Are atheists implying theists are delusional?

[klubbhead024]

I have found there is much more discrimination against the atheist by theists in society than vice versa. You can't run for political office(successfully) w/o claiming some sort of faith. This is quite sad really, as there are really not that many open-minded people on a percentage basis in the U.S. when in comes to matters of religion.

And yet there is supposed to be a separation of church and state!

 

[klubbhead024]

Santa? Doesn't exist.
Magenta squirrel eating turtles? I don't see them.

You get the picture.

How could you believe in 1 mythical person bringing good things to those that have been good(God), and not believe in another person who brings good things to those who have been good(Santa)?
Also, becuase you don't see magenta squirrels eating turtles, it seems by your reasoning that they don't exist. Well, you can't physically see god either, so why believe he exists?

 

[Yerda]

I agree with Ymir... we are ALL delusional. One of my goals in life is to reduce my delusions to a managable level.

I agree with Ymir also. Well said.

Does God communicate with me? With every fish that swims and every leaf that grows. With every bird that flies and with sun that sets. With each and every sense and with all of my logic. God never stops communicating to me about his love and compassion and his wish for me to live a life of love.

It's hard for me to imagine why you believe this.

For what it's worth Doc, if it turns out I'm wrong about Gods I'd like it for you to be right. Although I don't see any weight in your ideas about a compassionate deity, it's a pleasing thought. If the gods people talk of are projections of themselves and their desires, yours speaks very highly of you.

 

[roli]

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.

With that viewpoint How would you view Jesus if you walked amonst him.he wasa radical in the highest degree.
He told the highest ranking religious leaders almost similar to the pope in rank that they are hypocrites and liars ,brood of vipers,repent or you will perish.
He says unless you eat of my body and drink of my blood you have no part of me,at that point most of his disciples left him,would you have been one of them.

The truth is the message has not changed it is only those who bring the message that are subject to insubordination reagrding preaching the meassage
We soften it, obscure it,remove the critical sayings of the gospel to make it sound more appealling.
Man has fumbled at bringing the full message of the gospel to a lost world.
The world says god is love and Jesus would'nt preach about hell,death,punishment,righteousness.
May ask what god the world is serving.
How radical are you, would you tell people that Jesus Christ came to spare them from the wrath to come in Rom 1
Would you tell them repent or you will perish that was Jesus' first message repent from your sin.
That implies that he is telling them they have all sinned,how would that judgement call go over in our society today
It would'nt

 

[Scuba Pete]

Is not seeing something that is there a delusion?

Ask the guy who was swimming naked in the lake in Florida night before last. "Gator? There ain't no stinkin' gator in here!"

 

[Pah]

Ask the guy who was swimming naked in the lake in Florida night before last. "Gator? There ain't no stinkin' gator in here!"

That seems to be bigotry - all nude swimmers in "Gator Lake" are atheist.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Twisting my words as usual! However, I never made that allegation and that was not the question asked, now was it?

 

[s2a]

I posted this in the secular beliefs forum. I thought I'd get a wider range of opinions.

...If someone says that God speaks to them and you still maintain that you see no evidence to believe in God/s, are you implicitly stating that they are delusional?

Do you believe you communicate with/have a sensation of God?

[Note: Not with a god, no. But I do talk to my cats.]

A loaded question of sorts (maybe a half-cocked gun?)...

Attesting some sort of trait/behavior/claim as evincing a state of "delusion" (in either self-denial or self-affirmation) is an endeavor often undertook by laypersons and unprofessional forum contributors with a semester of human psychology under their belt.

The American Heritage dictionary defines "delusional" (contextually) as having:

1. A false belief or opinion.
2. Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

As an atheist, I qualify theistic/supernaturalistic/faith-based "beliefs" as being "false", or otherwise deemed unsupported by any compelling or testable evidence as "true" beyond reasonable doubt. As any believer will tell you, it's a matter of faith, not testable fact.

As I am not a practiced psychologist/psychiatrist, I am not qualified to determine whether or not faith-based claims/beliefs fall within the realm/definition of "delusion/delusional".

From a legalistic, and pluralistically secualr standpoint...criminal law doesn't favor nor recognize theistic claims/"contacts" as presentable evidence in either prosecution or defense of the accused in our courts. "God told me to do it" is not a valid defense, anymore than a District Attorney can testify that "God told me the accused is guilty".

God-belief is a matter of faith (by very definition), and not subject to ascertainable burdens of proof, nor scientific/inductive methodologies of discernable fact. Maybe "God" did tell Berkowitz ("Son of Sam") to murder teenagers sucking face in parked cars, or maybe there is no such thing as a "god". Was Berkowitz "delusional", or "crazy"? From one layperson's perspective, I'd say he was...but not because he believed in a god.

God-belief is not unlike wishful thinking...in that many (choose to) hope that the very chaos, unpredictability, and apparent "injustices" (bad things happening to good people) evident every day...serve some grander--or higher--purpose or meaning that surpasses any/all human understanding or explanation. An atheist's perspective embraces Occam's Razor, in that (simply enough) "sh!t happens" (on a regular basis, and for no particular reason or apprent just cause in service to either some impositional/ordained divine punisment or reward).

I can accept a metaphorical simile, in the broader concept that "talking to god" is a process of self-introspection and examination/evaluation of one's own personal conscience (I do it too...but "god" isn't a factor in such deliberations).

Delusional?

I dunno. What do you call a person that really believes they have an existent invisible, personal friend that lived millennia ago; or in an omiscient paternal overseer that watches and hears everything they say or do? If that person said it was an invisible six-foot bunny, or a benevolent (and rarely seen) fat man that lived at the polar ice caps, and REALLY belived and insisted that such entities were real and existent today...would we rightly deem them as delusional? Is it CRAZY to "believe" in Santa, the Easter Bunny, fairies, unicorns, or revivified rabbis...or is it just some manifested hope of an optomistic perspective wishing for dispensational and unbiased justice, and beneficient control/direction amongst a chaotic and unpredictable exisitence? Is that "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness", or just wishful thinking?

Because the available "evidence" does not serve to ultimately invalidate faith-based claims of deities or supernaturalistic entities, but only consistently suggest that beliefs predicated upon such lacking evidence serves more as validation of a forgone (albeit unfalsifiable) conclusion (that anything not disproven could be true), instead of an unevidenced invalidation of such claims/beliefs; one must at least consider the notion that wishful thinking alone does not constitute a state of medically diagnosed delusional consciousness. At least I hope not (see what I mean? ;-)).

Human reason, and freedom of intellectual inquiry, allows anyone to elevate themselves above wishful thinking alone, and to ponder a cosmos that compellingly evinces both ambivilence and ignorance of the human condtion as a whole, and as sentient individuals. Neither cosmic punishments or rewards for personal behavior--just consequences.

Whether of not someone truly believes that they "talk to god", or that god talks to them...is of no interest to me. Unless of course, they want to insist that I believe in their god too.

 

[Kungfuzed]

I think we all have similar feelings and experiences but we just interperet them differently. One person's strange dream is another person's revalation.

 

[Flappycat]

...If someone says that God speaks to them and you still maintain that you see no evidence to believe in God/s, are you implicitly stating that they are delusional?

No. I am saying that I am doubtful as to whether this person's testimony is accurate, whether through delusion, misinterpreted perceptions, falsehood, or a combination of wishful thinking and fragile character. Unfortunately, many religious people are not ashamed to resort to blatant lies if they believe that doing so could assist in conversion, so deception is not unlikely in some cases.

 

[Tiberius]

I posted this in the secular beliefs forum. I thought I'd get a wider range of opinions.

...If someone says that God speaks to them and you still maintain that you see no evidence to believe in God/s, are you implicitly stating that they are delusional?

Do you believe you communicate with/have a sensation of God?

I think it says a lot about religion that if someone says they hear voices, most people would assume that person has problems.

If that person says that the voice comes from god, then most people will think it's a bit odd, but not too much, and many religious people will be envious.

But if that person believes that God is telling him to kill people, then everyone thinks he's a nut.

it's funny how people expect God to only say things that they themselves agree with.

 

[gnostic]

I was wondering if atheists can be consdiered having delusions... Is not seeing something that is there a delusion?

But if you don't see the Teletubbies as THE ONLY REAL THINGS in life, then you must be living a delusional life.

[SIZE=-1]Religion and Atheism are Dead - Long Live [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Tinky Winky[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]! :bow:[/SIZE]

 

[Scuba Pete]

Let's face it. Theists and atheists alike have a TON of unanswered questions.

Our ultimate purpose.

Origin of life (not evolution).

Origin of existence.

Origin of morality and sentience. (This list could on and on.)

Our view of life in general and our acceptance/rejection of a Creator/God entity is couched within how we start to answer those quesitons. At least it is for me.

Delusion requires substantial evidence to the contrary. Something Atheists have been as unable to present to theist as theists have been unable to present their evidence to atheists. It's not that the evidence does not exist, but rather that neither side interprets that same evidence in the same way. Consequently, it appears in practice that the other side lacks evidence.

 

[Faint]

Let's face it. Theists and atheists alike have a TON of unanswered questions.

Just because a question is unanswered does not make all theories attempting to answer that question equally probable.

Our view of life in general and our acceptance/rejection of a Creator/God entity is couched within how we start to answer those quesitons. At least it is for me.

Delusion requires substantial evidence to the contrary. Something Atheists have been as unable to present to theist as theists have been unable to present their evidence to atheists. It's not that the evidence does not exist, but rather that neither side interprets that same evidence in the same way. Consequently, it appears in practice that the other side lacks evidence.

Please list (or direct me to) some of the evidence for God's existence and whether or not it has been peer reviewed in the scientific community.

If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist. This applies to God as well. No strong evidence has ever been produced to show that He exists - absence of evidence is enough to make the entire case superfluous. Consider Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot analogy:

• "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Note: The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true. (wikipedia)

 

[Scuba Pete]

Comparing apples to oranges is a common theme here.

How would one expect to look for the Loch Ness monster? Cameras, soundings, and the like.

How do you propose to detect God? Did you come up with some God-O-Meter that we know nothing about?

God claims to have created the universe, and your evidence against this is what? Trot out that "Made in Japan" sticker Bubba, as I am waiting. My evidence for God is the universe's very existence (see, he DID make it) as well as the numerous questions that YOU can not answer (see post #73). If God didn't create the universe, then who or what did? See how your science of the gaps simply crumbles in the light or real scrutiny? You have no more evidence against God than I have for God. Don't let arrogance tell you differently.

 

[doppelganger]

Comparing apples to oranges is a common theme here.

How would one expect to look for the Loch Ness monster? Cameras, soundings, and the like.

That wouldn't solve the problem of finding the Loch Ness Monster. If the "monster" is itself a creation of the human mind based on different individuals mixing actual sensory perceptions with an evolving mytholgical construct, sounding the lake won't find the "monster" but that also doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"God" presents a similar problem. It is a combination of subjective perception and inherited myth.

 

[klubbhead024]

How do you propose to detect God? Did you come up with some God-O-Meter that we know nothing about?

God claims to have created the universe, and your evidence against this is what? If God didn't create the universe, then who or what did? See how your science of the gaps simply crumbles in the light or real scrutiny? You have no more evidence against God than I have for God.

The evidence against god creating the universe is the fact that it cannot be proved.. it's just another theory. In fact, no one can possibly know how the universe was created for sure, we can only speculate. Perhaps it was the big bang, who knows? ALso, how do we know that in galaxies beyong our capacity to reach there isn't another "god" presiding over their solar system? Do you think these god's are nice to each other, or do they fight like Microsoft and Apple? You are right about something though, we have as much information against god, as you do for him. Science has already proven so much, maybe we should study Catholic Priests.......

 

[Faint]

Comparing apples to oranges is a common theme here.

The hypothesis that God or the Loch Ness monster exist are both fruity, yes.

How would one expect to look for the Loch Ness monster? Cameras, soundings, and the like.

Pretty much.

How do you propose to detect God? Did you come up with some God-O-Meter that we know nothing about?

I don't. I asked what evidence you had. The burden of proof is with the theists as God is improbable (judging by what we ACTUALLY know of the world).

God claims to have created the universe,

God claims? Or some human "transcripts" claim?

My evidence for God is the universe's very existence

What, the whole "watchmaker" arguement? "It exists therefore it must have been created?" That's easily refuted...if you assume something complex requires something even more complex to build it (ad infinitum), then God would also require an even more complex being to create Him...ad infinitum.

as well as the numerous questions that YOU can not answer (see post #73).

Those questions may be answered someday. Indeed, evolutionary psychology is close (if not on top of) the origin of what we consider morality. Any "ultimate" purpose is absurd in that the purpose would also require another, more ultimate purpose ad infinitum. We must create our own reasons for living based on reason.

If God didn't create the universe, then who or what did?

There is no logical reason to assume that the universe was "created" at all. It's a pretty big subject actually, not easily summarized...I can recommend some books that will explain this in more detail. Start with Stephen Hawking.

See how your science of the gaps simply crumbles in the light or real scrutiny?

Yawn.

You have no more evidence against God than I have for God. Don't let arrogance tell you differently.

By your apparent criteria, I also have no more evidence against the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Mauve Queen of Cats who created the universe Last Thursday. Are those equally probable to your God? If not, why one over the other? Or why not Zeus and the whole Greek pantheon? We actually have statues showing what they supposedly look like, and (if credibility is determined by how old a religion is) the Greek myths predate Christianity.

 

[Yerda]

You have no more evidence against God than I have for God. Don't let arrogance tell you differently.

You have no more evidence against the fairies in my garden than I have evidence for them. I would hardly say it was arrogant of you to dismiss the idea, Doc.

 

[Revasser]

Comparing apples to oranges is a common theme here

How would one expect to look for the Loch Ness monster? Cameras, soundings, and the like.

How do you propose to detect God? Did you come up with some God-O-Meter that we know nothing about?

You're right, many claims of God are seemingly deliberately tailored (intelligently designed?) to be unfalsiable. The people orginally claiming the existence of the Loch Ness monster actually provided some evidence for their claim in the form of photographs. Albeit this was rather thin and, as it was eventually confirmed, faked evidence. The comparison would be better if someone were claiming that not only did Loch Ness have a monster, but that said monster was invisible, intangible and stubbornly unwilling to be detected.

If someone had claimed the existence of the Loch Ness monster, not only with no evidence, but with a declaration that Nessie's attributes meant there could be no solid evidence for her existence, nobody would have even have remotely taken it seriously.

God claims to have created the universe, and your evidence against this is what? Trot out that "Made in Japan" sticker Bubba, as I am waiting. My evidence for God is the universe's very existence (see, he DID make it) as well as the numerous questions that YOU can not answer (see post #73). If God didn't create the universe, then who or what did? See how your science of the gaps simply crumbles in the light or real scrutiny? You have no more evidence against God than I have for God. Don't let arrogance tell you differently.

As much as it is a tired old line... It is not incumbent upon the doubter to provide evidence for the non-existence of whatever is being claimed, to "prove a negative." It is the responsibility of the one making the claim (ie. the one who makes the claim that God exists) to show provide some solid evidence. In the light of the utter dearth of said evidence (and attempts to simply redefine "evidence" into meaninglessness notwithstanding), and not for want of desire of effort to find it over a formidable length of time, it is reasonable to dismiss the claim until credible evidence is presented. That is not arrogance.

Nobody says there aren't questions we do not currently have answers for. There are intelligent, observant and highly skilled people out there right now looking for answers. Real, useful answers. In the mean time, it is okay to simply say "We don't know yet, but we're in the process of finding out." It is not reasonable to simply jump in and say "God did it" in the face of any unanswered question. Though I noticed you tried to turn it around, this is classic "god of the gaps," using divinity as some kind of metaphysical foaming sealant. The problem with positing such a god is, as it has always been, that it is doomed to be an ever-shrinking and increasingly irrelevant deity.