Delusional

[Nam]

3sigma,

You saying it is your opinion, and therefore biased. You asking me to show evidence of something I don't believe in is laughable. However, you still haven't shown unbiased evidence that their god does not exist.

When are you going to do that? Your opinion is that they are deluded based on the things you listed. That's the first thing you listed yet still all the evidence you have is your opinion.

I want actual unbiased evidence.

Admit you have no evidence that their god doesn't exist, and that you call them deluded because you believe their deity doesn't exist, and all the other things listed.

-Nam

[Nam]

3sigma,

To add to your 2nd part of the comment.

You are claiming that they are "deluded" because of A, B, C, and D. First, to make such a claim you have to provide unbiased evidence that A, B, C, and D are not real.

You're making a claim therefore it isa up to you to show evidence for it. The same goes for them when they make claims, or anyone makes claims.

So, calling people "deluded", in such regard, seems pointless. Unless, you do it 'cause you enjoy it.

-Nam

[3sigma]

You saying it is your opinion, and therefore biased. You asking me to show evidence of something I don't believe in is laughable. However, you still haven't shown unbiased evidence that their god does not exist.

When are you going to do that? Your opinion is that they are deluded based on the things you listed. That's the first thing you listed yet still all the evidence you have is your opinion.

I want actual unbiased evidence.

Admit you have no evidence that their god doesn't exist, and that you call them deluded because you believe their deity doesn't exist, and all the other things listed.

For pity’s sake, I just explained to you why it is fallacious to ask me to prove their God doesn’t exist. Christians claim their God exists. The burden of proof is on them to prove their claim is true. The fact (not merely my opinion) that neither you nor anyone else in all of human history has ever produced a shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to prove their claim is true means their claim has not been proven true. It would be nonsensical to say, “There is zero evidence to support this claim therefore it is true.” It is ridiculous to assume a claim is true until proven otherwise. You must assume a claim is not true until it is proven to be true.

You are claiming that they are "deluded" because of A, B, C, and D. First, to make such a claim you have to provide unbiased evidence that A, B, C, and D are not real.

You're making a claim therefore it isa up to you to show evidence for it. The same goes for them when they make claims, or anyone makes claims.

So, calling people "deluded", in such regard, seems pointless. Unless, you do it 'cause you enjoy it.

Religious believers have no valid justification for believing their claims are true yet they do believe they are true. Despite a complete lack of sound evidence or sound arguments to prove their claims are true they have convinced, deceived or deluded themselves into believing they are true.

As I said in reply #3 in this thread, I don’t normally call religious believers delusional or even deluded. I would normally say they are gullible, self-deceived or mistaken.

[bertatberts]

"The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence."

With thanks to Sinbad

“To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy” - David Brooks

It would seem some "atheist" are of the same belief/faith as the religious when it comes to a god. I am flabbergasted as to why.

There is no equal burden of proof. To even suggest it is infantile. The religious are inclined to mutate a debate from one demanding proof (proposing a “truth”) to one demanding an equal burden from the one not being convinced of the proof given.
They enact a sort of diversion tactic trying to prove a hypothesis by demanding the other prove a negative. And now some atheist too it would seem.(unbelievable!)

This BS tactic is the result of their need to show that all forms of belief, even unbelief, require faith.  In this way they believe they accomplish two things avoiding the burden of presenting arguments for their proposition, and then challenging the other to present an argument against their proposition. By this they are attempting to show that all positions are founded on faith. 

This strategy completely avoids the fact that there are no absolutes but only superior and inferior positions.
Here a religious/some atheists mind shows the quality of its reasoning by not being able to perceive a gradation of “truth” but only absolutes (God Itself is an absolute notion) and by perceiving the universe as a “this” or “that” construct, a black or white, a good or evil reality with no colouration or shading of any kind in between.
There’s a saying that goes like this:
“Don’t argue with a fool because he’ll pull you down to his level and then beat you with his experience there.”

Unfortunately, for them, the burden of proof rests squarely upon their shoulders and no amount of verbal acrobatics can unburden them of it.
The one claiming a “truth”, in this case an absolute “truth” at that, is the one that must offer arguments and evidence, equal to the proposition offered, and in support of this “truth” and not the one denying or resisting the arguments themselves.

Here I must mention that there are atheists that hold on to their own opinions in absolute dogmatic ways (as we have noticed)and are just as guilty of absolutism as any religious fanatic is. The only honest atheistic position is that of one not believing in things it is unconvinced of or hasn't witnessed adequate proof of.
If I have doubt, I have reason to remain sceptical.

Given this logic  everything that can be imagined does exist if it cant be shown to not exist.
I cant prove that Easter bunny does not exist, therefore he does.
I cant prove that Ireland is not populated by leprechauns so therefore it must be.

If we established this form of reasoning in everyday life we would not need to have money only ask that the other prove that we do not. If he is unable to meet that burden, then we can both assume that I do have money.

Here reality isn’t constructed based on ongoing investigation but it pre-exists completed and indisputable and all that remains is for it to be proven or dis-proven.

If it cant be proven then the burden is diverted upon the opposition who must disprove it or else risk constituting it as real if they cant.

This is why such minds cant be rehabilitated or reasoned with and why, in numbers and given enough political clout, they become very dangerous?

[Gnu Ordure]

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.

I didn't answer them because they were all based on an erroneous inference.

Are you saying what Christians believe is true?

How is that different to the question you just asked me ("Are you arguing that Christians aren’t deluded?"), which I clearly answered in the negative.

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.

No, I'm not saying all of those things are true. I'm saying that they can't be proved to be false.

If they could, the proportion of gnostic atheists would be far higher than the current 15%.

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.

That's a truism; atheists obviously find the evidence unsound, theists find it sound.

Religious believers have no valid justification for believing their claims are true yet they do believe they are true

They have their evidence, which they find sound. Atheists asserting their justifications to be 'invalid' is another truism. Of course, atheists believe that. And vice-versa. So it's hardly worth saying.

[bertatberts]

They have their evidence, which they find sound.

The subjective evidence they have, is the very same subjective evidence a person who believes in fairies has. So what your saying is, that I have to prove fairies don't exist before I can claim the person who believes in fairies is delusional. That is arse backwards thinking.
The person who believe in fairies has to demonstrate they exist before I have to accept their claim.

[3sigma]

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.

No, I'm not saying all of those things are true. I'm saying that they can't be proved to be false.

You are engaging in the same logical fallacy as Nam. All you’ve done is disguise it. When you ask for those Christian claims to be proven false, you are asking us to prove their God doesn’t exist. The burden of proof is on them to prove that it does exist. They need to prove their claim is true.

Christians claim their God exists. Is that claim true?

If you answer yes and you can prove you are correct then, fair enough, you’ve shown that in that one case Christians don’t believe something that is not true. However, if your answer is anything other than yes—for example, no, maybe or it hasn’t been proven false—then the claim is not, to the best of our knowledge, true. In which case, Christians believe something that is not true and are, ipso facto, deluded.

I really don’t know why you are bothering to argue about this. The claim that the Christian God exists is no more true than the claim that fairies exist. Would you try to argue that someone who believes fairies are real is not deluded in the slightest?

[Gnu Ordure]

They have their evidence, which they find sound.

The subjective evidence they have, is the very same subjective evidence a person who believes in fairies has. So what your saying is, that I have to prove fairies don't exist before I can claim the person who believes in fairies is delusional.

Ideally, yes; but since you're hampered by the logical impossibility of disproving a universal negative, you have to fall back on other arguments - such as the abnormality of belief in fairies.

That argument doesn't work for belief in gods, because belief in gods is normal.

[Gnu Ordure]

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.

No, I'm not saying all of those things are true. I'm saying that they can't be proved to be false.

You are engaging in the same logical fallacy as Nam. All you’ve done is disguise it. When you ask for those Christian claims to be proven false, you are asking us to prove their God doesn’t exist.

I'm not asking anything, 3sigma. I'm merely pointing out the fact that no-one can prove or disprove the existence of gods (depending on how specific the claims are).

The burden of proof is on them to prove that it does exist. They need to prove their claim is true.

They have their evidence, which they find sound. You don't find it sound. Now what?

The claim that the Christian God exists is no more true than the claim that fairies exist. Would you try to argue that someone who believes fairies are real is not deluded in the slightest?

See my reply to Bert, above.

[3sigma]

They have their evidence, which they find sound. You don't find it sound. Now what?

Now they need to demonstrate that their evidence is sound. They need to show that it is free from error, fallacies and misapprehensions—or at least free enough to place it beyond reasonable doubt. It would also help if they could provide sound arguments to support their beliefs. Those arguments need to be logically valid and all their premises must be true. Unfortunately, religious believers can do none of that.

That argument doesn't work for belief in gods, because belief in gods is normal.

Here, by normal, you mean popular. This is just a fallacious appeal to popularity. The fact that many religious believers are deluded[1] doesn’t make them any less deluded.

1.	meaning they believe something that is not true

[Graybeard]

Religious believers have no valid justification for believing their claims are true yet they do believe they are true

They have their evidence, which they find sound. Atheists asserting their justifications to be 'invalid' is another truism. Of course, atheists believe that. And vice-versa. So it's hardly worth saying.

delusion /de•lu•sion/ (d?-loo´zhun) an idiosyncratic false belief that is firmly maintained in spite of incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. delu´sional - Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers.

The believer is just that – they believe without evidence and they insist that they are correct. Ask any Christian if it is probably that the Hindu gods are up there in the sky somewhere overseeing our lives and deciding who will go to heaven and he will tell you that they are not and that Hindus are “misguided”.

However, on exactly the same basis they believe that their own god is real.

If you came across someone who complained that his wife was mad because she believed in fairies but who, himself  said he “obviously believed in goblins.” You would have two cases, not one case on your hands.

Belief in gods is not normal, it is, and there is a fine but important distinction, “accepted as normal.” This is why it is not classed (in its mild form) as a mental illness. Godbotherers are accepted because society tolerates the less extreme forms of godbothering.

You will note that “God told me to do it.” is never a legal defence.

[Gnu Ordure]

3sigma, you asked earlier:

I really don’t know why you are bothering to argue about this.

If you want to know some context, there is an ongoing thread started by HAL entitled, A Christian goes to see a Psychiatrist for a Diagnosis, in which he asks about the medical profession's attitude to theism. Mooby and I attempt to answer his questions; Mooby is a theistic doctor (though not a psychiatrist), and I'm a pantheistic psychotherapist (though not a doctor). 

They have their evidence, which they find sound. You don't find it sound. Now what?

Now they need to demonstrate that their evidence is sound. They need to show that it is free from error, fallacies and misapprehensions—or at least free enough to place it beyond reasonable doubt. It would also help if they could provide sound arguments to support their beliefs. Those arguments need to be logically valid and all their premises must be true. Unfortunately, religious believers can do none of that.

They think they can. You think they can't. Welcome to WWGHA! The Show That Never Ends!

That argument doesn't work for belief in gods, because belief in gods is normal.

Here, by normal, you mean popular. This is just a fallacious appeal to popularity.

No, it's not.

I'm saying that whereas one can (and does) argue against belief in fairies by referring to its abnormality, that particular argument doesn't work with christianity. Which is true.

Gnu.

PS: Tip, 3sigma: you don't need to provide links to concepts such as appeal to popularity or fallacies. Unless you get into a definition war, which does happen.

[HAL]

Mooby is a theistic doctor (though not a psychiatrist), and I'm a pantheistic psychotherapist (though not a doctor). 

And I'm an atheistic deconversionist. 

[Gnu Ordure]

Religious believers have no valid justification for believing their claims are true yet they do believe they are true

They have their evidence, which they find sound. Atheists asserting their justifications to be 'invalid' is another truism. Of course, atheists believe that. And vice-versa. So it's hardly worth saying.

delusion /de•lu•sion/ (d?-loo´zhun) an idiosyncratic false belief that is firmly maintained in spite of incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. delu´sional - Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers.

The believer is just that – they believe without evidence and they insist that they are correct.

Read your own definition, GB.

1. It specifies that the false belief should be 'idiosyncratic'. According to wiki, an idiosyncrasy^Wiki is "an unusual feature of a person (though there are also other uses, see below). It also means odd habit." Being a christian is neither unusual nor odd. It's the norm (in the US, and other places). Therefore, it doesn't qualify as delusional.

2. Where is the "incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary" required by that definition?

I made the same point in response to Bert's definition in my first post in this thread:

Delusion: A false belief or wrong judgment, sometimes associated with hallucinations, held with conviction despite evidence to the contrary.
http://stedmansonline.com/ Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 28th Edition, Copyright© 2006_Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

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.

Belief in gods is not normal, it is, and there is a fine but important distinction, “accepted as normal.”

80% of the world believe in gods; so it's normal to believe in gods. The norm is decided by the numbers.

[3sigma]

If you want to know some context, there is an ongoing thread started by HAL entitled, A Christian goes to see a Psychiatrist for a Diagnosis, in which he asks about the medical profession's attitude to theism. Mooby and I attempt to answer his questions; Mooby is a theistic doctor (though not a psychiatrist), and I'm a pantheistic psychotherapist (though not a doctor).

Thank you, that explains it. I was wondering why you have been arguing like a religious believer.

They think they can.

Yes, and that is what makes them deluded. Religious believers think they have evidence supporting their beliefs, but when that evidence is examined objectively or tested, it turns out to be nothing more than a morass of misapprehensions, fallacies and misrepresentations. If you think you can validate your religious beliefs then please go to this thread and demonstrate it.

I'm saying that whereas one can (and does) argue against belief in fairies by referring to its abnormality, that particular argument doesn't work with christianity. Which is true.

I’m sorry; I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying Christianity is true? Are you saying Christians aren’t deluded when they believe something that isn’t true just because many of them do it? Deluded just means believing something that isn’t true. It seems to be quite normal for many people to do that. People delude themselves into believing all sorts of unsubstantiated nonsense. Just go to the Skeptic’s Dictionary to gain an impression of how many variations there are and how easily people can be deluded. The fact that it is normal for people to delude themselves doesn’t mean they aren’t deluded.

PS: Tip, 3sigma: you don't need to provide links to concepts such as appeal to popularity or fallacies. Unless you get into a definition war, which does happen.

Thank you for the tip. I used to contribute to another forum populated predominantly by Christians. There I had to laboriously explain everything. I’ll try to break myself of that habit.

[Gnu Ordure]

Mooby is a theistic doctor (though not a psychiatrist), and I'm a pantheistic psychotherapist (though not a doctor). 

And I'm an atheistic deconversionist. 

When worlds collide...

[Gnu Ordure]

Thank you, that explains it.

You're welcome.

Yes, and that is what makes them deluded. Religious believers think they have evidence supporting their beliefs, but when that evidence is examined objectively or tested, it turns out to be nothing more than a morass of misapprehensions, fallacies and misrepresentations.

So you say. Theists disagree.

I'm saying that whereas one can (and does) argue against belief in fairies by referring to its abnormality, that particular argument doesn't work with christianity. Which is true.

I’m sorry; I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying Christianity is true?

No. Let me try again:

I'm saying that whereas one can (and does) argue against belief in fairies by referring to its abnormality, that particular argument doesn't work with christianity. Which is true.

Is that clearer?

Thank you for the tip.

No worries. The average IQ at WWGHA is above average. It would be higher still if I wasn't here.

[3sigma]

So you say. Theists disagree.

This is the crux of the problem. You imply here again that it is just my opinion that theists are wrong or that both positions are equally valid, but that isn’t the case. The theists’ claim that their God is real is unvalidated. It hasn’t been proven to be accurate or true. Allowing oneself to believe that an unvalidated feeling or idea is true is self-deception. Theists trick, deceive or delude themselves into believing their God is real.

Deluded means believing something that is not true. Theists believe the claim that their God is real. That claim is not true. Therefore, theists are deluded. Can you show that any of those premises is not true? Can you show that the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises? If you can’t then the argument is sound: theists are deluded.

Can you provide a sound argument proving that theists are not deluded? To do that you will need to prove that the definition of deluded is false, that theists don’t believe the claim that their God is real or that their claim is true.

[bertatberts]

They have their evidence, which they find sound.

The subjective evidence they have, is the very same subjective evidence a person who believes in fairies has. So what your saying is, that I have to prove fairies don't exist before I can claim the person who believes in fairies is delusional.

Ideally, yes; but since you're hampered by the logical impossibility of disproving a universal negative, you have to fall back on other arguments - such as the abnormality of belief in fairies.

That argument doesn't work for belief in gods, because belief in gods is normal.

No belief in god is just as abnormal, it is given normality because the majority of the world are of that same delusion.
If the majority believed in fairies then it would be normal to believe in them. Even though we know they don't exist.
Having the consensus of opinion doesn't make it right. it just give them the power to push their agenda.

So regardless of who has the most power, is belief in god a delusion? Don't answer just because  it's the norm, please, give us your real thoughts.

[Bad Pear]

1. It specifies that the false belief should be 'idiosyncratic'. According to wiki, an idiosyncrasy^Wiki is "an unusual feature of a person (though there are also other uses, see below). It also means odd habit." Being a christian is neither unusual nor odd. It's the norm (in the US, and other places). Therefore, it doesn't qualify as delusional.

*snip*

80% of the world believe in gods; so it's normal to believe in gods. The norm is decided by the numbers.

So when I meet a Chinese Christian (in China), they are delusional by Chinese standards, but not globally? If they go to study in Vancouver they're suddenly mentally fit?

Perhaps we should consider the total number of sentient beings in the cosmos? Maybe theistic belief is markedly abnormal on a universal scale?

Once the numbers drop to 49.9% does almost half of the planet suddenly qualify as having a mental disorder that they did not have five minutes before the last guy lost his faith?

2. Where is the "incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary" required by that definition?

If we're talking about specific, theistic god claims then the evidence is readily available in many cases. A deist would not necessarily be delusional.

[Gnu Ordure]

So you say. Theists disagree.

This is the crux of the problem. You imply here again that it is just my opinion that theists are wrong...

An erroneous inference.

... or that both positions are equally valid,

What I'm saying is that both positions are rather symmetrical. So when you say...

The theists’ claim that their God is real is unvalidated. It hasn’t been proven to be accurate or true. Allowing oneself to believe that an unvalidated feeling or idea is true is self-deception. Theists trick, deceive or delude themselves into believing their God is real.

Deluded means believing something that is not true. Theists believe the claim that their God is real. That claim is not true. Therefore, theists are deluded. Can you show that any of those premises is not true? Can you show that the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises? If you can’t then the argument is sound: theists are deluded.

Can you provide a sound argument proving that theists are not deluded? To do that you will need to prove that the definition of deluded is false, that theists don’t believe the claim that their God is real or that their claim is true.

... a theist might say :

The atheists’ claim that their God is unreal is unvalidated. It hasn’t been proven to be accurate or true. Allowing oneself to believe that an unvalidated feeling or idea is true is self-deception. Atheists trick, deceive or delude themselves into believing their God is unreal.

Deluded means believing something that is not true. Atheists believe the claim that their God is unreal. That claim is not true. Therefore, atheists are deluded. Can you show that any of those premises is not true? Can you show that the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises? If you can’t then the argument is sound: atheists are deluded.

Can you provide a sound argument proving that atheists are not deluded? To do that you will need to prove that the definition of deluded is false, that atheists don’t believe the claim that their God is unreal or that their claim is true.

What would you say to such a theist, 3sigma?

[bertatberts]

What would you say to such a theist, 3sigma?

I refer you to post #119.

[Gnu Ordure]

No belief in god is just as abnormal, it is given normality because the majority of the world are of that same delusion.

It's not 'given normality'; it becomes normal. The numbers decide the norms.

If the majority believed in fairies then it would be normal to believe in them.

Yes. 

Having the consensus of opinion doesn't make it right.

But it makes it normal.

So regardless of who has the most power, is belief in god a delusion? Don't answer just because  it's the norm, please, give us your real thoughts.

Gnostic atheists says yes, gnostic theists say no.

[HAL]

The following is worded in a wrong way -

The atheists’ claim that their God is unreal is unvalidated. It hasn’t been proven to be accurate or true. Allowing oneself to believe that an unvalidated feeling or idea is true is self-deception. Atheists trick, deceive or delude themselves into believing their God is unreal.

Deluded means believing something that is not true. Atheists believe the claim that their God is unreal. That claim is not true. Therefore, atheists are deluded. Can you show that any of those premises is not true? Can you show that the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises? If you can’t then the argument is sound: atheists are deluded.

Can you provide a sound argument proving that atheists are not deluded? To do that you will need to prove that the definition of deluded is false, that atheists don’t believe the claim that their God is unreal or that their claim is true.

I put in remarks that show how the supposed theist who would write such a pitiful mess would be corrected - shown in red -

The atheists’ claim that God is unreal is unvalidated.

It hasn’t been proven to be accurate or true. Allowing oneself to believe that an unvalidated feeling or idea is true is self-deception. Atheists trick, deceive or delude themselves into believing God is unreal.

Belief is subject to proper evidence, testing, and corroboration, and as such the validation must come in the positive. If there is no positive validation belief is suspended.

Deluded means believing something that is not true. Atheists believe the claim that God is unreal. That claim is not true. Therefore, atheists are deluded. Can you show that any of those premises is not true? Can you show that the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises? If you can’t then the argument is sound: atheists are deluded.


Again, this is backwards and just because it is written does not make it a valid assertion or means of approaching the problem. Belief is suspended until evidence is presented, as stated above.

Improper form - Atheists believe the claim that God is unreal

Proper form - Atheists do not believe the claim that God is real

Can you provide a sound argument proving that atheists are not deluded? To do that you will need to prove that the definition of deluded is false, that atheists don’t believe the claim that their God is unreal or that their claim is true.

Again incorrect approach. Atheists do not believe in claims that god is unreal, they do not believe claims that god is real. Until such is shown to be true then belief in the affirmative is suspended.

[Gnu Ordure]

What would you say to such a theist, 3sigma?

I refer you to post #119.

There is no equal burden of proof.

Gnostic theists make a positive claim of a positive assertion - I claim that there is a god.

Strong Atheists make a positive claim of a negative assertion - I claim that there are no gods.

Both positions therefore carry the burden of proof.

[Nam]

Gnu,

I mentioned that point earlier[1] it was ignored.

-Nam

1.	the claiming part

[HAL]

Gnostic theists make a positive claim of a positive assertion - I claim that there is a god.

Strong Atheists make a positive claim of a negative assertion - I claim that there are no gods.

Both positions therefore carry the burden of proof.

Those aren't the only positions ...

[magicmiles]

Gnu is quite correct.

You can't have it both ways. To try and say atheism isn't a positive claim is just semantics. It is a claim. It is a claim that there is no God. This cannot be proven. By your own definition of delusional, you are delusional. You simply believe you are less delusional than theists. As GB would say...ho-hum.

[HAL]

Gnu is quite correct.

No, he's incorrect.

You can't have it both ways. To try and say atheism isn't a positive claim is just semantics. It is a claim. It is a claim that there is no God. This cannot be proven. By your own definition of delusional, you are delusional. You simply believe you are less delusional than theists. As GB would say...ho-hum.

No, it's a claim that a person does not believe in a god (due to lack of evidence). That is not delusion sir. That is critical thinking.

Magic - I thought you didn't have time for these debates. Now you have time again?

How is that possible? Were you lying to us all before?

Cam we get a moderator to investigate magic's sudden availability?

If you are now available please go to the thread you all but abandoned and write back to all the members who put in time answering your OP.