Did you have one class in psychology or something?

Cause... you didn't even use the term delusion correctly there. Your wrong in a number of hilarious ways... but this is the easiest one to mention as it would be annoying to explain psychology to someone who probably took a required 101 class somewhere.

To be delusional in a psychological sense one needs to have a serious mental disorder.

Furthermore... for something to be a delusion you need proof that it doesn't really exist.  So to say people who believe in god are delusional you would need to prove god does not exist.

By that you're basically saying that there is no such thing as "delusion" since you cannot disprove anything and psychiatrists rarely care to disprove the parasites under your skin, or the lack of real conspiracy theories, or the voices 9n your head.

Just curious... how many degrees in psychology do you hold?

Look up the official medical definition of a delusion and get back to me. You'll find the qualifications i've stated to be a part of them i'm sure.

It's easy to disprove parasites under someones skin... and actually patients will be checked for psychial symptoms before being submitted to a psychologist or psychiatrist. So yeah... someone will be checked for "parasites" and eczema and the like.

Eh tell you what. I'll quote part of it from Wikipedia since I have my copy of the DSM upstairs.

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.

A child who believes in the Tooth Fairy would not be delusional.

A child who does who belives in the Tooth Fairy after everything was explained. Delusional.

The problem is you are applying a pedestrian meaning of the word delusion with a psychological basis of knowledge.

Which basically shows you either didn't study psychology long, didn't pay attention or understand your classes or got your ideas of psychology from patchwork reading and no actual formal teaching and went wrong that way.

First off, a 16 yr old doesn't know the world, so don't act like you do. You'll spend the next 10 years of your life having everything you thought you understood disproven. Buckle up kiddo.

On focus, Asking to do god's will and claiming that "god told you" to do something are very different things, especially in politics. Hitler believed god told him to kill the jews. Is that what you want to get "used to"? Politics and religion should be kept as far apart as possible, lest we have the heresies of the church during medieval times again.

Well I went out for the evening or I would have said pretty much the same thing Kasz said as I do happen to know the medical definition of a delusion (I looked it up for another discussion I've had, I believe it was also with Rath that time as well actually).  Kasz appears to have a much better handle on the material than I do so its fortunate for me that I stepped out just in time to let him make that argument, as it is I'm interested to see if you even bother to respond to him or if you just ignore it  like you ignored your previous mistake without acknowledgement.

Anyways, aside from your complete misuse of the word and your attempt to puff yourself up as a psych expert you also missed the point.

The point I was making is that the accuser is the one who should have the burden of proof. You are accusing the vast majority of the world's population of being delusional, I'm pretty sure any reasonable arbitrator would lay the burden of proof on you in this case.  As it is I'm pretty sure if you made this accusation in any legal setting you would also have the burden of proof, so by pretty much every applicable standard and convention I can think of you would have the burden of proof.

Particularly if you were making a case against me, because my position is merely that neither side has evidence enough to make a compelling case.  The only accusation I'm making is that both sides are seeking answers and to that I believe both sides would confess.

But to address your question specifically yes if tomorrow every person began to show the symptoms of  schizophrenia it would, depending on the definition you used, be the "normal".  In the statistical sense (the way you used it) it is certainly the normal. 

That obviously leads to the next point which is that you made yet another statement that is demonstrably false.  The statistical "norm", by definition, constitutes normality.  In addition a quick look at several other definitions of normal yields this:

• conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature"; "normal ...
• in accordance with scientific laws
  
• being approximately average or within certain limits in e.g. intelligence and development; "a perfectly normal child"; "of normal intelligence"; "the most normal person I've ever met"
• forming a right angle
• convention: something regarded as a normative

A belief in a god (in one form or another) is normal by every applicable definition on this list.

As for your parasite example it is completely different.  A trained physician with proper medical equipment can demonstrate the falsity of that belief.  If you can demonstrate the falsity of god then please do so.

Now I have to say that your argument is poorly constructed or at least poorly phrased.  The point I think you were trying to make is that the "normal" is not necessarily correct.  And I completely agree with that, I think saying "god exist because the majority of people think he does" is an extremely flawed argument.  Fortunately I'm not making that argument and nobody else is that I can see.

What this boils down to is two basic positions, neither of which have hard proof or evidence of any kind to support themselves.  Now, there has certainly been no shortage of logical arguments for and against a belief in god over the millenia, but those do not constitute proof and I doubt we will settle the controversy here and now. 

So the best both sides can really do is acknowledge that I'm correct....ok well not me specifically, but they can acknowledge that neither side has the ability to prove to or convince the other side that they are correct and just agree to disagree.

In the meantime back on the original topic the fact remains that a person's religion is part of who they are and if you don't like that then you shouldn't vote for them because it will effect their decisions and it is the basis for their morals, that is just part of religion.

yes

Once again, DTG you don´t seem to understand the concept of moral relativism that you see as the only "rational" way. Moral relativism means that "The statistical norm constitutes normality". That is the basis of moral relativism. Nothing is certain so you go with what most people think is right, so that is something that is going to change a lot through the ages.

I said this before, and I´ll say it again. If you´re going to make accusations, calling people irrational and delusional you have to be pretty sure of it and you have to know a lot about the subject. Otherwise, people aren´t going to take you seriously.

what I love about this forum, absolutely adore, is that pseudo-intellectuals like DTG WILL get their asses handed to them....every time. It's a great forum really, just for that reason alone. I don't even care about this topic, but that series of pwnage was classic.

Religion should be kept far away from politics. Imn fact if a political leader is religious they have lost my vote straight away. I think all countries should be athiest too, no state religion whatsoever, think of the problems that will solve.