to portray in story form; really no different that the earlier Jesus followers making Jesus their founding figure as challenging the Pharisees of their day – quite exactly the same, I’d say).

 

That’s just off the top of my head as I write, but I’m more than certain I could continue with strings of such examples. I find it amazing that in so many regards, we function exactly the same as those we challenge as “delusional”. It really does impress me as the pot calling the kettle black.

2) Regarding the concept of delusion. My observation is that in many cases religious belief is delusional insofar as it makes claims and statements about the world of time and space but will not adjust those claims in the face of established scientific fact. For instance:

Fundamentalist father-in-law: Evolution is not true.

Son-in-law: But what about the fossil record?

Fundamentalist father-in-law: Satan just put those dinosaur bones there to make scientists believe evolution is true!

 

This is not a conflict of two candidates for the best way to interpret the evidence in the world. This is a conflict between one legitimate candidate and some totally fantasy laden ad hoc reaction to the world.

I hate when I start cross-posting. In the other thread about delusion, I addressed this already. Rather than just quoting myself from there, I’ll briefly restate it here. Being obstinate and irrational to giving up ones mythological framework of relating to the world is driven by a HUGE existential angst. It’s not a delusional pathology, rather being emotionally reactionary. That’s not the same as delusional. Not wanting to face a challenge to ones core beliefs, ones basic framework of understanding reality, is in fact understandable, not delusion. I call this emotional irrationality in the faces of ones entire worldview being challenged.

 

How about if you were presented with “evidence of God”, if you had built your whole worldview around the belief no gods existed? Would you suddenly and abruptly “face reality”, or would you be considered delusional because you were “skeptical”?

 

I’m going to quote again something I just did above because I so like the way it’s worded: “Reality is defined by the coherence of the interpretive framework.”

 

I think it is society that determines if a thought process constitutes mental illness. I think at least one anthropologist has made the point that if society valued schizophrenic behavior, then schizophrenia would not be considered a mental illness. We would make a place for it in our society, lauding the role of shamans alongside that of priests, pastors and monks.

I think what would qualify as a mental illness would be if it in fact made the person dysfunctional in society. It’s not really a matter of valuing it, as the ability to be part of that society at large. Even so, those who are on the fringes of society wouldn’t be considered ‘ill’, so long as they had at the least some level of commonality.

 

When it comes to pastors and priests… I just had this thought earlier tonight. A pastor or priest is really a middle-management sort of flunky. He is no shaman or visionary, but basically a modestly good salesman, and administrator. Your shamans, well I’m not so ready to buy into the view that they were schizophrenics; but I won’t rule it out in some cases either. Sometimes that line between genius and madness is not quite so clear, you do realize?

 

Monks? My partner told me I would in many ways have made a far better monk than a minister. That was meant as a compliment from her. But of course it depends how you stereotype what a monk is. I have the soul of a mystic philosopher, in most regards. I know that is what she meant. This is why my being a pastor was a mismatch. I couldn’t dumb down things enough for general consumption…. or at least I wasn’t in any place where that appealed to me to do so.

 

As long as a symbolic-ritual system like religion is pretty much self contained, making only limited claims about the world of rocks and plants and atoms and animals, then no harm done. Or if those claims are understood as merely serving the shared suspension of disbelief about the physical world, then no problem either.

You know, I’m not so sure it’s about disbelief. It may be more a matter of relevance. Ponder that…

 

But I don't know of a word other than "delusion" that describes the total unwillingness to admit that one's religious beliefs must bend when confronted with established scientific fact about the physical world which one's religion may make claims upon.

Unwillingness. Not delusion. Stubbornness, or irrationality. Again, if what they are looking to see has nothing to do with “facts”, then being confronted with something irrelevant to them, and they respond in defense to it, is in reality an irrational response. They are unable to discern categorically whether or not it actually is relevant. Their error is in not understanding their own beliefs. They make it about facts, they reduce their faith to an argument of evidence. That is not just categorically misunderstanding the nature of their beliefs, but becoming irrational about them trying to defend them against the impossible.

 

I don’t consider faith delusional, but I do consider denial of facts to be irrational and an act of non-faith. Is that irrationality delusion? I’ll concede it could be considered self-deception, which I do not consider faith at all, and if you wish to call that delusional… well, perhaps in the most colloquial sense. But I come back to the purpose of discussion. It’s not a term that is good for an intelligent discussion. It's charged with meaning going way beyond its immediate use. I don't see it as useful for intelligent discussion, as that can apply to anyone religiously not willing to consider other points of view....

 

Society defines mental illness and, in general, society has given religious practitioners a pass on their refusal to adjust their views to reality.

I have such a hard time with words such as “reality”. You do realize that a few centuries ago, someone who thought like us would be standing in front of a tribunal of judges as “delusional”, insane, heretics, not in tune with “reality”, don’t you? Seriously, that is such a charged word itself. Reality today was fiction yesterday. Reality yesterday was fanciful superstition today. And so on. Back again to that quote:

“

Reality is defined by the coherence of the interpretive framework.

”

I so very much agree with that. This is not to suggest there is no meaning, no ‘truth’, but rather that our sense of reality, especially in a global world of many, many perceptions of ‘reality’, should be held with an open-mind and heart. I believe there are more and less valid understandings in our contexts, but cries of “REALITY!”, are religious ones….

 

Can you think of a better word than "delusion" to describe the unwillingness to bend to fact in the religious context?

Unresolved doubt?

 

Respectfully yours,

 

OB '63

Most certainly likewise,

 

Keith

[Antlerman]

Someone may have absolutely valid reasons for continuing a belief in angels and gods, and fairies, and whatnot. The belief is not delusional, but in fact rational

I suppose a valid reason for believing in fairies would be if you are convinced you saw one. It's a rational belief in that narrow context, but better information is available. There are no fairies in existence regardless of what you think you saw. You would be deluded by your mistaken perception.

 

Rational isn't the opposite of deluded.

But that sort of 'faith' belief isn't about evidence. It's about something else. Any guesses as to what that 'something else' is?

I have no idea what you're driving at. I'm just reiterating the original definition I used and applying it to your claim that being wrong can be a rational decision.

I never claimed that being "wrong" was a rational decision. Please, point specifically to anything I said that suggested that. That is your interpretation of what I said in a binary-level understanding. Right/wrong.

 

They are right. Choosing to believe in fairies may be the right choice, in certain contexts. Contexts do exist, and in fact are part of a rational evaluation.

 

Simply, if you have the wrong information, or an emotional or psychological need to believe something regardless of reality, it may be rational to believe it. No, it's not about evidence, but perceived valid reasons which pass as evidence.

Evidence? That is completely your criteria. Valid reasons may have zero to do with evidence, but internal need. I suppose you could call that evidence, but it's a subjective one. Point is subjective need is valid.

[Shyone]

AM, you sure do write a lot.

 

 

I don’t see mythology as being strictly about narratives and poetic works, nor tales of the supernatural. I see mythology as about a host of ideals captured and communicated symbolically.

 

This I agree with. I think that tales that convey messages beyond a story can be powerful. Putting events into gods lives makes them seem more important, but the lessons have meaning for the humans hearing the story. Myths are parallels to "fairy tales" and good plays. We still talk about "the moral of the story."

 

I think what would qualify as a mental illness would be if it in fact made the person dysfunctional in society.

 

Have you ever seen the movie "King of Hearts"?

 

Anyway, there are insane people that function in society. They have delusions, sometimes hallucinations, but with help (sometimes medicine) they can function in society. Some delusions don't affect behavior adversely, or at least not enough to warrant separation from society.

 

Some religious people don't function well in society. The Amish... The people who refuse to take their children to doctors, the polygamists, the child abusers, the monks, people who send money to televangelists, and many, many others.

 

If functionality were the main criterion, the definition would reflect that.

 

At the very foundation of this debate is whether it is delusional to believe in an invisible being. Does following the majority mean that one is not delusional? It is certainly safer to follow the majority. There are many people who believe things that are false. When they believe false things despite contradictory evidence, it's a delusion.

 

It shouldn't require a popular vote to see who's delusional. It shouldn't depend on context. It shouldn't even have to be an aberration. "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile." If something would be delusional for one person to believe, then it would be delusional for everyone that believed it.

 

And that is the bottom line. A socially acceptable delusion is still a delusion.

 

And - even if a person doesn't think his delusion is a delusion, it is still a delusion.

 

I have such a hard time with words such as “reality”.

 

 

Keith

 

I just wanted to quote that out of context.

[florduh]

Contexts do exist, and in fact are part of a rational evaluation.

I think that's what I said. If you're convinced you actually saw the fairy, it is rational in that limited context to believe they exist. Still, it is a delusion since fairies do not actually exist in any kind of accepted definition of reality.

 

I never claimed that being "wrong" was a rational decision.

So, being wrong about the fairies would, in some sense, be rational. It's still wrong. It is merely a delusion (in the common, not medical use of the word).

[Autonomous]

Kathlene, let me look at this logically.

 

As a Christian I had several deeply emotional experiences. Including being knocked over backwards by what felt like a wave of power washing over me (nope, no one touched me).

 

Therefore the Christian God must exist, therefore Christianity is the truth.

 

As a Pagan I went to a Goddess encounter weekend. I didn't even believe in a Goddess in that sense when I went, but it was one hell of a lot of fun! During a vision quest, sitting on a hillside alone, I had a profound experience of being embraced by the earth, like the earth was a great mother goddess. I cried and was deeply moved.

 

So therefore, New-agey, Pagan Goddess religion must be the truth.

 

Add to my personal experience, the just as convincing and genuine-seeming experiences of members of other religions and spiritualities around the world and throughout history.

 

Or, maybe, just maybe, there is an alternative explanation? This problem is one of the main reasons I discarded religion. How arrogant I was to assume I was the one who was right.

 

Plus, despite the claims of Christianity that it is so uber-fulfilling and wonderfully life-changing, the Christians I know are the most messed up, insecure, snarky, desperate people that I know (heck and I just found out my Christian husband had a flirtation with the pastor's wife who was my closest friend at my ex-church, so I know what I'm talking about, but I held this opinion before then). I know myself I was emotionally stunted by my faith, I have grown up about 15 years worth in the 4 years since I left. How do you explain that? I have heard the "we're all fallible" argument many times but surely, overall Christians should be at least somewhat happier and more sorted than the rest of us? Instead it seems the opposite is the case. Yes, I know some lovely Christians, but it seems to me that they'd be lovely whatever their religion.

[bdp]

Yes, I know some lovely Christians, but it seems to me that they'd be lovely whatever their religion.

 

This is essentially what I came down to - lovely people will be lovely whatever their beliefs, and messed-up people will be messed-up people regardless of their beliefs. You've either got it together or you don't.

[Autonomous]

Yes, I know some lovely Christians, but it seems to me that they'd be lovely whatever their religion.

 

This is essentially what I came down to - lovely people will be lovely whatever their beliefs, and messed-up people will be messed-up people regardless of their beliefs. You've either got it together or you don't.

 

I agree, except that I think religion contributes to people staying messed up. It certainly did for me. Bad advice from my church, belief that only God could fix me or help me change and so on.

[Antlerman]

Contexts do exist, and in fact are part of a rational evaluation.

I think that's what I said. If you're convinced you actually saw the fairy, it is rational in that limited context to believe they exist. Still, it is a delusion since fairies do not actually exist in any kind of accepted definition of reality.

Again you are focused on empirical evidence. That is your sole criteria for judging a thing true/false, and as such the use of the word delusional - in your context with your criteria.

 

To repost what I said above:

 

 

Simply, if you have the wrong information, or an emotional or psychological need to believe something regardless of reality, it may be rational to believe it. No, it's not about evidence, but perceived valid reasons which pass as evidence.

Evidence? That is completely your criteria. Valid reasons may have zero to do with evidence, but internal need. I suppose you could call that evidence, but it's a subjective one. Point is subjective need is valid.

Are there valid reasons to believe in something that has no evidence? And if you do choose to believe it, does it qualify you as delusional?

 

I never claimed that being "wrong" was a rational decision.

So, being wrong about the fairies would, in some sense, be rational. It's still wrong. It is merely a delusion (in the common, not medical use of the word).

No, they are not "wrong" about the fairies, if it is not a question of empirical evidence, which is your criteria for everything, it seems.

 

Do you believe only things with empirical evidence will save someone from being considered delusional?

 

What I said, is that in certain contexts, believing in fairies may in fact be the rational choice to make. In other contexts, it might be irrational. Were all humans who existed prior to the 17th Century delusional?

[Sconnor]

Antlerman,

 

When a person constructs an imaginary invisible buddy (Jesus) to have a "relationship" with, which -- amazingly -- coinsides with their own specific desires and supposedly intervenes on their behalf -- is this not the very essence of deluding ones self?

 

--S.

[florduh]

No, they are not "wrong" about the fairies, if it is not a question of empirical evidence, which is your criteria for everything, it seems.

Jeez, if you think fairies are real, you are wrong. There ain't no frickin' fairies in the real, sane, objective world. You may have your reasons for thinking they're real, but you're still wrong since fairies do not actually exist outside of a mental construct.

 

To think that anything that one can imagine is in some sense "real" seems a rather nonproductive process to me. Some things actually exist, others exist only in someone's mind. I sense that you are trying to deny that there is an objective reality or that a reality based on misperceptions or incorrect information or wishful thinking is its equal. Reality vs perceived reality. Am I misreading something in the translation?

[Sconnor]

What I said, is that in certain contexts, believing in fairies may in fact be the rational choice to make.

 

What context? Could you please give an example of how someone is being rational, in regard to believing in fairies.

 

--S.

[Dagan]

If fairies are real, and they're like this, you'd better believe in them. Or else.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWIDlsT9d9w

[OnceConvinced]

No, they are not "wrong" about the fairies, if it is not a question of empirical evidence, which is your criteria for everything, it seems.

Jeez, if you think fairies are real, you are wrong. There ain't no frickin' fairies in the real, sane, objective world. You may have your reasons for thinking they're real, but you're still wrong since fairies do not actually exist outside of a mental construct.

 

To think that anything that one can imagine is in some sense "real" seems a rather nonproductive process to me. Some things actually exist, others exist only in someone's mind. I sense that you are trying to deny that there is an objective reality or that a reality based on misperceptions or incorrect information or wishful thinking is its equal. Reality vs perceived reality. Am I misreading something in the translation?

But fairies really do exist. The evidence is there beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fall, who is it that plucks all the leaves off plants? Why fairies of course. And who plants weeds in spring? The fairies. Weeds don't just get there by themselves! And if you have garden furniture what is it that poops all over it? Fairies!

[noob]

 

... And if you have garden furniture what is it that poops all over it? Fairies!

 

I am going to get extremely bitchy if fairies poop on my garden furniture! I'm just sayin'...

[lonelee]

Oh, those were poops? I thought they were little raisins! I'd better stop sampling them....