Delusional

[magicmiles]

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.

so you don't believe in God, but won't say that God does not exist? You're an agnostic. Congratulations. If you need to change business cards, I know a guy.

[HAL]

so you don't believe in God, but won't say that God does not exist? You're an agnostic. Congratulations. If you need to change business cards, I know a guy.

I'm an agnostic atheist. Yes. Where have you been? You act like you're shocked?

Oh I know, you missed it one day when you didn't have time for the forum.

[magicmiles]

I'm an agnostic atheist. Yes.

There is no aspect of atheism to you Hal. You are an agnostic. You don't know if God exists. You think he might not, but you don't know. That is agnosticism.

An atheist believes God does not exist. It's just semantic bullshit to try and say atheism itself is not a belief.

[HAL]

There is no aspect of atheism to you Hal. You are an agnostic. You don't know if God exists. You think he might not, but you don't know. That is agnosticism.

An atheist believes God does not exist. It's just semantic bullshit to try and say atheism itself is not a belief.

No, you're just spouting off incorrect terms. Stop embarrassing yourself. I don't know god does not exist, I simply do not believe it because I have no positive knowledge of it's non-existence.

Look these up when you have time. By the way, where did all the time just now come from for all these responses?

gnostic atheist
agnostic atheist
agnostic theist
gnostic theist

[jdawg70]

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.

What you're proposing seems to imply that all claims, of any form, are positive claims.  Is that true?  What is an example of a negative claim?

Fluxbloweds do not exist.
Season 4, episode 6 of The Simpsons does not depict a historical event.
Vishnu is not real.
The Tick was not the 34th Grand Overlord of the planet Zargon.
...and so on and so forth.

Under this paradigm, wouldn't each of these statements be considered a positive claim?  Are you telling me that it is unreasonable to evaluate the above statements as true, or that I should reasonably expect to find evidence that Vishnu does not exist.

[magicmiles]

Another thing: this widely held assumption that rejecting a positive claim held by someone is not itself a positive claim.

Says who? That's a piece of seppo bullshit I've heard about enough of.

If you tell someone that they are wrong, then you are making a positive claim. So back it up.

[Gnu Ordure]

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.

That only applies to Strong Atheism, MM.

Weak atheism makes no claim, so carries no burden of proof.

So HAL, for example, stated his position recently:

You're telling me that your brain, and presumably your expereince, tells you that God does not exist.

I never said a god does not exist. I do not know. I am very disappointed you made a statement like that.

HAL, I don't understand how you can admit your agnosticism on the very existence of gods, but also claim, rather gnostically, that theists are delusional.

[HAL]

Another thing: this widely held assumption that rejecting a positive claim held by someone is not itself a positive claim.

Says who? That's a piece of seppo bullshit I've heard about enough of.

If you tell someone that they are wrong, then you are making a positive claim. So back it up.

Simple, the positive claim of a deity is rejected because no evidence for the claim is presented. Are we going to go over critical thinking 101 with you now after all this time?

[HAL]

HAL, I don't understand how you can admit your agnosticism on the very existence of gods, but also claim, rather gnostically, that theists are delusional.

See my last post to magic for your answer.

Why are you asking these very basic questions Gnu? I'm shocked, really I am.

[magicmiles]

By the way, where did all the time just now come from for all these responses?

I wrote these responses last week when i had a spare half-hour.

[magicmiles]

Simple, the positive claim of a deity is rejected because no evidence for the claim is presented.

That is just the biggestload of bullshit Hal.

There is masses of evidence. People evaluate evidence and reach different conclusions. Why are my conclusions less valid than yours?

[HAL]

That is just the biggestload of bullshit Hal.

Is that any way for a Christian to talk?

There is masses of evidence. People evaluate evidence and reach different conclusions. Why are my conclusions less valid than yours?

What evidence shows that a god exists? I wasn't aware of any. How do we all justify what you seem to know as true knowledge of a god? How do we test the evidence to determine it's not leading us to a false conclusion?

And on and on and on ...

[magicmiles]

What evidence shows that a god exists? I wasn't aware of any. How do we all justify what you seem to know as true knowledge of a god? How do we test the evidence to determine it's not leading us to a false conclusion?

And on and on and on ...

I posted a link to an apologetics website in the other thread. They present the evidence better than me. I don't claim it will convince you. But to say their is no evidence is a lie. Don't lie.

I don't pretend there is no evidence for evolution, but it doesn't convince me.

[Gnu Ordure]

What you're proposing seems to imply that all claims, of any form, are positive claims.  Is that true?  What is an example of a negative claim?

I believe that gods exist, is a positive claim.

I don't believe that gods exist, is a negative claim.

[HAL]

I posted a link to an apologetics website in the other thread. They present the evidence better than me. I don't claim it will convince you. But to say their is no evidence is a lie. Don't lie.

Well, of course there is supposed evidence presented, however it doesn't lead to the conclusions it purports to lead to. That's why those people (and you) are delusional - they have a belief that isn't supported by rational methods and testing.

I don't pretend there is no evidence for evolution, but it doesn't convince me.

It doesn't convince my cat either but that doesn't mean it's not quality evidence.

[bertatberts]

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.

Oh but it is given normality as it would have to be normal in the first place, to everybody.  Like breathing.

 

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

But it makes it normal.

No it gives it the appearance of normality.

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.

And agnostic atheist say yes too.
Oh and strawman. 

Though I've yet to meet or come across a gnostic atheist. it is an untenable positions for the very same reasons I gave in post #119. I very much doubt any atheist would claim a thing so stupid.

So are you going to dodge the question again.

I'll rephrase it and ask it again what is your personal position? is belief in god a delusion? and try not to dodge this time.

Having done a google search. I have found that some people do refer too themselves as gnostic atheist, but with a qualifier of  absolute knowledge of anything cannot really be known, this does seems to be a reasonable position to hold. And doesn't require a claim the god doesn't exist.

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.

Not given the above qualifier that absolute knowledge of anything cannot really be known. So only the theist has the burden.

[magicmiles]

Well, of course there is supposed evidence presented, however it doesn't lead to the conclusions it purports to lead to.

It doesn't lead you to the conclusion it purports to lead. It does lead me there. We reach different conclusions. Yours is not more valid than mine.

[HAL]

It doesn't lead you to the conclusion it purports to lead. It does lead me there. We reach different conclusions. Yours is not more valid than mine.

Incorrect.

My position is valid. Faulty evidence evaluated/created by delusional theists doesn't count as a valid means of confirmation of a stand on the existence of gods.

[Quesi]

I'm an agnostic atheist. Yes.

There is no aspect of atheism to you Hal. You are an agnostic. You don't know if God exists. You think he might not, but you don't know. That is agnosticism.

An atheist believes God does not exist. It's just semantic bullshit to try and say atheism itself is not a belief.

MM- With all due respect, I am going to disagree with you here.  I know that you have heard all of this before, because you have been on this forum for a while. 

I do not KNOW that Zeus does not exist.  But I'm pretty sure he doesn't. 

I do not KNOW that the Mayan Hero Twins did not travel into the underworld and trick the lord of the underworld into letting them cut him into pieces just to see if they could put him back together.  But I'm pretty sure none of that happened. 

I do not KNOW that the god of Abraham did not write a bunch of rules on a piece of stone and give it to one of his faithful.  But I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. 

I do not KNOW that Thor is not playing with weather patterns.  But I'm pretty sure he is not.

There are a lot of things I don't know.  I don't KNOW if your twins are named Jorge and Ali.  But I'm pretty sure they are not. 

Claiming to know things that are not knowable is kind of arrogant.  I am an atheist.  And so is HAL.  And even though HAL is pissing you off right now, claiming that he is not an atheist is just silly. 

[HAL]

MM, you know what's going to bug the Hell out of you? Since you're pressed for time (or so you said, it doesn't seem that way now...) you're going to have to log off soon and you'll be thinking of all the replies to your position that will be demolishing it for all the members and guests to read until you return. It's gonna be a rough 24 hours.

[magicmiles]

The whole site is pissing me off Quesi, but it has a ridiculous hold over me.

You're one of the good ones. Glad you're holiday was nice.

[magicmiles]

MM, you know what's going to bug the Hell out of you? Since you're pressed for time (or so you said, it doesn't seem that way now...) you're going to have to log off soon and you'll be thinking of all the replies to your position that will be demolishing it for all the members and guests to read until you return. It's gonna be a rough 24 hours.

Fuck off and go play with your cat.

[HAL]

Fuck off and go play with your cat.

I forgive you for that outburst my son.

[magicmiles]

By the way, where did all the time just now come from for all these responses?

I wrote these responses last week when i had a spare half-hour.

Nam, clearly you wouldn't recognise sarcasm if it jumped up and bit you on the arse.

Maybe that's a good thing. They say it's the wit of fools after all.

[Nam]

That is just the biggestload of bullshit Hal.

Is that any way for a Christian to talk?

There is masses of evidence. People evaluate evidence and reach different conclusions. Why are my conclusions less valid than yours?

What evidence shows that a god exists? I wasn't aware of any. How do we all justify what you seem to know as true knowledge of a god? How do we test the evidence to determine it's not leading us to a false conclusion?

And on and on and on ...

Well, Hal, if anyone read my recent topic they'd see that all one has to do is put a whole bunch of theists in a room and using a planchette (or whatever), or another scientific tool and show that it exists based on such observations. Then, when finished state you did this with nothing but your word you did.

It's that simple.

-Nam

[Nam]

I disagree with bertaberts. I have seen atheists on this website multiple times say "I know god doesn't exist" with no in between about it.

magicmiles,

I recognize sarcasm. But in text it usually comes with indentations to signify it's sarcasm. However, even if it wasn't you still would have gotten a smite by me for the profanity you used, in one of yor last posts to Hal. Whether deserving or not, it's uncalled for. Of course being the Christian you are, you should already know that.

-Nam

[3sigma]

An erroneous inference.

What I'm saying is that both positions are rather symmetrical. So when you say...
…
... a theist might say :
…
What would you say to such a theist, 3sigma?

No, both positions are not symmetrical. It has been brought to your attention in this thread multiple times that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. When the theist says, “My God is real”, that is the positive claim. When the atheist says, “I don’t believe you. Prove it”, that isn’t a claim at all. This burden of proof fallacy has been explained to you several times now by me and eloquently by bertatberts and yet you continue to use it. That indicates to me either you don’t comprehend that it is a fallacy (which seems unlikely) or that you are being intellectually dishonest.

What would I say to such a theist? I would say to that theist what I am saying to you: you are being evasive.

I gave you a sound argument showing that theists are deluded and asked you to show me whether any of the premises were untrue or the conclusion didn’t necessarily follow from the premises and you evaded those questions. I asked you if you could provide a sound argument proving that theists are not deluded and you evaded that question as well. Instead you responded with a contrived misrepresentation of my argument and asked a question in return. That is behaving evasively and again indicates intellectual dishonesty.

Can you please provide honest and direct answers to the questions I asked instead of evading them?

[screwtape]

magicmiles

In the future when giving karma please use descriptions that are more informative than "bite me".  How is HAL supposed to know how he might improve on his posting style if you do not give him more information?

[stuffin]

Theist; There is a god

Atheist; Can you prove a god exists? Since you can't, I don't believe a god exists.

Atheists don't say god doesn't exist, they just keep asking for proof he/she/it does.
 
Atheists make no claims.

Theists make the claim and then displace the burden of proof on the Atheist, nothing new here.