Author Topic: Delusional  (Read 8427 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12062
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #87 on: August 16, 2012, 01:51:21 PM »
bertaberts,

I am not thinking for you, I'm not dodging your questions to me, and I'm not using strawmen arguments. I'm sorry you don't like my answers to you, I can't help that. I probably am not comminucating my thoughts as intelligently as you'd like but this is what one gets with self-education. I never said you thought "everyone in the world needed to be on medication", of course I didn't mean the non-delusional atheists, those who do have the means to have such knowledge, etc., I just find your opinion on the whole thing ridiculous and I reacted as I would. And, I still feel your statement is ridiculous.

Bad pear,

I don't believe 95% of the world is clinically depressed based on the basis they are religious. There are too many variables as to why a person is religious.

So, I can't answer your question based on that. Or, at least give you an answer in which you would approve.

As a side note to all:

I never graduated high school. I haven't got a GED, never been to college and I feel as if some of you are speaking to me as if I have, in the sense of intellectual vernacular.

I am not dodging questions. I just may not be answering them in the manner you're used to by everyday speech. I am answering them in the best way I can.

If I am using strawmen: I am not meaning to.

If you feel I am not answering your questions: I believe I am. Perhaps not the way you think but I am.

I started this topic 'cause I didn't or don't understand the point in calling theists delusional when, in my opinion whether they are or not, doesn't really make them think atheists in general are good people if all they do is revert to calling people names.

I've stated that I call people an idiot from time to time but only when it's prudent to do so. And though I think everyone is an idiot (including myself) I don't go around announcing it whenever I can, nor do I call every person I meet an idiot or have that thought in my mind to do so.

From topic I've read here: that's all you think about in concern to the religious, and if you had the chance, especially here in your comfort zone: you'd do it.

That's my problem. Who does that help, in the end?

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Bad Pear

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Observations from one bad fruit to the bunch.
Re: Delusional
« Reply #88 on: August 16, 2012, 02:25:03 PM »
Bad pear,

I don't believe 95% of the world is clinically depressed based on the basis they are religious. There are too many variables as to why a person is religious.

So, I can't answer your question based on that. Or, at least give you an answer in which you would approve.

You do understand what a hypothetical is don't you?

You are not answering the question that I am asking at all; whether or not I approve doesn't matter. I'm also not blaming you, as you are apparently not understanding what my question actually is. I'll try again to clarify.

You stated that
Depression is a mental disorder, religion isn't.

-Nam

I presume that you are contrasting the two; i.e. clinical depression is a mental disorder and in your opinion religious belief, in contrast, is not a mental disorder.

What I am asking has absolutely nothing to do with the religion side of your statement. I am not implying that religious belief and clinical depression are in any way related, and I am certainly not saying that 95% of the world is clinically depressed by virtue of the fact that they claim religious belief. As I said in my last post you could substitute something else for clinical depression and my question would still be the same. So, here goes again.

If there are set medical criteria for what constitutes clinical depression (and we can agree that there are), and if 95% of us met this criteria, would what we know now as clinical depression be considered a mental disorder, or would it be considered perfectly normal.

If in this hypothetical situation 95% of our species met the criteria for what we know to be clinical depression, would we then define the other 5% as being outside the norm, having something like clinical euphoria?

My point is that we consider clinical depression to be a mental disorder because those who have it exhibit symptoms, physiology, etc. that are outside of what is considered to be "normal" or "healthy". We (you) do not consider religious belief to fall into this category merely because it has not be defined as such. It is only "normal" and "healthy" because of the relative number of individuals which it affects. If 95% of humanity held a purely secular, rational, agnostic atheistic worldview then the other 5% would, without a doubt, be considered mentally abnormal by laymen standards, if not by medical ones.

I started this topic 'cause I didn't or don't understand the point in calling theists delusional when, in my opinion whether they are or not, doesn't really make them think atheists in general are good people if all they do is revert to calling people names.

I've stated that I call people an idiot from time to time but only when it's prudent to do so. And though I think everyone is an idiot (including myself) I don't go around announcing it whenever I can, nor do I call every person I meet an idiot or have that thought in my mind to do so.

From topic I've read here: that's all you think about in concern to the religious, and if you had the chance, especially here in your comfort zone: you'd do it.

That's my problem. Who does that help, in the end

I cannot say what the motivation is for anyone else to use the word "delusional" when addressing a theist, but I will not shy away from it if I believe that it is called for in the context of the discussion. I have already stated that this very label shook me to my core when I was a believer and was no small part of what angered me and motivated me to drive that much harder against the "mean atheists". Had members here not had the balls to call a spade a spade then I might have spent that much longer under the burden of my ignorance. I aim to motivate, and I am not above using deserved shaming to do it. If I piss someone off in the process that's their problem, not mine. After all, the truth hurts.
Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions implode, atheism is what is left behind

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12062
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #89 on: August 16, 2012, 02:51:56 PM »
Bad pear,

I know what a hypathetical question is, and I know the answer to the question but I can't answer the question 'cause I'm conflicted with the answer.

The truth may hurt but name-calling, in excess, doesn't do anything for the vast majority of people in the world[1] but keep them where they currently stand.

I understand being in a conversation with someone and they say something to bring one to such a conclusion but without that, or without actual basis: I don't see the point.

-Nam

 1. in my opinion
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Bad Pear

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Observations from one bad fruit to the bunch.
Re: Delusional
« Reply #90 on: August 16, 2012, 03:12:30 PM »
I know what a hypathetical question is

I thought you did, and to be clear I wasn't trying to be a smartass. Given your previous post I just wanted to ensure that you were getting what I was saying.

Quote
, and I know the answer to the question but I can't answer the question 'cause I'm conflicted with the answer.

This does not bode well my friend. You know the answer and yet you are conflicted with it and therefore neglect to directly answer it? I can think of other people who do similar things  :P

Quote
The truth may hurt but name-calling, in excess, doesn't do anything for the vast majority of people in the world[1] but keep them where they currently stand.
 1. in my opinion

Bold mine. I agree, and I don't think anyone is arguing that name calling for the sake of name calling, especially in excess, is ever a good idea. However, that is a markedly different thing from calling a duck a duck when the situation calls for doing so. IMO it's only name calling if it's unjustified.
Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions implode, atheism is what is left behind

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12062
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #91 on: August 16, 2012, 04:08:11 PM »
Not to them it isn't.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline shnozzola

Re: Delusional
« Reply #92 on: August 16, 2012, 06:23:18 PM »
We are all delusional – it is a condition of being human – an irony of being human.   Nothing at all matters, in the long run, but that never stops all of us from thinking things matter to varying degrees.  Some it would be to get to heaven, some it may be to help humanity survive, some hardly anything matters. 

If a man dances on a mountain top and eats some beans and rice everyday, but mostly laughs and plays the flute, is his life worth any less than, say,  Albert Einstein or Henry Ford ?   IMO – No.

When my delusion messes with your delusion, or your's mine, that’s where we could draw the line – but that is even  hard to know exactly where to put that line – and in the long run, even the line is a delusion.  If one man writes a book about the sunset, and another man sees the sunset and smiles – who likes the sunset more?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 06:28:37 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Delusional
« Reply #93 on: August 16, 2012, 07:41:29 PM »
The problem with this is that as far as theism goes, athiests have no evidence to the contrary; they have no proof of the non-existence of gods, and the best argument they have is the absense of evidence on the theists' side. But that doesn't meet Stedman's definition.
It's not up to atheists to prove the non-existence of gods. I can't even believe you are going there.

Strong Atheists (I believe that there are no gods) make a claim about the world; they are therefore obliged to back it up, in some way.

Weak Atheists (I lack belief in gods) make a claim about their internal state; so they're not obliged to back it up.

The claim of Strong Atheism implies the further claim about delusion:

I believe that there are no gods implies I believe that people who believe in gods are deluded.

So if an atheist calls a theist delusional, they're really just saying that they themselves are a Strong Atheist - with all the problems which go with that position.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Delusional
« Reply #94 on: August 16, 2012, 08:50:28 PM »
Strong Atheists (I believe that there are no gods) make a claim about the world; they are therefore obliged to back it up, in some way.

Weak Atheists (I lack belief in gods) make a claim about their internal state; so they're not obliged to back it up.

The claim of Strong Atheism implies the further claim about delusion:

I believe that there are no gods implies I believe that people who believe in gods are deluded.

So if an atheist calls a theist delusional, they're really just saying that they themselves are a Strong Atheist - with all the problems which go with that position.

I'm very pleased that you now wish to use the term delusional differently than what the experts require.

That's at least a start. I must have gotten through to you after all.  :)

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1968
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Delusional
« Reply #95 on: August 16, 2012, 11:22:24 PM »
Strong Atheists (I believe that there are no gods) make a claim about the world; they are therefore obliged to back it up, in some way.

Weak Atheists (I lack belief in gods) make a claim about their internal state; so they're not obliged to back it up.
I don't know if I agree that a distinction exists here; the statement 'I believe that there is/are no x' seems invalid under the premise of obligation of evidence.  I'm not sure what evidence could be brought to bear to prove the non-existence of invisible dragons and such.

Yet people do make claims such as 'I believe that there are no dragons' all of the time.  Either:
a) those people fit the definition of delusional (as per your argument)
b) The statement of the form 'I believe that there is/are no x is invalid, and those making those claims are equivocating it to the statement 'I lack belief that there is/are no x.

(a) seems to include the entirety of humanity.

Does x = god not apply to this case?  Are there other options aside from (a) and (b), or are those options invalid?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Delusional
« Reply #96 on: August 17, 2012, 07:04:59 AM »

So if an atheist calls a theist delusional, they're really just saying that they themselves are a Strong Atheist - with all the problems which go with that position.

No. I do not need to provide strong evidence of the non-existence of Santa cluas, and can regard an adult who believes in Santa Claus as delusional.

 
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6615
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Delusional
« Reply #97 on: August 17, 2012, 07:33:11 AM »

Strong Atheists (I believe that there are no gods) make a claim about the world; they are therefore obliged to back it up, in some way.

The claim of Strong Atheism implies the further claim about delusion:

I believe that there are no gods implies I believe that people who believe in gods are deluded.

So if an atheist calls a theist delusional, they're really just saying that they themselves are a Strong Atheist - with all the problems which go with that position.
None of this is so.
The statement, I believe that there are no gods is a mere reaction to someone's saying there are gods.

In all seriousness, you could never imagine the conversation:
Neanderthal 1: "There are no gods!"
Neanderthal 2: "WTF? What's a "god" that there should be none of them?"

So whatever else happens, it is not the chicken and egg - we know what came first. First, someone MUST have said, "There are gods".

Whoever said, "There are gods". had absolutely no proof of that statement. We know that because there is no proof even today, despite (probably millions of) people throughout time saying there are gods and attempting and failing to prove their statement.

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4363
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Delusional
« Reply #98 on: August 17, 2012, 08:14:00 AM »
Yet people do make claims such as 'I believe that there are no dragons' all of the time.  Either:
a) those people fit the definition of delusional (as per your argument)
b) The statement of the form 'I believe that there is/are no x is invalid, and those making those claims are equivocating it to the statement 'I lack belief that there is/are no x.

(a) seems to include the entirety of humanity.

Does x = god not apply to this case?  Are there other options aside from (a) and (b), or are those options invalid?

There is at least one big difference here: People are generally agreed on what a "dragon" is.  There would be some variations in details, but most, if asked to describe a dragon, would say that it is a winged creature, vaguely reptilian, significantly larger than a human being, with a tail and four legs ending in claws, that has scales and that lays eggs, and which is capable of breathing fire.  They are also generally assumed to be tremendously strong -- for example, they are routinely portrayed as being able to pick up and carry full-sized human beings without showing any effort or strain.[1]  Knowing all of this, one can then examine nature and determine whether such a creature exists, or is even likely to.

For example, are there any flying creatures capable of carrying a grown man?  No, not even close.  The Harpy Eagle is arguably the strongest known flying creature in this regard, and even it is generally capable of carrying only about twenty pounds.  There are no creatures capable of breathing fire, and it's difficult to imagine how this would even be possible.  (Two glands in the throat containing different chemicals that would combust when mixed, or something?)  There appear to be limits on how large an animal can be and still be able to fly, and the generally-assumed size of a dragon is significantly beyond that limit.  Ostriches, for example, lost their ability to fly because they simply became too heavy to be able to do so, and dragons are usually held to be far more massive than ostriches.  And so on.  All that being the case, it is not therefore delusional to claim to know, with certainty, that dragons do not exist.  There are good reasons to hold that position.  (It would be delusional to continue to cling to that position if new information were to come to light, of course, but that is a separate discussion.)

None of this is generally the case with the Christian deity, because no one agrees on its characteristics.  Some are trinitarians, some are unitarians, some are even binitarians, as I learned just yesterday.  Some believe that the deity is omnipotent, others do not; same for omniscience.  Some believe that Yahweh is a some kind of spirit-being, while others believe that he is flesh-and-blood.  Still others embrace a form of pantheism.  There is also disagreement about Jesus' characteristics.  One of the earliest schisms in the church, for example, was disagreement over whether Jesus existed as flesh-and-blood, or whether he existed solely as some kind of spirit-being.  On and on it goes.

It is therefore more difficult to make a case for "Strong Atheism" than it is for "Strong A-Dragonism", at least in the case of the Abrahamic religions.  In other traditions -- such as the Greek or Norse pantheons -- it does become more straightforward to make a knowledge claim, because those deities are more precisely defined.  "They live on the summit of Mount Olympus?  Fine, let's climb it and look for them."
 1. All of this applies to Western dragons.  Eastern dragons have mostly different characteristics, but the principle -- general agreement on characteristics -- is the same.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline befree

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #99 on: August 17, 2012, 04:02:11 PM »

Why is there so much anger?

Delusional (basic definition): A false belief or opinion.

Atheists on this website use that word toward the god-believers as if it were candy. I don't think I've ever called someone "delusional" unless they actually were by actual evidence presented.

"Well, Nam, they believe in a god without any evidence of said god existing except their religion or themselves saying so. That's delusional.'

Is it? By the definition provided above, referenced from several dictionaries, it seems that their belief would only be false if ample enough evidence was provided by the person referring to the other as "delusional". And, in some cases the religion they follow can be shown to be false but not necessarily the god that represents it. I feel, they are two separate things. One is a basic constant (god), and the other is surrounded by it (religion).

But what actual effect does it have on the religious? I feel little to no effect in regard to the effect that would nominally be caused. Meaning: while the person calling the other "delusional" most likely gets self-gratification from doing so, the target probably becomes more firm in their belief based on such childishness.

An opinion.

-Nam

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12062
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #100 on: August 17, 2012, 04:49:50 PM »
shnozzola,

I think you may be mixing "delusion", in some sense with "illusion".

Gnu Ordure,

I'd agree if you left out "believe". Meaning: a strong atheist says no god exists.

pianodwarf,

I read an article the other day about some scientists claiming they might have found a dinosaur, or something, that may have breathed a type of fire, I don't really remember. I did find it intersting and was going to post it here but I forgot where I read the article. I saw it in the science section of google news but when I went back a few hours later the article was gone, and I forgot the website name.

-Nam



A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Delusional
« Reply #101 on: August 17, 2012, 05:59:05 PM »

Why is there so much anger?


befree,

You have asked this same question in multiple, unrelated threads.  Please put some effort into your posts as they relate to the topic being discussed, as opposed to putting the same response in every thread.

Thanks.

Jetson

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12062
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #102 on: August 17, 2012, 06:08:04 PM »
What's funny is: I don't think they read anything of what I wrote, because, in a way, I'm actually defending this person. And, if they actually read what I wrote, don't think they'd have replied that way.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6615
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Delusional
« Reply #103 on: August 17, 2012, 06:13:26 PM »
Why is there so much anger?
Anger is often a symptom of frustration. It is not too hard to make people angry. If you are making people angry, why are you surprised at their anger?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Delusional
« Reply #104 on: August 17, 2012, 06:55:10 PM »
Strong Atheists (I believe that there are no gods) make a claim about the world; they are therefore obliged to back it up, in some way. <snip>

I'm very pleased that you now wish to use the term delusional differently than what the experts require.
HAL, I use the word differently depending on the context; on this thread we're using the layman's definition; on the other thread I'm speaking as a health-care professional.

A person might say, I'm feeling depressed today, and we understand what he means. But according to a formal medical diagnosis, he may not be suffering from clinical depression.

So 'depression' has different meanings, depending on the context.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Delusional
« Reply #105 on: August 17, 2012, 07:21:18 PM »
Strong Atheists (I believe that there are no gods) make a claim about the world; they are therefore obliged to back it up, in some way.

Weak Atheists (I lack belief in gods) make a claim about their internal state; so they're not obliged to back it up.
I don't know if I agree that a distinction exists here; the statement 'I believe that there is/are no x' seems invalid under the premise of obligation of evidence.
But the positions are philosophically distinct, and carry different implications. That's why only 15% of atheists are gnostic atheists.

Quote
I'm not sure what evidence could be brought to bear to prove the non-existence of invisible dragons and such.
Indeed. Which is why Dawkins, on his own 7-point scale of belief, declines to put himself as a 7 (which is 'Strong Atheist' - I know there is no God, in his words).

Pianodwarf made some points, which I won't repeat.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Delusional
« Reply #106 on: August 17, 2012, 08:07:13 PM »
None of this is so.
A little harsh, I feel.

Quote
The statement, I believe that there are no gods is a mere reaction to someone's saying there are gods.
Does it matter now who first proposed the idea?

Quote
In all seriousness, you could never imagine the conversation:
Neanderthal 1: "There are no gods!"
Neanderthal 2: "WTF? What's a "god" that there should be none of them?"
Mutant Atheist Neanderthal: "I wonder who made the earth. and the sun. And stuff."
Idiot Neanderthal 1: "Dunno".
MAN: "Maybe someone made it."
IN2: "Ugg".
MAN: "Yes, we could call him Ugg, thank you for the suggestion, but I think God has nicer ring to it. So this God would necessarily be extremely powerful, and he could probably kill us all anytime he wanted".
IN3 : "OMG! We're all going to die! Worship God, now!"
MAN: "No, wait, it's just a hypothetica-".
IN1: "Someone kill a goat to please God".
MAN: "No, really, I'm just thinking outside the box here, no need to-".
IN3: "Or kill MAN".
MAN: "aargh".
IN2: "Ugg".
IN1: "Heretic!".
IN2: "aargh".

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6615
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Delusional
« Reply #107 on: August 18, 2012, 09:47:54 AM »
The statement, I believe that there are no gods is a mere reaction to someone's saying there are gods.
Does it matter now who first proposed the idea?
Yes. It is essential to understanding why it is for the theist to show there is/are a deity/deities. I quote pianodwarf
Quote
It's a burden of proof issue.  Most atheists do not in fact insist that the universe had no creator, but even if we did, the one claiming that it did have a creator would still be a greater burden of proof than the naysayer because the one claiming a creator is making a claim that extends ontology, and such claims always carry a greater burden of proof than claims that an ontological extension does not exist. - Pianodwarf
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Delusional
« Reply #108 on: August 18, 2012, 05:59:25 PM »
The statement, I believe that there are no gods is a mere reaction to someone's saying there are gods.
Does it matter now who first proposed the idea?
Yes.
Then your argument fails, because no-one has the faintest idea who first proposed the idea of gods.

Although, thinking about it, it must have been an atheist. Three million years ago, homo sapiens was living in the trees. Everyone was an atheist, as snails and bats are now.  So the concept of god must have been suggested by an atheist.


Quote
I quote pianodwarf
Quote
It's a burden of proof issue.  Most atheists do not in fact insist that the universe had no creator, but even if we did, the one claiming that it did have a creator would still be a greater burden of proof than the naysayer because the one claiming a creator is making a claim that extends ontology, and such claims always carry a greater burden of proof than claims that an ontological extension does not exist. - Pianodwarf

Whoop-de-doo. The fact is, you can't prove that Christians are deluded. If you could, you'd do it. Your best evidence fails to convince Christian visitors to this site (mostly).

And their best evidence fails to convince you.

So you both think the other is deluded.

Therefore, hurling accusations of delusion is pointless on both sides. It adds nothing to the discussion. As the saying goes, it raises the heat, but sheds no light.

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Delusional
« Reply #109 on: August 18, 2012, 06:34:08 PM »
The fact is, you can't prove that Christians are deluded. If you could, you'd do it.

I’m sorry, I haven’t been following this conversation closely, but this caught my eye. Are you arguing that Christians aren’t deluded? Deluded means believing something that is not true so are you saying that what Christians believe is true? Christians believe their God is real, it created the universe, it performs miracles and answers prayers and it grants eternal life? Are you saying that all of that is true? If not then Christians believe things that aren’t true—they are, in a word, deluded.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12062
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #110 on: August 18, 2012, 07:13:35 PM »
3sigma,

Do you have any evidence that their deity doesn't exist? Do you have any evidence it didn't create the universe? The rest you state can be shown, with evidence, that they are not true. Those two can't.

That's the problem with made up things.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Delusional
« Reply #111 on: August 18, 2012, 07:29:32 PM »
Do you have any evidence that their deity doesn't exist? Do you have any evidence it didn't create the universe?

Claims are either true or not true. Christians claim their God is real and that it created the universe. Are you arguing that those two claims are true? If a claim is unproven or the answer is unknown you still cannot logically say the claim is true so it must be not true until proven otherwise.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Delusional
« Reply #112 on: August 18, 2012, 07:55:23 PM »
The fact is, you can't prove that Christians are deluded. If you could, you'd do it.

I’m sorry, I haven’t been following this conversation closely, but this caught my eye. Are you arguing that Christians aren’t deluded?
No. I said what I meant. You can't prove that Christians are deluded. If you could, you'd do it, and it would work every time.

And vice-versa.

So the accusations of delusion cancel out. So they're pointless name-calling.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12062
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Delusional
« Reply #113 on: August 18, 2012, 08:14:12 PM »
3sigma,

I disagree. Claims are just claims. If one sidse provides no evidence or biased evidence then they really do not have a standing. But that's not what you're stating, you're stating since you believe they are wrong, then they are. That, too, is evidence of nothing.

However, if you presented actual evidence to show what they say is unfounded, you'd have better standing.

So, when are you going to do that?

Show unbiased actual evidence their god doesn't exist, and I'll believe they are deluded.

You can't. Again, I reiterate: that's the problem with made-up things.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Delusional
« Reply #114 on: August 18, 2012, 08:30:07 PM »
No. I said what I meant. You can't prove that Christians are deluded. If you could, you'd do it, and it would work every time.

I wonder why you evaded my other questions. Are you saying what Christians believe is true? Christians believe their God is real, it created the universe, it performs miracles and answers prayers and it grants eternal life. Are you saying that all of that is true? Please answer those questions.

If your answer is that not all of those claims are true then Christians believe things that are not true. Deluded means believing things that are not true. If Christians believe anything that is not true then it is proof they are deluded. Now, you can argue that, in that case, everyone is probably deluded to some extent and you would be right. The question then becomes: are religious believers more deluded than someone who doesn’t hold so many unsubstantiated beliefs?

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Delusional
« Reply #115 on: August 18, 2012, 08:31:02 PM »
However, if you presented actual evidence to show what they say is unfounded, you'd have better standing.

So, when are you going to do that?

Show unbiased actual evidence their god doesn't exist, and I'll believe they are deluded.

You want me to provide evidence that what Christians claim has no foundation or basis in fact. Okay. There isn’t a shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to prove that their God is real. The lack of facts supporting their claim shows that their claim has no foundation or basis in fact. If you disagree then, by all means, provide such evidence.

By the way, the burden of proof is not on me to prove that their God doesn’t exist. You should know that by now. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. They need to provide sound evidence and sound arguments to prove that what they believe is true. Otherwise you are arguing that any claim is true until proven otherwise, which is nonsensical.