On what evidence do you believe that premise is true?
Is there a way to tell when you are deluded?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
On what evidence do you believe that premise is true?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
There is no evidence for a negative proposition like "God doesn't exist." There is only the LACK of evidence for the positive proposition "God exists." Same as with mermaids, unicorns, satyrs, Santa, or any other fictional entity. I disbelieve in God due to the appalling lack of evidence for his existence. So on what basis do you believe in God? Assuming you have the balls to actually commit to a solid position on this topic instead of elusively prevaricating on it like all the other cowardly theists do here to avoid being pinned down to anything.
Last edited:
massive difference between the assertion ... There is no evidence for God's existence ... and ... belief in god is delusional. Hopefully we don't have to bring up the topic of consensus regarding being born homosexual to make you understand this point . ... (unless you are willing to concede the shortcomings of your previous attempts to delineate the basis for "evidence" and hazard something new).......
Iow, ,your previous attempts to establish what is and isn't "evidence", asking "what evidence do you have for God's existence" is nowhere near an answer for the question "what evidence do supports your assertion "belief in god is delusional"
At the very least, hopefully you will come to understand by the end of this why intelligent atheists refrain from taking the sojourn into hard atheism (or at the very least, bid a hasty retreat into soft atheism when their rouse is called
:shrug:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
So the fact that people can become deluded in other ways somehow mitigates all the delusions enabled by religion? I don't think so. That's like saying a serial killer is ok because afterall there are other serial killers in the world. Religion is the granddaddy of delusional ideas and behaviors. People eating crackers and counting rosary beads to make themselves feel holier and more magically protected. Terrorists flying planes into buildings to sleep with 72 virgins in heaven. Gay youth driven to suicide by homophobic passages about hellfire and sodomy. The Catholic Church covering up and enabling the sexual abuse of thousands of children by priests over 6 decades. Women subjugated by men for centuries due to the blatant misogyny of the Bible and the Church. Millions of families condemned to poverty and unplanned births due to the teaching that birth control is a sin. Nothing about our modern secular society even comes close to all the harm religion has caused and continues to cause to innocent victims all in the name of God.
The study examined only religious delusions of the mentally ill. It has nothing to say about how widespread these same delusions are among the religious.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
LOL! Do I really have to spell this out for the reading impaired? If there is no evidence for God's existence, then it logically follows that belief in God is delusional. How could it not be? Duh..
You got a turd in your pocket?
will the irony never end?
:shrug:
If the protagonist who is offering such an attempt at an argument cannot even define and apply the term "evidence" in a manner that doesn't severely erode their own world view, it would appear they are either using words beyond their literacy level or desperately clutching at straws in the effort to validate their bigotry.
:shrug:
If that's slang for having recently scored infractions, the answer is no
de·lu·sion
1. an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
1. an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
So according to the definition of delusion, your belief (a premise held to be true) that belief in god is delusional or false is both idiosyncratic (as it is not "generally accepted as reality") as well as without rational argument (as you have admitted to it being based on no evidence), and is itself delusional. It is not justifiable to contradict generally accepted reality without evidence.
The difference (which you may have missed) between a god and these fictitious entities is that the former is generally accepted reality while the latter are generally accepted to be fictitious. You disbelieve in a god contrary to generally accepted reality without any positive evidence whatsoever. That would seem to be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. The claim that a god exists is quite ordinary, albeit equally without evidence.
I believe in the possibility of a god for a wide variety of reasons including the evidence for emergence, the BBT, neuroplasticity, etc..
And since you have no evidence to establish religion as a supposedly "mentally healthy delusion" and no refuting statistics, you do not seem to have any substantial argument at all.
I see no reason to not prefer the less pragmatic nature of scientific reasoning.
Why would the observed absence of a hypothesized expected element not be consistent with the scientific method? If a god’s expected qualities aren’t evident within our perceptible reality, how can it be said to exist?
If god exists there is evidence for god
There is no evidence for god
Therefore god does not exist
Knowledge of the sociological evidence of misconception inherent in religious belief is an essential factor in evaluating rationalization. While special knowledge, or knowledge of any kind is absent regarding the existence of gods, knowledge of the origins and characteristics regarding belief in gods is not.
You cant’ understand your own term modified with a suffix?Capracus said:
Noun 1. congruousness - the quality of agreeing; being suitable and appropriate
If elma exists, there is evidence of elma.
There is no evidence of elma.
Therefore, elma does not exist.
Now imagine that by "elma", is meant the Turkish word for "apple."
Last edited:
Oh, the power of truisms!
If your house is on fire, you need to get out of it.
So what should you do now? -- Get out of your house!
If-clauses are difficult, apparently. In the minds of some people, an if-clause establishes the same state as a claim of certainty, which is why they react the same way to an if-clause as they would to a claim of certainty ...
So not the scientific method, per se? Just something you like to think of as scientific?
What specific expected elements? You have not established any.
Absence of evidence is a condition in which no valid conclusion can be inferred from the mere absence of detection, normally due to doubt in the detection method. Evidence of absence is the successful variation: a conclusion that relies on specific knowledge in conjunction with negative detection to deduce the absence of something. An example of evidence of absence is checking your pockets for spare change and finding nothing, but being confident that the search would have found it if it was there. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argume..._absence_of_evidence_from_evidence_of_absence
IOW, if you wish to make an evidence of absence case, the onus is on you to establish what conclusive evidence you are assuming. What "expected evidence" are you "confident that the search would have found it if it was there"?
That assumes objective evidence is a necessary quality of a god, even though most gods are described as immaterial. That is begging the question.
What "sociological evidence"? Cite a reference.
I said the sentence was incoherent, not the term. How can there be less agreement between theists (who generally disagree on finer details) than between theists and atheists (who disagree on the grossest assertions)?
What about a partial delusion? Say someone sees an experimental top secret aircraft and thinks it is a UFO. They saw something in reality, but due to lack of access to top secret data, they interpreted the visual data in a way that is not technically true. They watch sci-fi and use that as their data interpretation set. is this a delusion or is it simply a person attempting to interpret data based on their own limited resources?
Say I see a someone recover from a form of cancer, after the doctors all agreed it was terminal. I call it a miracle. Is this delusional or it is simply an attempt to interpret data based on one's limited knowledge of the subject? Were the doctors delusional since the condition did not turn out as they had so boldly predicted, or do they get a pass due to a dual standard?
When Copernicus discovered that the earth and planets revolve around the sun, was he delusional since he was the only one who saw this? Or was everyone else delusional, thereby causing the group to define normal in a way to stack the deck? How do you tell the different between majority delusion and one sane person since the majority will stack the deck in its favor?
Most of the doom and gloom predictions of manmade global warming never materialized as predicted. The polar caps are still there and there are more polar bears than ever. The net effect is a large number of people believed in these delusions, including the consensus of science. The people called those who spoke up against these delusions, as these being delusional. How can some people see through delusions easier while other fall for them easier? Why do the delusional seem to yell louder and appear to have the most conviction? It this because delusion has to over compensate?
How many democrats believed one could keep their health care plan and their doctors and it would be cheaper under the "affordable care act", even though government has never done anything cheaper once it takes things over? The term affordable, was that delusional at the top, or was it a calculated induction for the easily deluded? Does lack of self reliance skills due to more government dependency make common sense something you don't need?
Say there is a new fad where people want the new rock babies, which is a rock dressed as a baby. This is something tangible, but it is not logically consistent, accept in an imaginary way. One needs to delude themselves to get the most out of the play. They are also willing to pay to be deluded since it is the style and fad, and if you are not part of the fad, you will feel left out in the cold truth. Will most people willingly accept the group delusion, to be part of the herd, rather than remain alone with the truth?
Say I see a someone recover from a form of cancer, after the doctors all agreed it was terminal. I call it a miracle. Is this delusional or it is simply an attempt to interpret data based on one's limited knowledge of the subject? Were the doctors delusional since the condition did not turn out as they had so boldly predicted, or do they get a pass due to a dual standard?
When Copernicus discovered that the earth and planets revolve around the sun, was he delusional since he was the only one who saw this? Or was everyone else delusional, thereby causing the group to define normal in a way to stack the deck? How do you tell the different between majority delusion and one sane person since the majority will stack the deck in its favor?
Most of the doom and gloom predictions of manmade global warming never materialized as predicted. The polar caps are still there and there are more polar bears than ever. The net effect is a large number of people believed in these delusions, including the consensus of science. The people called those who spoke up against these delusions, as these being delusional. How can some people see through delusions easier while other fall for them easier? Why do the delusional seem to yell louder and appear to have the most conviction? It this because delusion has to over compensate?
How many democrats believed one could keep their health care plan and their doctors and it would be cheaper under the "affordable care act", even though government has never done anything cheaper once it takes things over? The term affordable, was that delusional at the top, or was it a calculated induction for the easily deluded? Does lack of self reliance skills due to more government dependency make common sense something you don't need?
Say there is a new fad where people want the new rock babies, which is a rock dressed as a baby. This is something tangible, but it is not logically consistent, accept in an imaginary way. One needs to delude themselves to get the most out of the play. They are also willing to pay to be deluded since it is the style and fad, and if you are not part of the fad, you will feel left out in the cold truth. Will most people willingly accept the group delusion, to be part of the herd, rather than remain alone with the truth?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I didn't say there was no evidence that belief in God is delusional. I said there is no evidence that God doesn't exist. You were the one originally claiming atheism is delusional. I proved you wrong by showing atheism to be, not a belief, but lack of belief. I know this is confusing for you. But that's what happens when you try play childish semantical games see? lol!
Delusions are widespread as you yourself noted. Probably 90% of husbands think their wife is the most beautiful woman on earth. Doesn't mean it's true.
Now lets take a look at this definition again: "delusion: 1. an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder." Tell me now how atheism, which btw is a lack of belief, is maintained despite being contradicted by rational argument. What rational arguments contradict atheism? Surely you must know of some?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Go ahead then and translate this mysterious word God for us since you seem to think nobody knows its meaning besides you.
With the emphasis on "seem" and your use of "seem."
I'm simply emphasizing a basic epistemological point, and that is that when one uses a word, one means something by it.
And since atheists use the word "God," it is reasonable to assume that they mean something by it. I'm wondering what that is.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I asked you first. What does the word God mean to you? Assuming you're not too spineless to commit yourself to a position on this topic.
But how can someone answer this and put it into words. No one in history has put into words what god means and for others to understand, so why should anyone today be able to do it.
Since I put forward neither the position that God exists, nor the position that God doesn't exist, I have nothing to define.
I want to see if the people who claim to know better (whether they are theists or atheists), in fact are putting forward a comprehensive position. And someone who won't even define the core terms they use, sure isn't doing that.
So to you, this is what all this is about? Having a spine? That committing to a particular position is more important than what that position is?