Are atheists implying theists are delusional?

[Fluffy]

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.

It doesn't matter how worthwhile or useful or fulfilling they are. None of these attributes contribute to a myth's truthfulness.

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

I disagree. I you make the claim that these myths are true then it is very important that you find evidence. It is only because you are not making that claim that evidence becomes unimportant.

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.

Nobody is arguing, or at least I am not arguing, that many religious beliefs are not worthwhile or useful in some way. Just that all unevidenced belief is false. If you wish to look on the scripture as simple stories that attempt to show a message but not actually cohering with reality on some of the details (like Robin Hood or King Arthur) then you would not require evidence for those stories, in my opinion. They would simply be containers for their message or the emotions they are attempting to convey and so their truthfulness would become irrelevant as would the specific placeholders used.

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?

Absolutely. So I can understand how you are using the term delusional, since as you point out earlier we might be using differing definitions, is the person who believes he is hearing God telling him to go out and murder people delusional? More generally, is the message that the religious belief conveys relevant to whether we can accurately call the believer in that message delusional, in your opinion?

 

[Revasser]

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?

Okay.

Imagine a person who fervently believed in the existence of my giant magenta turtle (despite no evidence that such a thing exists) also believed that the turtle spoke to them from His jungle abode on the deep Amazon via telepathy and instructed them to go to Bulgaria and begin the Great Harvest of small bank managers for His Greater Glory. This person, holding this belief as the truth and challenging anyone to prove him wrong, then flew to Bulgaria and started to kidnap small bank managers.

This person is not delusional?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Okay.

Sigh... have you read the ENTIRE thread? We have covered this ad nauseum.

Why does the person BELIEVE in this beast? Therein lies the evidence. This whole debate centers around ATHEISM vs THEISM. Are you suggesting that there is no evidence for theism? Now THAT would be delusional.

 

[Revasser]

Sigh... have you read the ENTIRE thread? We have covered this ad nauseum.

Why does the person BELIEVE in this beast? Therein lies the evidence. This whole debate centers around ATHEISM vs THEISM. Are you suggesting that there is no evidence for theism? Now THAT would be delusional.

I have read the thread and you have not yet deigned to allow yourself to be pinned down with an answer to this kind of question.

Why does this person believe? Perhaps they found a scrap of paper that informed of them of its existence on a footpath in inner Sao Paulo. Perhaps they unearthed an ancient tome written on moth eaten linen from beneath a tall tree in taiga of eastern Russia. Perhaps he was raised in the traditional cult of his family which centres around a giant magenta turtle and his desire for small Bulgarian bank managers as sacrifice. Perhaps he received a vivid vision while asleep one night that caused him to believe in the Great Magenta One. Perhaps after his vision he looked out into the night sky and decided that some entity must be responsible for the world and that that something must be a giant magenta turtle. Take your pick.

Is this person delusional? A simple yes or no and I promise, I'll be content.

 

[Fluffy]

Why does the person BELIEVE in this beast? Therein lies the evidence. This whole debate centers around ATHEISM vs THEISM. Are you suggesting that there is no evidence for theism? Now THAT would be delusional.

Right! I'm totally with you now (I think) and I'm sorry for not understanding beforehand.

You are saying that since there must be a cause for a belief, delusion is therefore an incoherent attribute since belief must always be based on evidence of some sort (the cause) and the subjective/objective division in reality accounts for any discrepancies as opposed to delusion on anyone's part. Is that about right?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Is this person delusional? A simple yes or no and I promise, I'll be content.

Not knowing the EVIDENCE that this is predicated on, I HAVE NO IDEA. Since this is America, he is INNOCENT until proven delusional.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You are saying that since there must be a cause for a belief, delusion is therefore an incoherent attribute since belief must always be based on evidence of some sort (the cause) and the subjective/objective division in reality accounts for any discrepancies as opposed to delusion on anyone's part. Is that about right?

I think so. For most people, there is scant difference between belief and non-belief. Both rely on an incredible amount of presupposition and not direct knowledge.

 

[doppelganger]

What NetDoc is saying is that everything one wants to believe is reasonable unless it can be disproven.

In that world, there is no such thing as an unreasonable belief, because it is impossible to disprove any empirical claim about reality.

Or put another way, he has toyed with language to set up his argument that theists aren't delusional by changing the meaning of "delusional" in such a way as to make his argument unassailable. This is the sort of thing Nick Naylor was talking about.

It's a neat debate trick, but it's dishonest to keep doing it when someone has called you on it.

 

[Tiberius]

I think so. For most people, there is scant difference between belief and non-belief. Both rely on an incredible amount of presupposition and not direct knowledge.

That's not the case for me.

Besides, I'm sure you'll find many believers as well as many atheists who say that they have hard evidence for their beliefs.

 

[doppelganger]

That's not the case for me.

Besides, I'm sure you'll find many believers as well as many atheists who say that they have hard evidence for their beliefs.

Sure. The people that flew planes into the WTC had hard evidence that they were martyrs for Allah. Once you redefine "evidence" to include subjective imaginings (so long as they can't be disproved ) then all bets are off.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Are you meaning to tell me that you believe in Zeus, Poseidon, Achilles, Odysseus and Helen? Do you think these myths are real gods and real people?

I admired the storytelling, or if you want, I admired the literature. Is there anything wrong with that?

 

[doppelganger]

Are you meaning to tell me that you believe in Zeus, Poseidon, Achilles, Odysseus and Helen? Do you think these myths are real gods and real people?

I've been through this with him. He's saying anyone who does believe those are real gods and real people are not unreasonable or delusional because you can't disprove that any of those are gods or real people.

If someone thinks "God" told her to drown her children in a car, that wouldn't be unreasonable. If someone thinks his dog told him to murder Jody Foster, that wouldn't be unreasonable. If someone thinks Allah told them to blow up an office building full of civilians, that, too, wouldn't be unreasonable. Provided you accept the idea that any claim about reality one chooses to believe is reasonable unless it can be disproven.

 

[gnostic]

I've been through this with him. He's saying anyone who does believe those are real gods and real people are not unreasonable or delusional because you can't disprove that any of those are gods or real people.

If someone thinks "God" told her to drown her children in a car, that wouldn't be unreasonable. If someone thinks his dog told him to murder Jody Foster, that wouldn't be unreasonable. If someone thinks Allah told them to blow up an office building full of civilians, that, too, wouldn't be unreasonable. Provided you accept the idea that any claim about reality one chooses to believe is reasonable unless it can be disproven.

Yes, I agreed that such notion would be going too far.

If he wishes to believe in the Greek gods and heroes then who am I to argue with him. His belief is his own, but i don't think he was being honest with his reply.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If someone thinks his dog told him to murder Jody Foster, that wouldn't be unreasonable. If someone thinks Allah told them to blow up an office building full of civilians, that, too, wouldn't be unreasonable.

Well, there ya go. Everyone knows I support the blowing up of office buildings and I even pull the wings off of butterflies. When you are not looking, I kick your dog. Look who's being delusional now.

This is the type of hypocritical CRAP that theists put up with all the time. This is the beginning of bigotry. You wanted to know what it looked like? Here it is. Paint your opponent in the least favorable light. Show them to be stupid or extremists. Next you'll have me wearing a "T" on my shirt and making me live with only other extremists. If someone wants to ask a sane question, you can PM me. I will not put up with this Republicanesque twisting of what I believe and am leaving this discussion. Score another victory for narrow minded and mean spirited people.

 

[Revasser]

Well, there ya go. Everyone knows I support the blowing up of office buildings and I even pull the wings off of butterflies. When you are not looking, I kick your dog. Look who's being delusional now.

This is the type of hypocritical CRAP that theists put up with all the time. This is the beginning of bigotry. You wanted to know what it looked like? Here it is. Paint your opponent in the least favorable light. Show them to be stupid or extremists. Next you'll have me wearing a "T" on my shirt and making me live with only other extremists.

To invoke the Montoya Principle: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think means.

You're claiming he said you support these things when he did not and proclaiming there to be "bigotry" where there is none. If anyone is guilty of poisoning the well here, it is you, with ceaseless accusations of bigotry when there is nothing but an otherwise civilised debate.

I will not put up with this Republicanesque twisting of what I believe and am leaving this discussion. Score another victory for narrow minded and mean spirited people.

That is, as ever, your perogative.

 

[doppelganger]

Well, there ya go. Everyone knows I support the blowing up of office buildings and I even pull the wings off of butterflies. When you are not looking, I kick your dog. Look who's being delusional now.

This is the type of hypocritical CRAP that theists put up with all the time. This is the beginning of bigotry. You wanted to know what it looked like? Here it is. Paint your opponent in the least favorable light. Show them to be stupid or extremists. Next you'll have me wearing a "T" on my shirt and making me live with only other extremists. If someone wants to ask a sane question, you can PM me. I will not put up with this Republicanesque twisting of what I believe and am leaving this discussion. Score another victory for narrow minded and mean spirited people.

Don't attack the messenger, my friend.

 

[doppelganger]

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.

 

[Tiberius]

That's exactly why I don't include the subjective in the evidence I use to figure out where I stand on the issue.

 

[s2a]

Well, there ya go. Everyone knows I support the blowing up of office buildings and I even pull the wings off of butterflies. When you are not looking, I kick your dog. Look who's being delusional now.

This is the type of hypocritical CRAP that theists put up with all the time. This is the beginning of bigotry. You wanted to know what it looked like? Here it is. Paint your opponent in the least favorable light. Show them to be stupid or extremists. Next you'll have me wearing a "T" on my shirt and making me live with only other extremists. If someone wants to ask a sane question, you can PM me. I will not put up with this Republicanesque twisting of what I believe and am leaving this discussion. Score another victory for narrow minded and mean spirited people.

If and when REF decides to recognize a "Strawman Argument of the Year" award, I hereby nominate NetDoc's post as a most promising candidate.

Way to go!

Deflection, mischaracterization, evasion, and escape all wrapped up in one post!

Well done, NetDoc!

 

[klubbhead024]

So... how about them Lions?