Dawkins!

[lilithu]

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.

True, which is why I have no sympathy for people who try to claim such subjective evidence is binding on other people. However, such subjective evidence *IS* basis for personal belief, and therefore you cannot claim that personal belief exists or persists without basis. Therefore, as Storm said, the claim that theists are delusional is ad hominem at minimum.

 

[lilithu]

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

Core idea? I thought this started as a joke thread. And as for semantic arguments, that started with people arguing that theists had no right to be offended by being called "delusional."

 

[lilithu]

There's no way I can force you to back up your shameful allegations if you refuse to do so.

Yes, it's much easier to make allegations passive-aggressively. Then no one can try to force you to back them up and if someone comments on them you can demand to know what they're talking about.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, it's much easier to make allegations passive-aggressively. Then no one can try to force you to back them up and if someone comments on them you can demand to know what they're talking about.

It seems to me you are mistakenly ascribing to me passive-aggressive behavior while at the same time refusing to give any coherent reasons for why you would do so. Given how you have consistently dodged my questions, I can only assume at this point that you actually lack any rationally defensible reasons for ascribing that behavior to me and instead were merely trying to insult me. Am I mistaken? And if so, how?

 

[Autodidact]

It's only a delusion if you can present invalidating evidence. You still haven't done so, so please drop the ad hom.

No, the fact that you disagree with him about whether it's a delusion, or even if he were wrong about that, does not make his assertion that it is bigotry. Further, I have shown that the definition of "delusion" does not include a requirement that there be invalidating evidence. cf. my cite to dictionary.com. Even further, I have mentioned extensive evidence invalidating the existence of a God who answers prayers at a rate different from if He did not answer them. And finally, I don't think you have a grasp of what the ad hominem fallacy is. It means that rather than say that someone is deluded, you say they're mean or evil, (or bigoted) and therefore their argument should not be accepted.

 

[Autodidact]

You and I have different opinions of "productive". THerefore, yours is delusional.

Or yours is.

 

[Storm]

No, the fact that you disagree with him about whether it's a delusion, or even if he were wrong about that, does not make his assertion that it is bigotry. Further, I have shown that the definition of "delusion" does not include a requirement that there be invalidating evidence. cf. my cite to dictionary.com. Even further, I have mentioned extensive evidence invalidating the existence of a God who answers prayers at a rate different from if He did not answer them. And finally, I don't think you have a grasp of what the ad hominem fallacy is. It means that rather than say that someone is deluded, you say they're mean or evil, (or bigoted) and therefore their argument should not be accepted.

I have made a point of saying that I am NOT accusing Dawkins of bigotry.

 

[Autodidact]

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?

Here's what I don't find it: bigoted.

 

[Storm]

Can we at least agree that calling people delusional is counter-productive to civil discussion?

 

[Autodidact]

Core idea? I thought this started as a joke thread. And as for semantic arguments, that started with people arguing that theists had no right to be offended by being called "delusional."

You can be offended if you want, just don't call Dawkins bigoted for making it. It's not bigotry.

 

[Mister Emu]

Even further, I have mentioned extensive evidence invalidating the existence of a God who answers prayers at a rate different from if He did not answer them.

Any study into the efficacy of prayer is inherently flawed...

 

[sandandfoam]

I think there's something mildly amusing about an academic who believes in aliens considering others who believe in god(s) delusional.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me you are mistakenly ascribing to me passive-aggressive behavior while at the same time refusing to give any coherent reasons for why you would do so. Given how you have consistently dodged my questions, I can only assume at this point that you actually lack any rationally defensible reasons for ascribing that behavior to me and instead were merely trying to insult me. Am I mistaken? And if so, how?

Lilithu, it utterly disgusts me that you would (1) hurl an insult at me while (2) refusing to back it up with any justification for it whatsoever, and then (3) go offline without offering an apology for your behavior. Your behavior is completely unacceptable.

 

[Magic Man]

I would take it as evidence that something caused ten people to think they saw a leprechaun at that time and place, but I would not take it as strong evidence that leprechauns exist because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and even ten people claiming to have seen a leprechaun is not evidence enough.

Exactly. Just like I take the fact that so many people "see God", as evidence that something is causing them to do that, but not evidence that God exists.

 

[sandandfoam]

Exactly. Just like I take the fact that so many people "see God", as evidence that something is causing them to do that, but not evidence that God exists.

Why do you think Dawkins sees belief in little green men as being an acceptable inference and God as not?

 

[Magic Man]

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?

I merely disagree with it. In fact, that exact thing is why I bought the book "The Delusion of Disbelief" by David Aikman. It is a response to Dawkins, among others. I read it to see whether he could make a decent case against the New Atheists. He didn't. It was a poor attempt at refuting the arguments of the New Atheists, which is why I started a thread about it here. I don't take offense to him calling disbelief a delusion, but he doesn't even make a good argument for calling it delusion, or for proving the New Atheists wrong.

From his point of view, atheism is delusional. That's fine. I would rather he could at least give some good reasons for thinking so, but, even if not, he's entitled to his opinion.

 

[Magic Man]

Why do you think Dawkins sees belief in little green men as being an acceptable inference and God as not?

I assume you mean aliens? If so, I would say that's acceptable because it's not something that completely shapes our worldview. It only adds to it. I'm going to treat you the same way now as I would after we meet aliens. God completely changes that. Basically, the two things don't affect us to nearly the same level, or in the same way.

 

[sandandfoam]

I assume you mean aliens? If so, I would say that's acceptable because it's not something that completely shapes our worldview. It only adds to it. I'm going to treat you the same way now as I would after we meet aliens. God completely changes that. Basically, the two things don't affect us to nearly the same level, or in the same way.

God doesn't change my behaviour. I rear my children, treat others, vote, think and do everything the same as a theist as I did as an atheist. The only difference is that I feel more comfortable with myself. As such I have to disagree that a belief in God is any different than a belief in aliens.

 

[Magic Man]

God doesn't change my behaviour. I rear my children, treat others, vote, think and do everything the same as a theist as I did as an atheist. The only difference is that I feel more comfortable with myself. As such I have to disagree that a belief in God is any different than a belief in aliens.

Then you aren't someone Dawkins's comments are concerned with. Your belief in God might be no different, but many people's beliefs are.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Holy Scnieke!!! I'm glad I didn't start this thread! More acrimony than I thought possible.