Are atheists implying theists are delusional?

[s2a]

So... how about them Lions?

Dunno...

...last I heard, lions believe that Christians taste just like chicken.

When in Rome...

;-)

 

[Sunstone]

BTW, where did I say you support any of those things? If your argument were accepted none of us would be able to criticize those things. But that's not the same as "supporting" them.

Who is twisting words and being a bigot here?

Methinks you doth protest too much.

I firmly believe that I can safely take the above post of yours, Dopple, as evidence of your irrational support of nuking Iranian civilians and eating their babies! Shame on you!

 

[doppelganger]

I firmly believe that I can safely take the above post of yours, Dopple, as evidence of your irrational support of nuking Iranian civilians and eating their babies! Shame on you!

That's just the sort of thing a stinking snarfus would say.

 

[doppelganger]

The problem for the theist is their inability to answer this question:

Is it reasonable to assume that someone who believes in the literal existence, as an object or being, of something for which there is no objective evidence, is operating under a confusion between a construct of their mind and the objectification of that construct?

If the theist answers "yes," then they must concede that it is reasonable to hold that "faith" in the existence of God or gods imagined as objective things outside of language is a product of delusion (i.e. confusing the sign with the thing signified, confusing imagination with objective reality, confusing judgments about reality for the reality itself).

If the theist answers "no," then necessarily he or she is rejecting any rational basis for the critique of knowledge. A "no" answer to the question equates "subjective experience" with "objective evidence," and thereby places knowledge beyond objective verification.

 

[Halcyon]

The problem for the theist is their inability to answer this question:

Is it reasonable to assume that someone who believes in the literal existence, as an object or being, of something for which there is no objective evidence, is operating under a confusion between a construct of their mind and the objectification of that construct?

If the theist answers "yes," then they must concede that it is reasonable to hold that "faith" in the existence of God or gods imagined as objective things outside of language is a product of delusion (i.e. confusing the sign with the thing signified, confusing imagination with objective reality, confusing judgments about reality for the reality itself).

If the theist answers "no," then necessarily he or she is rejecting any rational basis for the critique of knowledge. A "no" answer to the question equates "subjective experience" with "objective evidence," and thereby places knowledge beyond objective verification.

Interesting.

As an atheist, would you say that the human race knows of and understands everything that exists?
Would you say that we will never discover any new form of energy, or radiation or form of matter that, previously, we were unable to detect?

 

[doppelganger]

Depending on what you mean by "atheist," that may or may not describe me. "Agnostic" is probably closer for most people, though I prefer "apatheist" as the entire inquiry about whether "God" "exists" as anything other than a linguistic placeholder for a variety of other experiences (the paradox of the "prime mover" and the epiphanous moments of loss of self as in "God is Love," for example) is a fools' errand. It is much more interesting to me to examine what the sign signifies for an individual than whether the sign itself exists outside a person's use of it as a construct.

would you say that the human race knows of and understands everything that exists?

How does something "exist"?

Would you say that we will never discover any new form of energy, or radiation or form of matter that, previously, we were unable to detect?

By "discover" I assume you mean obtain objective evidence of the existence of some "new energy . . etc. "Never" would be unreasonable. That's why I'm not a "strong" atheist (and why I'm careful not to describe my view as "atheist" at all, because I know that many always read into that word the meaing of what I would call "strong atheist"). The fact is that every day you and I and everyone experiences sensory input about new things that come into "existence" in our universe. In ways subtle and not to subtle we may share via language our experience of these sensory inputs and make judgments about whether our experiences align to verify the objectivity of things - particuluarly where the sensory input doesn't align with expectations from past experiences. "Did you see what I just saw?"

Do you think that it is reasonable in the absence of objective evidence to think that anything I can imagine "exists" as an object outside my thoughts simply because it's impossible to rule out that we might discover objective evidence for it in the future?

 

[Willamena]

As an atheist, would you say that the human race knows of and understands everything that exists?
Would you say that we will never discover any new form of energy, or radiation or form of matter that, previously, we were unable to detect?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to answer.

The word "understanding" is pictorally descriptive of our knowledge in relation to reality: we are pictured as standing under a level of information that we can never attain. Understanding will always be inferior to reality in that regard.

That's not to say we can't learn new things.

 

[Halcyon]

Do you think that it is reasonable in the absence of objective evidence to think that anything I can imagine "exists" as an object outside my thoughts simply because it's impossible to rule out that we might discover objective evidence for it in the future?

Yes, i do.

Which brings me to the question i think atheists cannot answer;

Do you accept that there may well be forces, radiation and particles all around us that exist (as in they have a physical manifestation), but that at this moment in time science has yet to make the technological advancement necessary for their objective verification?

If the answer is yes, then the atheist must concede that there may be forces in existence that fulfil the role people ascribe to God or Tao or any other religious being/force, but that at this moment in time we simply cannot detect them using the current scientific methods.

If the answer is no, then the atheist is delusional in believing that humanity has reached the pinnacle of scientific understanding and will never understand or discover anything new.

 

[Willamena]

If the answer is no, then the atheist is delusional in believing that humanity has reached the pinnacle of scientific understanding and will never understand or discover anything new.

I have a "no" answer that doesn't lead to that conclusion.

 

[doppelganger]

Yes, i do.

Which brings me to the question i think atheists cannot answer;

Do you accept that there may well be forces, radiation and particles all around us that exist (as in they have a physical manifestation), but that at this moment in time science has yet to make the technological advancement necessary for their objective verification?

Of course. But then, I'm not that kind of "atheist."

If the answer is yes, then the atheist must concede that there may be forces in existence that fulfil the role people ascribe to God or Tao or any other religious being/force, but that at this moment in time we simply cannot detect them using the current scientific methods.

First, I willingly concede that anything someone imagines might exist as an object. I made of point of trying to avoid being confused with strong atheism. Oh well . . .

Second, there ARE forces in existence that fulfill the role people ascribe to "God" or the "Tao." However, they are observable in the manner of the symbolic use of those words - the manner in which experiences are associated with those symbols. If one leaves out the step of considering carefully what is meant by a person using the symbols "God" and "Tao," then one is mistaking the sign for the thing signified.

 

[doppelganger]

What does it mean for something to "exist"?

 

[Revasser]

Do you accept that there may well be forces, radiation and particles all around us that exist (as in they have a physical manifestation), but that at this moment in time science has yet to make the technological advancement necessary for their objective verification?

If the answer is yes, then the atheist must concede that there may be forces in existence that fulfil the role people ascribe to God or Tao or any other religious being/force, but that at this moment in time we simply cannot detect them using the current scientific methods.

If the answer is no, then the atheist is delusional in believing that humanity has reached the pinnacle of scientific understanding and will never understand or discover anything new.

I don't think you'd find many an atheist who would actually answer "No" to that question. At least no atheist who incorporates scepticism as part of his philosophy. But conceding that something is logically possible and saying that that something is probable and evidenced (and thus reasonable to invest with a positive belief in existence) are very different things. Anything that is not internally contradictory (and some posited "god concepts" are) is logically possible. But that being so, it is not rational to have a positive belief in the existence of something simply because it's possible.

Maybe one day we will discover forces in the universe that mirror some concepts of "God." It doesn't seem very likely, given the nature of most ideas of gods and the way we observe the universe to work, but it's possible. If that ever happens, I doubt you'll find many sceptical atheists who will stubbornly cling to atheism in the face of a wealth credible evidence in favour of a God. As it stands, that evidence has not been at all forthcoming . Therefore the reasonable thing to do is to withhold belief until such evidence is presented (if ever.)

 

[Halcyon]

I have a "no" answer that doesn't lead to that conclusion.

Ooo, go on, i'm all ears.

First, I willingly concede that anything someone imagines might exist as an object. I made of point of trying to avoid being confused with strong atheism. Oh well . . .

Sorry doppel, i'm not implying that you are, i'm just trying to counter the unanswerable question for theists that you posted - nothing personal intended.

Second, there ARE forces in existence that fulfill the role people ascribe to "God" or the "Tao." However, they are observable in the manner of the symbolic use of those words - the manner in which experiences are associated with those symbols. If one leaves out the step of considering carefully what is meant by a person using the symbols "God" and "Tao," then one is mistaking the sign for the thing signified.

I don't know whats wrong with me today, hopefully it's only temporary, but i can't make sense of what you're saying. Could your rephrase?

What does it mean for something to "exist"?

I take it you want someone to say that a thing exists when it can be objectively verified?

Robin Hood exists, as a character in fiction - he has no physical form but he is real. I imagine this is how most atheists see God, Jesus, whatever - as fiction that only exists in the mind of the individual.
However, the whole point is that although God could exist in reality and can exert a physical presence or he could exist as fiction and exert an emotional presence, he could also exist in reality and exert an emotional presence. We can't know.

 

[Halcyon]

Therefore the reasonable thing to do is to withhold belief until such evidence is presented (if ever.)

Sure, but its also not logical to declare someone delusion simply because they take the opposite stance.

 

[Revasser]

Sure, but its also not logical to declare someone delusion simply because they take the opposite stance.

That depends on which definition of "delusional" you're using. If you mean the psychiatric definition, which implies clinical mental health issues, then you would be correct. If you mean it in a more generic sense then... well, that's what this thread has been about.

I would say it is perfectly logical and accurate for someone who holds one or more unreasonable beliefs to be labeled "delusional." As you probably extrapolate from that, I would say this applies to everyone. You show me a person with no delusions and I'll show a corpse. But the contentious point, at least that I can see, seems to be what can be considered an unreasonable belief or a "delusion."

 

[doppelganger]

I take it you want someone to say that a thing exists when it can be objectively verified?

No. You used the phrase. I want you to describe what you meant when you used it.

 

[doppelganger]

I want to continue this, but it probably won't be today. I have to prepare for my daughter's b-day party and the office Christmas party is tonight.

Thanks to everyone for a very enjoyable and challenging discussion. Frubals all around when I get a chance.

 

[Halcyon]

No. You used the phrase. I want you to describe what you meant when you used it.

Oh, in that post i was talking about something - a force or particle - that could be measured, but that at this time we are unable to and therefore are unaware of its existance despite it being all around us.

 

[michel]

Gee, I'm not sure whether I'd rather hear a fundamentalist Christian tell me I'm going to burn in Hell or an athiest tell me I'm a nut case. Radicals on either end of the spectrum turn me off. The bottom line is that there are some highly intelligent theists and some downright stupid ones. The same goes for atheists.

I think that about sums it up. Personally though, I think I would be far less offended by hearing an atheist tell me I'm nutty than from hearing a religious person telling me I am going to burn in hell; I can understand the atheist's viewpoint, but not the Religious guy's.

 

[Revasser]

I want to continue this, but it probably won't be today. I have to prepare for my daughter's b-day party and the office Christmas party is tonight.

Thanks to everyone for a very enjoyable and challenging discussion. Frubals all around when I get a chance.

Wow, sounds like quite a day ahead. Have fun!