Are atheists implying theists are delusional?

[klubbhead024]

I have actually had someone tell me dinosaurs are amde up, God wouldn't let something like that happen...

 

[Scuba Pete]

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.

The arrogance would lie in my attitude towards your belief in the fairies Jaiket. Choosing not to believe in your fairies is one thing. Mocking you for your belief would be arrogance. Sheer, utter and unequivocal arrogance.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The evidence against god creating the universe is the fact that it cannot be proved.. it's just another theory.

Read that again, only put in atheism or evolution. Sad that you actually accept such a falacious argument so readily and completely.

 

[doppelganger]

Read that again, only put in atheism or evolution. Sad that you actually accept such a falacious argument so readily and completely.

You could do it with "evolution" but I don't think it works with "atheism", unless you are solely talking about "strong atheism," i.e. the affirmative empirical claim that "'God' doesn't exist" as opposed to the claim "there is no evidence that 'God' exists."

 

[Scuba Pete]

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

I have no reply to out and out condescension. There is no reason to read on when the initial premise of your argument is based only on ridicule. Have a nice day.

 

[Tiberius]

Read that again, only put in atheism or evolution. Sad that you actually accept such a falacious argument so readily and completely.

When it comes to evolution, there is indeed evidence. The ideas about evolution indicate to us that we will find the development of animals over time - that is, as we find fossils in older and older rocks, then those animals will be less advanced that the ones we have today.

And that is exactly what we find.

The theory of evolution has provided us with something which can be tested. Evolution says, "If evolution is true, then we will find such-and-such," and we find exactly that.

Comparing a religious belief to evolution isn't accurate.

 

[Pah]

Read that again, only put in atheism or evolution. Sad that you actually accept such a falacious argument so readily and completely.

But there IS evidence, positive evidence that God does not exist. In threads fairly recently posted, it has been shown that neither faith nor morals nor rights accrue from any god. If the characterists or gifts attributed to a god are not in fact from a god, that is strong evidence that gods do not exist. Gods of nature have been shown to have scientific basis. The explanations leave gods only as a concpt in the mind but not in reality.
,

 

[gnostic]

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.)

Lots of my friends who are atheists, are not scientists or genius. They actually don't care about origin of life, existence or ultimate purpose. They don't really care about evolution or the big bang, just as they done care about God, Heaven or Creationism. I think theists make the big assumption that all atheists are into evolution and scientific reasoning, when a large majority are not really interested. They don't give a hoot about unanswered questions from either science or religion.

 

[Yerda]

The arrogance would lie in my attitude towards your belief in the fairies Jaiket. Choosing not to believe in your fairies is one thing. Mocking you for your belief would be arrogance. Sheer, utter and unequivocal arrogance.

I try not to be arrogant, and I try not to behave disrespectfully. Actually, arrogance and disrespect towards theists by atheists are underlying tones to this thread.

Were you suggesting I was mocking you for invoking fairies? That was not my intention. I was attempting to draw a parralel that demonstrates my point (and further makes a point about the logical parity of many easily dismissed entities). I'm not questioning the usefulness or value of your belief in God. Infact, in a previous post I highlighted what I appreciate about it.

If I said that I believe your beliefs are mistaken, and that (in a non-technical sense) you're suffering from a delusion, would you feel I have mocked you?

 

[Scuba Pete]

it has been shown

No, it really hasn't been "shown". I find your analysis and subsequent conclusions complerely erroneous.

That's the problem. Too many egos assume that their conclusions are the only ones that can be reached. There is just as much evidence for as their is against the existence of God. How you handle the evidence varies widely.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think theists make the big assumption that all atheists are into evolution and scientific reasoning, when a large majority are not really interested. They don't give a hoot about unanswered questions from either science or religion.

Dude, I hope you didn't assume that I think that many atheists at all worry about those niggly little questions that they CAN'T answer? Whether they are into science or not, those are "make you say "hmnnnnn" questions that many people want to avoid.

 

[Scott1]

But there IS evidence, positive evidence that God does not exist.

How can there be "positive evidence" about something that does not exist?

Isn't that like a positive ID of the invisible?

I thought your threads on faith and morals were garbage... but at least they made a bit of sense..... this I don't get at all... HELP!

 

[Scuba Pete]

Were you suggesting I was mocking you for invoking fairies?

No, I didn't feel you were mocking me. I did try to point out the difference between non-acceptance and out and out mocking. Others on here have done so, and I am largely ignoring their posts.

If I said that I believe your beliefs are mistaken, and that (in a non-technical sense) you're suffering from a delusion, would you feel I have mocked you?

If you didn't think my beliefs were mistaken, you would believe as I do. That's not the case. Disagreements are fine. Respect is essential. I don't believe that the word delusional ever has a place in regards to describing beliefs. There are way too many negatives associated with it.

However, the point of research and study for most people is to come to a better understanding of what we believe and why. That being said, it indicates that many of us realise that we are delusional to one degree or another.

 

[s2a]

NetDoc said (to Jaiket):

The arrogance would lie in my attitude towards your belief in the fairies Jaiket. Choosing not to believe in your fairies is one thing. Mocking you for your belief would be arrogance. Sheer, utter and unequivocal arrogance.

So what? I'd be pleased to mock you for your beliefs till our sun expends the remainder of it's nuclear fuel. My arrogance is not a valid substitute for your lack of compelling evidence in support of your claim that a (or your) god exists.
If I'm pleasant and accepting of your claim, or if I'm mocking and arrogant--the burden of proof remains incumbent upon you to provide as substantiation of the claim itself. Characterizing the demeanor of your detractors does not deflect from the substance of what they proffer in rebuttal.

NetDoc said (to Faint):

I have no reply to out and out condescension. There is no reason to read on when the initial premise of your argument is based only on ridicule. Have a nice day.

RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

NetDoc said (to Pah):

That's the problem. Too many egos assume that their conclusions are the only ones that can be reached. There is just as much evidence for as their is against the existence of God. How you handle the evidence varies widely.

Obviously, that is an arrogantly dumb presumption to make.

Egos are moot, as are poor or flawed conclusions...when sufficient compelling evidence suggests that opinions predicated upon belief alone (ie, the utter absence of evidence, or evidence deemed to be humanly/scientifically "undetectable") do not merit serious contemplation as assertive or claimed "fact" or some "ultimate truth". Bad science and inflated egos are swept aside and readily replaced whenever better newly discovered evidence and/or objectively independent verifications of competing theories are sufficiently validated. All the utilized arrogance and ego in the world won't sufficiently stem that inexorable tide (as long as free inquiry is allowed to persist).

Ego (or self-estimation/aggrandizement) and arrogance are the very hallmarks of anyone insisting that they "know" that their god exists..despite any lacking provision of testable or measurable evidence in substantiation. The suggestion that some people "vary" in how they "handle the evidence" only serves to highlight the fact that, in earnest practice, ego and arrogance are the very things that inhibit many faith-based beliefs from even acknowledging, much less seriously considering, evidence based conclusions that those adherents deem contrary or counter to their own faith-based "conclusions". To say "My god...IS God", is the very pinnacle of arrogance and conceit. Spare us your misplaced outrage and resentment. Atheists and non-believers tolerate (barely) the daily barrage of faith-based claims of infallibility, absolutism, "revealed knowledge", and "ultimate truth".

Atheism is not a science. It's a perspective borne of reason, logic, experience, and demonstrably proven scientific theories that provide the best available evidenced explanations of our natural world and cosmos. It is no more arrogant (or condescending) to conclude that such empirical conclusions are better than myth, superstition, ritual, or petitio principii arguments in faith-based rationalizations ("God created the cosmos. How do I know He did? Because He said He did. Therefore, the cosmos proves that God exists!"); than it is to claim and insist that faith and religion are the only valid/viable conduits to personal morality, understanding/knowledge, and "truth".


NetDoc said (to Jaiket):

If you didn't think my beliefs were mistaken, you would believe as I do. That's not the case. Disagreements are fine. Respect is essential. I don't believe that the word delusional ever has a place in regards to describing beliefs. There are way too many negatives associated with it.

Respect is essential to what? Presented argument? Who's "arrogant" now? Any premise--and it's subsequent afforded value and merit--are not predicated upon levels or measures of accorded "respect" (or, some equal deference/consideration, as you would allude). Whether you "respect" another's argument or not, has no bearing on the actual merits of the argument as presented. I'm quite comfortable presenting argument regardless of afforded or accorded apects of "respect". Respect is not requisite to any proffered opinion or debate. It helps in matters of civility, but not in matters of validity.

I agree that "delusional" implies negative connotations, but I avoid such terminology simply because I am not qualified to render an accurate or useful medical diagnosis of mental (in)capacities. I am certainly not above mocking, baiting, or bruising the egos or feelings of those I deem to be quite full of themselves (or vacant in commentary)...and I expect nothing less from others in return.

However, the point of research and study for most people is to come to a better understanding of what we believe and why. That being said, it indicates that many of us realise that we are delusional to one degree or another.

"Many of us", perhaps...but please don't count me as part of your coterie.

I retain a fine understanding of what I presume to understand, and the reasons why (as do both theists and atheists alike in my circle of family and friends). My motivations for "research and study" (regarding faith-based beliefs)--a hobby, really-- is to better understand the "why people believe...of what they believe, is 'true' or 'truth'". I find my forays in this regard tend to make some folks very anxious, inordinately egotistical (it's all about ME!), arrogant, and--who am I to accurately medically assess--self-deluded?

 

[Scuba Pete]

My arrogance is

a great reason not to continue this with you.

 

[Pah]

How can there be "positive evidence" about something that does not exist?

Isn't that like a positive ID of the invisible?

It is positive evidence against the claim that gods exist.

I thought your threads on faith and morals were garbage... but at least they made a bit of sense..... this I don't get at all... HELP!

It's not too late to show where the "garbage" smells
Morality does not come from God
Faith is taught

 

[doppelganger]

But there IS evidence, positive evidence that God does not exist. In threads fairly recently posted, it has been shown that neither faith nor morals nor rights accrue from any god. If the characterists or gifts attributed to a god are not in fact from a god, that is strong evidence that gods do not exist.

How so? At most it seems like it's only evidence that these things have more immediate causes that we can observe, measure and comprehend. So they don't require an objectified "God."

Negating the "evidence" for something is not the same as positive evidence of its non-existence. Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as positive evidence for some thing's non-existence.

 

[doppelganger]

Though don't get me wrong. I agree that logically there ought to be a presumption against the "existence" of something until evidence can corroborate its existence. Otherwise, one would have to believe in the literal existence as objects of anything one could imagine.

How does one distinguish between "Squeaky the Orange Wonder Squirrel, who gave his Last Nut so that we might be free" from "God, the Father, who gave his only begotten Son" when both are without demonstrable evidence and equally present themselves as mere imaginings?

 

[Fluffy]

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?

If God is observable then those observations will need to be treated in the same way as any other.

If God is not observable (ie it is impossible for humanity to interact with God in any way) then his existence is meaningless to humanity.

Do you consider God to be observable and, if so, how is he an orange whilst Nessie is an apple?

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.

You can't provide evidence against something until the premises upon which that something is based has been established. Apart from anything else, if one of those premises is wrong then it would be completely unnecessary to disprove the conclusion.

If God exists and if he claimed to create the universe and if he is telling the truth, then we can conclude that God created the universe. I think that your conclusion is right given the premises that you have accepted. So if you wish to ask me to disprove your conclusion given your premises, then I will have to tell you that I cannot do that but I shall also tell you that you are stacking the odds in your favour by limiting the scope of your inquiry.

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).

I shall look at these two seperately.

If the universe exists then this implies that it is either caused, uncaused, or self caused. Creation would be a special case of the "caused" category. As you can see there are quite a few other options than God creating the universe to explain the universe's existence. If it were the only explanation then I would agree with you that God created the universe and that the universe's existence is the only explanation.

There are two ways that I can see to reach this point where your argument would be deemed sound. Either we discount every other possibility until "God did it" is the only one that remains or we try and show that "God did it" is the most plausible explanation given all the evidence. The first is nearly impossible so the second appears to be the only route we might take and it also happens to be the route that science would take. If you manage to do that then I shall accept your argument.

Now on to the unanswered questions. I responded extensively to this idea here in the second post.

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

If you start from the position that a person who claims a specific position is doing so out of arrogance then you have predisposed yourself against their position. You might be right but that is irrelevant because you are right for the wrong reasons.

As far as any argument is concerned, if a person only holds it because they are arrogant (ie the argument is itself invalid) then pointing out their arrogance does not poke any sort of hole in their argument. Since it is invalid anyway, why not ignore their arrogance as the irrelevancy that it is and show us where the hole actually is?

 

[Pah]

How so? At most it seems like it's only evidence that these things have more immediate causes that we can observe, measure and comprehend. So they don't require an objectified "God."

Negating the "evidence" for something is not the same as positive evidence of its non-existence. Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as positive evidence for some thing's non-existence.

I'm thinking that showing a scientific answer, showing a realistic alternative to a supernatural explanation does constiute positive evidence. It is primarily evidence quite differant from negation of claims, such as the biblical word of God or implausable dogma. It is much like evolution is postive evidence against creation stories.

Should we start a new thread and continue here with delusion?