Narcissus

Jesus.  He fills every good man.  We bend over to Him, all of us, all the good men and even the women too, and He comes into us, and it is so good when that happens.  Anyway, Ists: 

Some people need to say they believe that an invisible sky man is taking care of them.  As a result of that, they need to say they believe this invisible sky man created the entire world.  They will never say that such is not true.  They need to tell themselves that an invisible sky man of whose type they were created them, and that he planned the details of their life. 

Saying you believe in the principles of universalism by all people being made fundamentally the same (such as by an invisible sky man) is a recursive sickness among some types of humans.  Some people have brains that are made that way.  It is psychological that there are religions.  When there are a bunch of people on a planet, and some of those people say that everything exists because there is an invisible sky man who made it so, that is a situation caused by one or more psychological conditions.  It is not a choice in the sense of choosing what to eat for breakfast or what color of shirt to put on.  Sheltering this foolish choice—calling it a religious decision—is a way of protecting people from acknowledging what they have done.  

Trying to get people who say they believe in that invisible sky man to understand that the invisible sky man did not do that is not going to work.  They often try to make their entire life about acting like that invisible sky man is watching them—to try to express that they really believe that thing--they can even do horrible things to others or martyr themselves.  Their mind cannot run without that illusion.  As such, they will take it as an attack when you tell them what they believe is an illusion.  (And some people know that a verbal attack should not be countered physically.  Which is good; we’re not saying anyone should do more than avoid the people they don’t like.)  

By the same token, some people need to believe that everyone is the same inside.  They need to believe that everyone has the same constitution suited for achieving what they believe to be suitable achievement.  As such, they will take it as an attack when you tell them what they believe is an illusion.  

Seeing this type of defensive reaction can lead a person to think that the reaction is insane rather than defensive.  The passion, the zeal, are not to many understandable, particularly if you think that person is a rational thinker.  Such a belief, though, is propaganda.  It is a deceit, a flattery, to say that humans do things for rational reasons.  

A painful recognition for many traditional Christians now is to see the way that they are supposed to believe in Jahweh's Genesis, Jesus' egalitarianism, the common origins of all mankind, and the great badness of the wrong detailed in the Passion, is just a different time's version of the same nonsense we see now.  You may feel that worshiping the rabbi leads to goodness, but that the Big Bang "theory" is wrong (galactic clusters that took dozens of billions of years long to form then six days), the Out of Africa "theory" is wrong (homo sapiens sapiens remains found in China from dozens of years earlier than hss [yes, there are supposed to be two sapiens; it's not a typo], suggesting that Cro Magnon evolved from the Chinese orangutan rather than the African chimpanzee), and other big mainstream stories that you suspect aren't true but are of the same type.  Why are people recurrently drawn to expressing a belief in things that will never have evidence?  Because it is the Christian era!  

In considering decay, we must remember that.  Humans do not say things are true because they are considering evidence and drawing therefrom conclusions.  

To say that the narcissistic delusion is a delusion is, to such people, a verbal attack.  The seemingly confusing reactions of some people to some topics is explained thus: they are defending themselves.  Like splashing the water out of Narcissus’ pond you are not to them seen as presenting evidence from which they can draw conclusions, but just being some jerk who ruins the nice picture.