Are atheists implying theists are delusional?

[Pah]

Now you want to change the discussion to include the interpretation of and conclusions drawn from my evidence? Your claim was that I have no evidence. Now, go ahead and make the earth disappear. I triple dog dare you.

You really should understand that "no evidence" in this case means no creditable evidence.

Science shows how the earth was made and, to your point, how and when it will disappear.

 

[Pah]

An earth that was created somehow. You worship the god of Science and I worship another God. Either way, it had to be created or we are figments of our own imaginations.

There is no "god" of science but there is a "god of the gaps" left by what science doesn't yet explain.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You really should understand that "no evidence" in this case means no creditable evidence.

So the earth does not exist?

Science shows how the earth was made and, to your point, how and when it will disappear.

Such great faith I have not seen in all of Israel.

 

[s2a]

Heck, there's a subargument about "positive evidence" of non-existence between Pah and I in this very thread!

Ya see?

When I was in third grade, my teachers told me that there was no such thing as "negative nubmers (or integers)". I accepted their instructions as unequivocal fact.

Then in fourth grade, the very first topic in mathematics introduced was the concept of "negative numbers".

Arrrghhh!

"But YOU said that"...

"Well, that was then, but now you're ready to hear the rest of the story..."

I HATE it when that happens....


Headline:

"ATHIESTS DARE TO DISAGREE ABOUT A GIVEN PRECEPT!"

Subhead:

"Atheists remain in mortal conflict in their lack of faith-based beliefs!"

"In-depth video coverage of this story at 11:00pm!"


[I blame every damn teacher (and parent) that ever suggested that I must think for myself, and those administrators of public education that wouldn't trust me to comprehend or accept the concept of negative numbers when I was 8 years old, but would merrily upset my utter trust in their proclamations of irrefutable fact but a few months hence.

Thusly, are skeptics "born again".

;-)

 

[s2a]

After gnostic said:

"That's not evidence that God had a hand on the creation of our planet."

NetDoc offered:

It either is evidence or it's not.

OK. It's NOT. Settled now?

NetDoc continued (in rebuttal to gnostic):

This is about delusions. The claim is that no evidence exists and so some are justified in their bias against the obviously inferior minds that embrace a created universe.

Even great minds can align with, or earnestly defend error.

The debate is not about either inferiority or superiority of cognitive/deliberative thinking...it's whether or not a reasonably cognitive mind chooses to wilfully/purposely ignore/reject evidence-based conclusions that may conflict with a personalized belief or dogmatically-adherent piety to a given religious philosophy/perspective.

To the very best of my current understanding, there is no concrete or unquestioned "test" of faith or piety amongst the adherent. There is no quantifiable comparative measure of faith (beyond some layperson's estimations of posturing "I'm holier than thou" arguments). If such a test exists, I request that you provide reference or ready source of such.

Now, you want to debate the conclusions drawn by that evidence. The story changes because you believe in the science of the gaps.

Rhetoric is not argument.

Next?

I would suggest, that you can have your theory about the absence of God in this existence without the hostility shown towards those who believe in God.

Even if that innuendo were true (which has yet to be established)...SO WHAT?

Does any evidenced "hostility" towards your claimed god invalidate your claim of His existence? No? Then what's your point?

There is no need to vilify us, demean us, or otherwise act like we have sub standard minds.

To question the validity or merit of a claim is not an act of vilification, diminution, or attribution of inferiority. Try as you may, any inferred estimations of intellect or intelligence are not at play here.

Albert Einstein (whom most would agree was a genius in his own fashion) exhibited an imaginative brilliance light-years beyond his contemporary peers. Yet, most biographers and historians readily account of his intransigent and unwilling acceptance of any proposed theories that significantly differed from his own. Psychological "experts" have evaluated Einstein's long-term demeanor as akin to self-delusion, or an unreasonable denial of more compelling evidences. Einstein wasn't stupid--but he was mindfully stubborn...and demonstrably wrong.

Stop playing the "condescension card".

Faith-based belief has nothing to do with intellect, intelligence, or estimations/measures thereof. Faith is about a willful and mindful acceptance of claims of "fact", that are (and remain) scientifically "unseen", but readily "observed" by the faithful themselves.

"Smart" people can willingly choose to "believe" in a "god (or gods)", and "dumb" folk can choose to disbelieve in supernaturalistic cause/effect explanations offered by religion. But presentation of adherence within/to a given faith/belief, is neither compelling evidence of a deity...nor of intellectual capacity; neither is it a refutation of conclusions borne of ignorance or self-denial.

Wishful thinking remains the equal domain of smart people and stupid folk alike. Neither has a valid claim to exclusivity in adherence to either reason/logic, or faith-based claims of ultimate/superior "truth".

You can disagree without being biased against us.

Or, a disagreement may have complete merit with substantiated, worthy, and justifiably imposed bias.
I favor accuracy, and I avoid error. I am pleased to retain such a bias of position.

Or, if you find it impossible to do so, you will find us ignoring your diatribes. I feel no need to humor aggressive behavior here.

Hmmmm. Humor me this then...

"Psychiatric definition:
Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology.

These criteria are:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)."

[If that isn't the penultimate definition of a "true believer", then I lack any better defined outline of such.]

"These criteria still live on in modern psychiatric diagnosis. In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith)."
Source: Reference.com

But as I have said before, I'm not a doctor, and I'm not professionally qualified to diagnose religious adherents as being medically (or technically) "delusional".

But definitions of "delusion[al]"; as presented for layperson consumption and contemplation of such a medical condition in illustration above...certainly opens the discussion for further review and open contributor insight...absent unhelpful, impotent, and irrelevant lent chararacterizations of personalized estimations of estimable informed opinion.

 

[Pah]

[/COLOR]So the earth does not exist?

It does exist - but not at god's hand. Didn't you get that when I mentioned "Science shows how the earth was made".

Such great faith I have not seen in all of Israel.

When were you in Isreal?

 

[Scuba Pete]

It does exist - but not at god's hand. Didn't you get that when I mentioned "Science shows how the earth was made".

This will come as a shock. Just because you say it, does not mean I believe it. Why that's just delusional! Science calls it the "Big Bang" which sounds a lot like "God spoke".

Buy my new bumper snicker while they are hot:

Earth Happens!
​

 

[Pah]

This will come as a shock. Just because you say it, does not mean I believe it. Why that's just delusional! Science calls it the "Big Bang" which sounds a lot like "God spoke".

Let me see and correct me if I'm wrong.
According to s2a's post:

"Psychiatric definition:
Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology.

These criteria are:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)."

[If that isn't the penultimate definition of a "true believer", then I lack any better defined outline of such.]

"These criteria still live on in modern psychiatric diagnosis. In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith)."
Source: Reference.com

That would mean thinking you believe something I say would certainly be delusional by Jaspers defining words if Jasper's criteria were true for me and you. But it isn't becuase there are times when you have agreed with me.

Buy my new bumper snicker while they are hot:

Earth Happens!
​

I did but I had to add the line "to be explained by science - smaller letters though.

The last snicker - hehehe

 

[Scuba Pete]

According to s2a's post:

I don't read his posts.

I did but I had to add the line "to be explained by science - smaller letters though.

There ya go... Science of the Gaps. A greater faith, I have never seen... even in all of America.

 

[Pah]

I don't read his posts....

What a shame. But you have no excuse because I quoted the relevant definition. You did read my post didn't you? Well,of course you did.

There are social rules to RF debating as well as formal rules of conduct for members. A social rule, although not directly "posted" but commonally understood, is that replies are made for points in posts addressed to you. While you reply sometimes, but not always, they often do not address the point. It's difficult to have polite, informative debate without respect for social rules.

 

[Willamena]

An earth that was created somehow. You worship the god of Science and I worship another God. Either way, it had to be created or we are figments of our own imaginations.

So you define evidence as "something for which the cause or method is assumed"?

 

[Pah]

So you define evidence as "something for which the cause or method is assumed"?

I would have to say that is true. However, there is evidence and then there is evidence. What I mean is that the value of evidence varies widely. To say that poor evidence is evidence really does an injustice to creditable evidence.

Myth is evidence but does little to further the truth of reality and thus can rightly be called delusional.

 

[Willamena]

Myth is evidence but does little to further the truth of reality and thus can rightly be called delusional.

What is myth evidencing?

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's difficult to have polite, informative debate without respect for social rules.

This is somewhat off topic, so I will address it once here and then no more.

I am NOT OBLIGED to read or answer bombastic posts by anyone on here: you, s2a, whomever.

I am NOT OBLIGED to answer every point of every post. Especially if they are inflammatory or inane or quotes someone who posts that way.

If you want respect, you must give it. If you want me to answer, than show a modicum of respect. Participation on this forum is not compulsory. I will answer or post when and where I want. You are free to ignore my answers if this doesn't fit your needs. However it is never appropriate to abandon politeness in any debate. How I wish that I was never guilty of doing so.

The point of this entire discussion centers around the condescension and even ridicule felt by many theists when discussing what and why they believe. Scott1 has even started a thread about how to handle being bullied in the same faith debates forum. The real crux of the matter is one of equal respect. You can ignore our pleas or deny it happens, but don't be surprised if more and more theists avoid those "informative debates" with many atheists.

 

[s2a]

When Pah said (referencing a post I directed for NetDoc's specific attention):

It's difficult to have polite, informative debate without respect for social rules.


NetDoc (Hiya!) replied:

This is somewhat off topic, so I will address it once here and then no more.

Famous last words...;-)

I am NOT OBLIGED to read or answer bombastic posts by anyone on here: you, s2a, whomever.

I am NOT OBLIGED to answer every point of every post. Especially if they are inflammatory or inane or quotes someone who posts that way.

So, I may surmise by your innuendo and implied inference, that my posts...addressed for your attention and benefit, NetDoc; are therefore inflammatory (or in internet lexicon..."flames"; or such commentaries are "inane" (ie, "lacking sense, significance, or ideas" - Dictionary.com)

[Addendum:
Flame-
"Originally, "flame" meant to carry forth in a passionate manner in the spirit of honorable debate. Flames most often involved the use of flowery language and flaming well was an art form. More recently 'flame' has come to refer to any kind of derogatory comment no matter how witless or crude."
-- Glossary of Internet Terms]

If you want respect, you must give it. If you want me to answer, than show a modicum of respect.

And this is why you receive the minimal measure of respect you receive, versus the copious or unquestionable level of respect you obviously feel you are owned or due.
Respect is earned; not injudiciously doled out like so much rewarding candy and treats to like-minded sycophants, and trick-or-treaters at your door on Halloween.

NOBODY OWES YOU RESPECT.

NOBODY.

[Get used to that concept. Especially in matters worthy of debate.]

I can respect your constitutionally protected guarantee to voice your opinion absent governmental persecution, and your right to free exercise of your chosen faith-based beliefs...but neither aforementioned constitutionally provided protection entitles you to my respect or countenance as being otherwise merited or fairly/estimably valued as equally balanced, tantamount, or proportionate.

To quote another "disrespectful" kinda guy:

"...error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
--Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address

Why you remain confused or perturbed by the simple fact that a (your) protected right to freely express your views/opinions does not ENTITLE you to any measure of respect for those expressed views, utterly escapes my reptilian mindset. Whether you wish to proclaim that some invisible deity controls the destiny of the cosmos, or that some alien overlord has dumped millions of otherworld captured "souls" into a volcano for timely attachment to the existent people of contemporary times,...I really don't care. Both claims are equal bunk in my estimation. I retain no "respect" for either philosophical "viewpoint".

But I do respect the rule of law that allows you to not only retain such a belief, but to "preach" that faith-based belief to as many prospective adherents as will allow you the opportunity to do so. That's how much "faith" (ie, optimistic wishful thinking) I have in the inexorable daily/weekly/annual application of logic, reason, and...civil discussion/debate.

Participation on this forum is not compulsory. I will answer or post when and where I want.

Bully for you. How..."unexpected".

I respect your SCOTUS-ruled right to freedom of individualized decision in matters of personal choice/discretion. All hail Roe v. Wade!

You are free to ignore my answers if this doesn't fit your needs.

My needs are most poorly suited or addressed by your commentaries.

However it is never appropriate to abandon politeness in any debate. How I wish that I was never guilty of doing so.

Indeed...Yet another example of a failed rationale and vapid view.

Debates aren't popularity contests, nor prone to "respectable" measures of relative/subjective beauty/bias/attraction.

Debates are about: the soundness; foundations established thereof; and predicately prospective validity; of supportive evidence-based arguments... established in both initial premise and proffered conclusion.
Done effectively and well, you might hope for some elements of earned respect. Evasion, deflection, and ignoring salient points in such exchanges will earn you little to no respect amongst either your supporters or adversaries in debate

The point of this entire discussion centers around the condescension and even ridicule felt by many theists when discussing what and why they believe.

Yawn.

Again, (just to accept yor lent asumption fair consideration), what's your point? Does any ridicule of your beliefs serve to either enhance, or minimize/diminish your faith? Is there any sort of reliable test of faith and piety that I might call by name and/or hit upon in a moment of weakness?

You have repeatedly inferred (and anonymously accused/implied) that atheists are arrogant, egotistical, intellectual bounders that dare to presume their opinionated perspectives as superior.
At worst (really, at the very worst) atheists are "no better" than many theists espousing or evangelizing their faith-based beliefs as veritable/estimable "fact".
At best, adherents of faith-based beliefs deem themselves on a logical par with non-adherents who fairly represent themselves as being intellectually satisfied in/with the notion of "I don't know".

Surety of position has never been a guarantor of either accuracy, or ANY deservedly earned respect (just ask George W. Bush).

The real crux of the matter is one of equal respect. You can ignore our pleas or deny it happens, but don't be surprised if more and more theists avoid those "informative debates" with many atheists.

Deny the pleas? It is easy enough to acknowledge they exist. Do the protestations have any validity or merit? Is, "Run Away!" a compelling or persuasive argument in any sort of reasoned, candid, and civil (tho' not always "polite") debate? I hope not.

Dare to answer the pointed questions put to you.
Dare to validly support and evidentially defend your faith-based claims with candor, and prima facie acknowledgments of stated points (you need concede nothing in answer).

You want to know what's rude?

It's rude to purposefully ignore someone that addresses you by name, and tenders you specified inquiry. It's rude to pretend that folks that make you feel uncomfortable, or angry, or or anxious, or moved to any action beyond your personal realm of comfort...just don't exist in your elevated realm of ethos.
{God forbid that anyone might deem such behavior as "delusional" tho'...].

I make especial effort--even in my admittedly limited engagements in commentary/discussion/debate here in REF--to AT VERY LEAST lend specific and pointed answer/rebuttal to specific/pointed challenges/questions/inquiries put to me for considered reply. You know why I do so? Because I was raised to understand that it is RUDE (and yes, obnoxious) to pretend that the person addressing me personally does not exist, or that they are otherwise unworthy of my attentions...or respect.

I may tender you no measure of respect for what you believe or say, but I have enough respect for your person to offer you answer to anything you might say in my regard--either directly, or by means of some indirect and ch!cken**** innuendo.

If you could offer the same level of respect in my regard, you might then earn the lacking respect you wantonly seek to your present avail.

[Note: Since you claim that you don't indulge your high-minded self to bother to read my commentaries tailored for your consideration, I must trust to one of your lurking supportive and "respectful" sycophants to lend you the "Cliff Notes" version of the above Too bad I can't respect that...].

 

[Buttercup]

*Chimp passes Cal one Midol and a shot of whiskey*

 

[gnostic]

I would have to say that is true. However, there is evidence and then there is evidence. What I mean is that the value of evidence varies widely. To say that poor evidence is evidence really does an injustice to creditable evidence.

Myth is evidence but does little to further the truth of reality and thus can rightly be called delusional.

But I loved myths, Pah.

I may not believe in them, as faith, but I believed that they have something to teach, particularly the psyche of an individual or group of individuals at that period.

Take The Iliad and The Odyssey for example. I admired the masterpieces of Homer's storytelling, and the Homeric myths that was to inspire later generations to expand on the myths. I find it as entertaining as today's fantasy (or sci-fi) novels, even more so than Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. It is in fact the original fantasy.

For it is not important finding evidence of myths; to spend too much time on searching for the "real Helen" or "Achilles" or "King Arthur" will only lessen the appeal of the myths.

 

[Scuba Pete]

For it is not important finding evidence of myths; to spend too much time on searching for the "real Helen" or "Achilles" or "King Arthur" will only lessen the appeal of the myths.

Yet you have no compelling evidence that these people are not real and did not suffer precisely as annotated. In our modern arrogance, we all too easily dismiss all that was written. It's a shame as our modern writings are just as inaccurate, if not more so.

 

[Revasser]

Yet you have no compelling evidence that these people are not real and did not suffer precisely as annotated. In our modern arrogance, we all too easily dismiss all that was written. It's a shame as our modern writings are just as inaccurate, if not more so.

So you are prepared to consider any claim, no matter how outlandish, as true, provide you have no compelling evidence against it?

 

[Scuba Pete]

No... but I won't consider the person believing it "delusional". That is what the conversation is all about. Can we stick to the OP?