....or at the very least, do they have a mental disorder?

I'm asking the question genuinely and not looking to incite a flame war. It just seems that no one would have a problem with committing someone who believed purple fairies saved their mother from dying of cancer, but we not allowed to apply the same logic to any number of religious believers. Why is this and will this answer change in the future?

Religion is a mental disorder.

Take the logic you're applying to religious belief and run it by 'People who disagree with me politically'.

Also, as far as I'm aware, the standard for sectioning someone is that they're likely to be a danger to themselves or others. I don't see anything about the purple fairy belief that necessarily implies that.

Believers are normal people who are looking for a meaning or purpose in life.
They look for easy answers. Answers that give them comfort .
They want to feel special some may need a reason to get up in the morning.
They need a reason to be good. A carrot and stick approach to life.
Because they don't want to challenge the norm they just want to go with the crowd.
They stick with traditions because that's worked for them in the past .

Depends on what you mean by insane. I doubt you'd find a definition than didn't either exclude most religious believers or include yourself. Which is just my roundabout way of agreeing with AiF.

I think they are more trolls. When you talk to a religious person, you eventually get to a point where you saying the same things. Be good, work hard, love society etc. But they have to dress in it their own cultural baggage.

I refuse to believe that a functioning adult believes in a real "mystical" side of religion. If i meet someone who LITERALLY believes religious stories, and all that means, creationism, heaven / hell etc i do consider them insane

One could make a case that it is unbelievers who are mentally dysfunctional.
A statistical survey would reveal that atheism, for example-- is a minority, aberrant belief to hold to.

We can start there.
Why this strange belief system mainly held onto by teenagers and liberals?

Subject presents mild paranoid ideation. Possible fantasies of medical authority. Normal affect. Prognosis positive; recommend 48 hr confinement for observation.

What an astoundingly horrible argument.

According to your "logic", Copernicus was "mentally dysfunctional" for believing that the earth was not at the center of the universe like almost everyone else did in his time, even though he was obviously correct.

And I'm an atheist and I'm neither a teenager nor a liberal.

Your entire post is utter nonsense.

As to the initial question, I wouldn't call believers in religion insane or mentally ill. It's a perfectly natural thing to want to know answers to questions like "How was the universe created?" or "What happens to us after we die?". And throughout all societies throughout history, when we do not know the answers, we make them up. It's perfectly natural. I think we probably should've outgrown it by this point in our evolution, but we will eventually, there is no question.

So, no, I would not say that believers are insane. But they are without question irrational. If you believe that a magic man can say some words over a cracker and then it transforms into the body of a dead god for you to ingest, or you believe that a prophet rode a winged horse up to Paradise and spoke with God, yeah, those are seriously irrational beliefs.

Some of them probably are, majority of them are just unaware that their belief is based on nothing else but unsupported collection of claims, so I don't think that insanity has anything to do with believing or not, although Professor Sapolsky makes some interesting points in this video on Religion..


Professor Sapolsky Explains the Origin of Religion Part 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNSe4Ff57n4
Professor Sapolsky Explains the Origin of Religion Part 2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8GFQRAlDmE

Could this be it? Does it all have to do with the extremeness of the belief? For instance, I wouldn't consider an otherwise sane individual to have a mental disorder for carrying a rabbit's foot. On the other hand, if someone believed we really lived in the matrix, and the real world was actually that of The Simpsons, I'd certainly sleep with one eye open.

....and yes, there are still PLENTY of people who literally believe everything in the bible. Visit some fundamentalist churches in Alabama and you'll be looked at as crazy for NOT believing. Make sure you find someone over 55 for maximum craziness though. (Or you could just talk to my dad. )

Bingo

I don’t think the underlying primary assumption with theism – that the world has a creative and sustaining cause for its initial and continual existence – is irrational. It’s that or ‘why the world exists’ is a brute fact, which one can define as irrational, i.e. there’s not a rational reason for the world to exist; it just does.

As far as particular beliefs, I think they need to be evaluated as to their coherence with one’s primary assumption(s) rather than in isolation. But in that regard, plenty of atheists hold beliefs that are equally incoherent in the context of their primary assumption. For example, some atheists of the (metaphysical) naturalist ilk don’t really believe that existence in toto, or their existence in particular, is inherently meaningless; believe what they do or don’t do in this life matters according to some higher standard beyond personal utilitarian reasons; reject nihilism; believe in absolute truth; etc…

Of course, that is not an accurate portrayal of my argument.

Copernicus had knowledge that came from observations that not everybody was privy too.

The last time I checked, everybody who is alive and capable of thinking is alive and capable of thinking.

You don't need much more than that to conclude that God exists.

lol.. you need evidence, which isn't there...

Therefore, if you conclude otherwise, and entertain a belief that is foreign to basic intuition and thought, maybe you are the one who should be examined.

Aaaaaaand here come the after the fact qualifiers. Weasel on, sir.

"I wish every great skeptic was forced to wield his skepticism over his own beliefs"
- AJ Ayer
Veritas forum "Interview with Os Guiness"

I am shocked when someone makes these claims over religious people and don't question their own rationale!!! I can't help but feel really incredulous. I have to genuinely probe as to the fact if you have even examined the evidence that you so denounce.

Let's follow the logic here. So, anyone with a religious belief is crazy. So, the vast & extensive majority of humanity have been and are insane. But, only those gifted with scientism or secularism are the exception. ....hence the name "Brights"

But, lets examine one of the leaders of the "Brights." Daniel Dennet claims that the universe created itself & is "the ultimate bootstraping trick." This not only kills my former skepticism but seems to validate my faith!

Something that didn't exist caused its own existence?
This reminds me of Escher's "Drawing Hands."

"...Richard Dawkins confessed he does not know what caused the origin of the universe: but he believes (yes, his faith is shining out once more) that one day there will be a naturalistic explanation of it...he does not need to resort to magic to explain the universe. However, in the press conference after the debate, he responded to a question from Melanie Phillips, a journalist and author, by saying that he believed the universe could have just appeared from nothing. "Magic" she said. Presently she reported that Dawkins had told her afterwards that an explanation for the universe in term of LGM (little green men) made more sense than postulating a Creator. Anything but God, it would seem" (John Lennox "Gunning for God" p167).

There is much more to say here...In conclusion I have to agree with Peter Hitchens during his debate with his extremely brilliant brother Christopher Hitchens (though I disagree with Chris on God I am a tremendous fan of his work) when he (Peter) stated to the effect "I am always amazed when confronted with this argument; how little my brother seems to know of that which he attacks. How he prefers to mock and belittle" (Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate approx. minute 43).

Thus, on the converse should I also consider non-believers insane, blind, irrational, willfully ignoring the evidence "eyes wide shut" style, believers of magic etc...???

There was a debate in the Cambridge Union Society on the subject Are believers in God delusional? or something of that nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRIVU...F-k9Bur-WHBH8=

Skeptics tend to adjust their beliefs on new and upcoming data, believers base their beliefs on 2000 year old campfire stories. It's a pretty significant difference. A believer who looks at the facts and changes his outlook would be considered mentally fine in my book. A believer who still believes the Earth is 6,000 years old is not.

If you think evidence is needed, then you just aren't doing it right.

God is existentially obvious.

Billions believe in God because God's existence just makes sense, as it were.

To be an atheist is to accept nonsense, or embrace static, in your mentational life.

It is to be befuddled and confused by a simple and nominal consideration of existence itself.

You have contradiction at the core. You have to hold opposing ideas in the same hand. This is not the signal of a rational belief, or a sane one.

In the end, most atheists are idol worshipers:

"God does not exist. I exist."

The first is a statement of faith. The latter indicative of basic intuitory thought that comes naturally from healthy minds.

The first statement is ponderous, and worth an examination of the individual making it.

It is not a sound conclusion, but a marker for malfunction.

I'm not saying that bucking societal norms is crazy, or indicative of mental distress, but certainly one could argue for such.

If you show up for a baseball game dressed up in pads and helmet, and clutching a pigskin, many will rightfully question your sanity.

That's all I'm saying, really.

You are playing baseball, and you don't have the proper equipment.

You exist, and you should perceive God, but you are wearing blinders.

You can't see the ball. You can't play the game.

You are put "out in left field."

The way you have to contort yourself to make sense of all of this leads me to believe your life would probably easier if you were an athiest. The cognative dissonance you are left with must be outstanding.

It doesn't matter what game everybody else is playing if nobody really knows how to play

no wonder you believe in God... I gotta say, you are probably the most irrational and uninformed person on RGT...

Generally we compare what crazy is to how it compares to the majority. When 85% of the world believes in some religion it would qualify them as "normal". However, using a more rational method of classifying 'crazy', I think we could classify the religious as lunes.

You would be surprised how many people really think that a talking snake it real history.

Of course evidence is needed.

Nonsense.

And there was a time that everyone believed the earth was flat because it made sense, and they were wrong.

You are in desperate need of a basic logic class. Your "arguments" are nothing short of ridiculous. I genuinely hope that you're trolling.