Are atheists implying theists are delusional?

[doppelganger]

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.

So it would be positive evidence that a particular version of "god" did not do what the particular relgion claims it did, but it still wouldn't be positive evidence of the "god's" non-existence.

For example, if "God" were a being and that being's relationship to the Universe was like the one imagined by Deists (i.e. the "Divine Watchmaker"), then evidence that all the details of the individual creation stories are false, would still not be proof that "God" doesn't exist.

Of course, nobody should need proof that something doesn't exist. In the absence of evidence of its existence, it should simply be presumed to be nonexistent. Otherwise, all the theists better get crackin' on the Temple to Squeaky.:bow:

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

If you want.

 

[Scott1]

It is positive evidence against the claim that gods exist.

For some, I guess so.... but I have no problem with the idea that I may be wrong about God.... the very fact that my life has changed is evidence enough for me... you may call that evidence of delusion, but for me: you say potato.... get me?

It's not too late to show where the "garbage" smells

Heck no... you're much too good a debator for me.:cover:

 

[Pah]

...

Heck no... you're much too good a debator for me.:cover:

Then kindly do not vacuously insult something you are unable to counter. It's a shame that your "truth" will not be heard because you feel yourself unaccustomily unable. I have truth on my side until you or others can debate the points.

Truth is not garbage

 

[megzy-boo]

I believe that religion is droned into some of us from a young age and therefore we take some things as signs and communications from "god". I dont want to go into actuall speaking but i think sometimes we get wraped up in stuff and it does appear real to ourselfs.

 

[Scott1]

Then kindly do not vacuously insult something you are unable to counter. It's a shame that your "truth" will not be heard because you feel yourself unaccustomily unable. I have truth on my side until you or others can debate the points.

Nah... it's not a "truth"- just my opinion.

Truth is not garbage

Hoo boy.... I've been away too long.... this is priceless.:areyoucra

 

[Pah]

Nah... it's not a "truth"- just my opinion.

You misunderstand. You called my threads garbage and are unprepared to support your "opinion".

[quoye]Hoo boy.... I've been away too long.... this is priceless.:areyoucra[/QUOTE]It remains true until proven not true. You have been away too long and forgotten much

 

[Scuba Pete]

Can we get back on topic?

There is no need to bludgeon Scott because he feels your arguments are "garbage".

It's this type of action that makes theists avoid meaningful dialog. However, if an atheist calls a theist's arguments "garbage" or "delusional", they are summarily applauded: no explanation is needed. It's not a level playing field by any means.

So, it's OK for atheists to call us delusional, with no support, but it's not OK for a theist to dismiss your arguments as being garbage?

 

[Yerda]

So, it's OK for atheists to call us delusional, with no support, but it's not OK for a theist to dismiss your arguments as being garbage?

I think you've either made a genuine error, or built a strawman argument. In case it is unclear, it is not fair to make any judgement on any position with no supporting evidence.

 

[Scott1]

Can we get back on topic?

Hehe.... no kidding.

I gave him something to comment on, but it was ignored in favor of the comments about another thread..... a thread, upon further reflection, was the greatest in the history of the universe and pah is a god/smartest guy ever----> can we move on now?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think you've either made a genuine error, or built a strawman argument. In case it is unclear, it is not fair to make any judgement on any position with no supporting evidence.

While I think that accepting one over the other is WRONG, I see it happening all the time.

But, your belief in either atheism or theism does not need to be supported at all. Those who feel that the other has no support are only showing their arrogance and inability to see both sides of an issue. I would also suggest that both sides see the stance of the other side as being irrational, if not delusional. That being said, couching your arguments in such a manner only stymies further discussion.

 

[doppelganger]

But, your belief in either atheism or theism does not need to be supported at all. Those who feel that the other has no support are only showing their arrogance and inability to see both sides of an issue. I would also suggest that both sides see the stance of the other side as being irrational, if not delusional. That being said, couching your arguments in such a manner only stymies further discussion.

I'm sorry, but how is recognizing the absence of evidence that something exists in any way "delusional"?

Do you believe in Squeaky the Orange Squirrel, who gave his Last Nut so that we all may be free? If not, why not?

 

[Kay]

Do you believe in Squeaky the Orange Squirrel, who gave his Last Nut so that we all may be free? If not, why not?

I do. His name is Scrat.

Now back to the regularly scheduled atheist / theist argument. :bow:

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm sorry, but how is recognizing the absence of evidence that something exists in any way "delusional"?

As soon as you can prove that he DOESN'T exist, then we'll be delusional.

If there is no incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, than it is not delusional.

 

[doppelganger]

If there is no incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, than it is not delusional.

Have you thought about the implications of that statement?

Everything I can imagine in mind can be reasonably assumed to exist as a tangible object or being outside my mind - no matter what it is.

So when are you building a temple to Squeaky?

 

[Fluffy]

As soon as you can prove that he DOESN'T exist, then we'll be delusional.

If there is no incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, than it is not delusional.

A person can be delusional without any evidence of his delusion. The evidence doesn't make him delusional, afterall.

So for example I could be delusional but because you don't know about the object of my delusion, you wouldn't be able to say either way. That doesn't mean that I would not be delusional, however.

Here we are simply saying that if an atheist thinks that the theist is incorrect then there must be an explanation for why the theist is incorrect. A possible explanation for some theists might be that they are deluded. Obviously, statistically speaking, it is very likely that some theists were deluded in their beliefs.

If there is no god then theists are wrong and there must be some way of accounting for their disbelief despite this. An atheist might want to account for this already since, to them, theists are already considered wrong at least in regards to their belief in god.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Everything I can imagine in mind can be reasonably assumed to exist as a tangible object or being outside my mind - no matter what it is.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, then sure, why not? Going to the moon was thought quite delusional. Heck, a computer sitting on my lap was considered delusional by people just like you. A phone in your pocket??? DELUSIONAL I tell you.

As for squeaky, just because I refuse to believe in Squeaky does not mean I will deem you to be delusional for believing in him. However, expecting me to build your shrine to him IS delusional.

 

[Scuba Pete]

A person can be delusional without any evidence of his delusion.

Then we disagree with our definition of delusional. 'Nuff said.

 

[doppelganger]

"People just like me" didn't believe laptops were possible? Who were those persons so we can check the validity of that claim? I suspect you don't know much about me, so you should not confuse your imaginings with reality.

In any case, your moon analogy and laptop analogy are inapposite. When there is no evidence of a laptop, it would be delusional to think that there was one. That says nothing about whether there ever will be one. That's an entirely different phenomenon.

The question is this: 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 evidence is operating under a confusion between a construct of their mind and the objectification of that construct?

 

[Scuba Pete]

The question is this: 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 evidence is operating under a confusion between a construct of their mind and the objectification of that construct?

Evidence exists and in large quantities. That you reject the evidence is moot. That your conclusion after reviewing the same evidence is different than mine does not make me delusional.

 

[arielmessenger]

"What we need is a good public manifestation of God. Then we could settle the issue"

Yes, indeed. I had to wait 24 years for confirmation that my religious visions that I truly believe I receive from God, to have some impact in the world besides rattling around in my own little brain. But it did happen and I can show people now a spiritual movement that is taking place now to help bring world peace. That is I could show you now but evidently I have to watch my p's and q's about the proselytizing point. Why is it that these religious talkboards forbid someone like me from telling people what God has taught me in spiritual revelation? No one is compelled to join a church as I follow the Gnostic Solitary path and carry my "church" on my shoulders where I am prophet, priest, pastor, and congregation all rolled into one. Oh, the irony of it all