Dawkins!

[Sunstone]

AGAIN, how you react to this hinges on whether or not you think what he's stating is actually TRUE.

Try it on the other way around.

Person X is simply saying that God does exist. If you believe that God does not, then you are wrong, that is, suffering from a delusion. Therefore all atheists are delusional.

Is this a statement which which you merely disagree, or do you find it offensive?

The reverse statement is not offensive to me. But I'm only speaking for myself. I'm no more offended by it than I would be offended if someone told me the mountains to the west of me didn't exist. That is, I would consider it symptomatic of something wrong with them, but I wouldn't take offense.

 

[Sunstone]

Oh yeah, LOTS of productive conversation going on here.

There seems to be lots of productive speaking going on, but not much productive listening.

 

[lilithu]

Athiests don't seek to prove that God doesn't exist. Their non-belief is based solely on the fact that there is no positive evidence for God, exactly the same as non-belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Tooth fairy.

Non-belief is the default position. We start out believing nothing, then formulate beliefs as evidence rolls in.
If it were reasonable to believe in something until evidence against it was presented, we'd all have to believe in Marduk and little green men from Mars.

You're changing the subject. Storm isn't saying that atheists have to have proof that God doesn't exist in order to be atheists. She's saying that they have to have proof that God doesn't exist in order to call theists delusional.

 

[lilithu]

There seems to be lots of productive speaking going on, but not much productive listening.

I rarely find passive aggressiveness to be productive but ymmv.

 

[Sunstone]

I rarely find passive aggressiveness to be productive but ymmv.

What are you talking about?

 

[fantome profane]

I find it striking how many people are offended by the title of his most recent book. He actually had a similar problem with his first book entitled “The Selfish Gene”. He actually had to explain to some people that he was unable to covey the idea entirety within the title, so he decided to go ahead and write the book.

 

[Valjean]

You're changing the subject. Storm isn't saying that atheists have to have proof that God doesn't exist in order to be atheists. She's saying that they have to have proof that God doesn't exist in order to call theists delusional.

This hinges on how you define delusion, I think. If you think of delusion as the persistent retention of a baseless idea then a case can be made for theism being delusional. If you look at it from a different angle and maintain that a delusion requires a stubborn adherance to an idea despite contradictory evidence, then 'delusion' might not be an entirely apt term.

 

[Storm]

Athiests don't seek to prove that God doesn't exist. Their non-belief is based solely on the fact that there is no positive evidence for God, exactly the same as non-belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Tooth fairy.

Non-belief is the default position. We start out believing nothing, then formulate beliefs as evidence rolls in.
If it were reasonable to believe in something until evidence against it was presented, we'd all have to believe in Marduk and little green men from Mars.

That doesn't make belief delusional.

 

[lilithu]

This hinges on how you define delusion, I think. If you think of delusion as the persistent retention of a baseless idea then a case can be made for theism being delusional. If you look at it from a different angle and maintain that a delusion requires a stubborn adherance to an idea despite contradictory evidence, then 'delusion' might not be an entirely apt term.

By EITHER criterion, I do not consider my faith delusional. You've rejected personal experience as being non-objective. True, it is that. But on what basis can you argue that it's not basis for belief?

For that matter, just because you personally reject scripture, that doesn't mean that it is not a basis for belief. Just because you personally reject tradition, that doesn't mean that it is not a basis for belief.

Despite repeated claims, beliefs are never baseless. They're always based on something.

 

[Valjean]

We're getting hung up in semantics, to the exclusion of the core idea being explored.

 

[sandandfoam]

I may well be delusional, for practical purposes I behave as if I'm not. I think this is true of the rest of humanity as well. Obviously I know this to be true of myself and just believe it of everyone else. Including Dawson.
To be potentially delusional is to be human. To know oneself as being not delusional would seem to require some sort of self-transcendance. Maybe Dawkins is actually a Buddha.

 

[Valjean]

There are certain objective categories of evidence which can properly be used to advocate an idea, to promote it. Subjective evidence may be entirely sufficient for the subject, but cannot reasonably be used in argumentation.

 

[Sunstone]

To be potentially delusional is to be human. To know oneself as being not delusional would seem to require some sort of self-transcendance. Maybe Dawkins is actually a Buddha.

I think it's arguable that most humans -- perhaps all humans -- harbor at least some delusions.

 

[Mister Emu]

Tell me where the bigotry starts and ends:

Raising a child in a religious household is child abuse.
Raising a child in an atheistic household is child abuse.
Raising a child in a homosexual household is child abuse.

I did this already. The answer is no at the exact same mathematically precise rate as if He did not exist. This God "exists" in the exact same sense as "not existing."

You couldn't possibly know, or control, the variable of who was getting prayed for...

Or are you saying that claiming that brainwashing children into religious indoctrination is child abuse is bigotry?

I'd say that just using the term brainwashing is regards to religious upbringing excepting specific cases where it can be proven is at the very least prejudiced.

It's not right to dismiss, much less condemn, an idea just because it makes you uncomfortable

But it is perfectly justifiably to not have... amiable... reactions to such an idea when couched in deliberately inflammatory language.

Non-belief is the default position.

I would say ignorance is the default position. If someone were to say to me, "The Aussies are great at cricket." I wouldn't have non-belief, I would have ignorance. I would have no knowledge of the relative abilities of the Australian cricket team. You can only actively not believe in something once you are knowledgable about it.

 

[Sunstone]

I rarely find passive aggressiveness to be productive but ymmv.

For the second time, can you explain what you're talking about?

 

[Storm]

We're getting hung up in semantics, to the exclusion of the core idea being explored.

Fair enough. Can we at least agree that calling all believers "delusional" is unproductive?

 

[lilithu]

For the second time, can you explain what you're talking about?

The reference was perfectly clear given the statement that I quoted.

 

[Sunstone]

The reference was perfectly clear given the statement that I quoted.

BS. Lilithu. You are most likely avoiding my question because you cannot defend your position.

 

[lilithu]

BS. Lilithu. You are most likely avoiding my question because you cannot defend your position.

So, you have no idea what I'm talking about but you know I can't defend it. :sarcastic

 

[Sunstone]

So, you have no idea what I'm talking about but you know I can't defend it. :sarcastic

I'm trying to get you to defend it, but you are doing an excellent job of shirking the question. There's no way I can force you to back up your shameful allegations if you refuse to do so.