Maybe, but I didn’t particularly want to devote a whole thread to it in GD. My interjection was intended to be along the lines of “ummm…guys… are you sure we’re doing this right?” - as one might in any other circumstance where a well-intentioned, but possibly misguided start has been made on something.
I did. I can quite understand why Lib found that post just more of the same:
[emphasis added]
What’s the big difference between comparing one’s god to a pink unicorn, and comparing one’s god to an Argentinian soccer player? 
Admittedly the latter actually exists, but it is still somewhat less than respectful, IMHO.
There is a world of difference between that, and an actual argument concerning the nature of mythology. It is one thing to point out that mythology world-wide has the same pattern of social evolution (and thus to demonstrate that religion evolves as a natural part of the overal social evolution of human societies and is thus unlikely to be literally true in any specific case); another to glibly state that it is all just a bunch of nonsense.
Of course you are right that there’s a difference in regards to the argument. In regards to the insult, not so much.
Obviously in any debate of the reality of a god or gods, the above is correct. However, I would have to agree with the theists in this thread, now, that dropping pink unicorns all over any debate which necessarily presumes a certain religion is valid is irritating. I think a better comparison than the NFL one would be if, in a discussion of Klingon linguistics or house-elf sociology, people kept banging on about how it’s a stupid conversation because the subject isn’t real.
I think I understand the “fun” argument now, so thanks to those who took the time to explain. I have fun pretending myths are real for the purposes of discussion, and since the pretending is part of the fun, people who constantly point out that it’s pretend are lame. In the theists’ cases, it’s not pretend, of course, but the same idea applies.
Some atheists think that if people started saying there really are Klingons and house-elves (at the same time!), no one would object if they interrupted the thread to point out the insanity. This seems likely to be true. I’m not sure how to respond to it, except that perhaps, in a world where almost everyone believes in God, “you’re all nuts, there’s no such thing as God” is not a practical position to take. The atheist may know that consensus is not evidence, but it’s much harder to persuade someone they’re the crazy one when almost everyone agrees with them. There are better tactics to take.
I thought everyone knew - one of them has his own church, with 80,000 adherents.
By “deficiency” I mean your lack of wholeness as a human being — one who is aware of and can enjoy his spiritual nature. It isn’t just the belief that I have ← it’s the God Itself. You are missing both. I think it is fair to ask you what is a polite way to address that if you are going to ask me what is a polite way to address what you apparently consider to be my delusion.
I have no problem with analogies. I’m asking only why the analogy must carry some negative connotation — as in an atheist talking about the theist’s “imaginary” God, or the theist talking about the atheist’s “deficient” humanity. It is just remarkable to the extreme that someone must ask why the implication that I am delusional is somehow insulting.
One can’t help but wonder what sort of social idiot is compelled to ask such a thing.
It is like asking a gay man if there is a polite way to talk about his “perversion”. Why must one assume he is perverse? If one simply must make comparisons, why not unload the analogy and compare his attraction toward men to an attraction toward women? Likewise, you can compare a man’s faith in God with, say, a soldier’s faith in his weapon. He relies on it, depends on it, and calls upon it to protect him. Or compare his faith in God to his faith in his children. Some men are soldiers. Some are not. Some have children. Some don’t.
Again, the question is why you must imply any sort of mental problem on our part in order to make whatever comparison you feel you must?
I have to admit, that’s pretty strange. 
Not sure it is really a “religion” though.
That’s very nice and all, but the problem is that the argument is quite easily undone. All the theist has to do is suggest that the believers of the other god were actually believing in their own chosen god, they just didn’t know it. It’s the “calling one god by many names” response.
How do you propose to respond to that argument in order to see the actual point of the exercise through (where the point is not to mock, but to evaluate the basis upon which people choose which beliefs to accept and which to reject)?
Let’s assume that these people genuinely believe that Maradona is the son of god or somesuch - what makes their belief any less valid than another?
Sure. That’s why I suggested IMHO for those types of discussions. Frankly, coming in and saying “yer all nuts, it doesn’t matter whether or not Solomon actually wrote Ecclesiastes, God doesn’t exist” is thread shitting, pure and simple, and shouldn’t be allowed regardless of which forum it’s in. But possibly it would happen less frequently if a civil discussion with like minded people was pursued in IMHO (since textual variations DO come down to opinion) or even (and please don’t smack me, it isn’t meant to be insulting…) Cafe Society. Yeah, really, CS. It’s discussion about a book. Or several, even. And the debate about what a book actually meant is hotly contested in that forum on a daily basis. I don’t totally agree with the OP; I don’t think all religious debate should be banned from GD; whether or not god exists most decidedly belongs there. But…if we’re going to ask people for their input on what something means based on their opinion and interpretation…well…we have a forum for that, no?
Sorry for the rambling post to basically say I agree…
Well, that’s very kind of you, but it’s more to do with my having embarrassed myself terribly here in the past and now trying to atone for that than anything else. 
I do hope you’ll try again with the philosophy thread.
Awww somebody needs a hug. C’mere, you!
{{{{mswas}}}}
Now go off and play in the cesspool like a good Sewer Boy.
I didn’t suggest that you were delusional. I asked what a proper frame of reference would be, if comparing your belief to any other unsubstantiated belief is improper.
Again, what is the negative connotation? It’s an honest question - why one very specific belief and not another?
The sort that wishes to understand, presumably.
You’re the one introducing the term delusion, not me.
There’s no mental problem implied. You are choosing to infer one. I can’t speak for others but I’m certainly not arrogant enough to believe that since 95% of the world’s population thinks I’m wrong they must be crazy.
If you ask me, “nothing”, because I already believe that no gods of any sort literally exist. Thus it is immaterial to me personally what one chooses to analogize to god - not existing is not existing.
However, that isn’t my point.
Seems to me there are two basic sorts of debates one can have about religions:
-
Arguments as to whether a god (or any god) exists or not; and
-
Debates about religion - either about aspects of belief with a faith, the anthropology of religion, or whatever.
For the second sort of debate, it is really immaterial whether or not any particular religion happens to be true.
I’m not much interested in the former sort of debate; but to the extent that I am, there are two sorts of arguments I would find highly unpersuasive in the ‘insulting my intelligence’ way:
-
“Witnessing” based on purely personal anecdote (“I know God exists 'cause he talked to me”); and
-
Analogies of the flying spagetti monster/pink unicorn/magic space fairy (or football player!) variety.
Note that I do not say either argument is totally invalid. They are merely unpersuasive and insulting to the intelligence, since both, if you will, make sense only to those already committed to a particular belief.
The one is an unfalsifiable demand for personal legitimacy, in essence a demand for acceptance or rejection (as in “if you don’t believe me, you are calling me a liar or crazy”); the second is, simply, argument by ridicule. Although the one may be the proper answer to the other, otherwise neither are worth pursuing.
I am open to whatever term you suggest for describing people who interact with “imaginary” beings.
As it happens, this was one of the paths I followed from devout Catholicism to atheism. For me, the first step was accepting, as you say, that my God could be worshiped in any form. While you jump there readily above, it’s not exactly a position supported by most theological frameworks we’re likely to encounter here on the Dope. So if you get that response you have already driven a very significant wedge, and through it you can ask why it is that (most likely) their religion is adamant that its way of worship is the only way, if it’s true that God can speak to anyone through any faith. Ultimately the only response is “I believe God wants me personally to believe in this faith but may have other faiths in mind for other people”. But if you’re there, the theist has already acknowledged rejecting one of the primary tenants of most faiths – exclusivity. So which is it that God wants this theist to believe? Nobody’s going to spontaneously deconvert over these issues, but they’ll begin to adapt their thinking.
Of course, that leaves out a lot of people who have already decided to do away with any literalism or ritualism in their (usually Christian or pagan) faith routines, but they’re the slipperiest stones of all regardless. Honestly, I don’t see much harm in believing in fairies either – the problem is that this base of liberal, flexible believers does a tremendous amount to support the rest of the dangerous believers. Convincing them that there really is a strong, direct line between what they do and what fundamentalists do may be the best tactic, if a difficult task.
There is no one great God-demolishing argument; there are just many small cracks built in to faith to begin with into which the mindful atheist can, if engaged in debate on the subject, drop seeds that might later thrive. I don’t believe the IPU is a useful seed to anyone, because it has no predictive qualities to test and promises nothing to anyone. Gods are not the same category of imaginary creature as unicorns. It’s like saying UFOs aren’t real because there are no leprechauns. Wrong metaphysical context.
A believer?
Or just say “there’s no such thing” or whatever. I don’t believe people object to atheists saying there is no God, just when they demean those who disagree. As with Santa Claus references or Der Trihs and his reiterations that all religious believers are stupid and evil and blah blah.
I expressed it badly. mswas was making a point that atheists don’t have any sustainable basis for morality beside a subjective feeling. He didn’t call anyone specifically a sociopath.
Here’s the thread if you want to see it for yourself.
Regards,
Shodan
I could take the rather obvious cheap shot and say “religious”, but instead I’ll just turn your question back: How do you refer to people that think that entities that are generally considered imaginary are in fact quite real? Do you treat them with the same respect you want for your own beliefs? Do you refrain from bringing up the non-existence of their imaginary friends?
Makes sense.
I’d add that IPU is less than useful because people are quite likely to easily note that it is in fact often intended as ridicule, and poking fun at someone isn’t the best way to convince someone that you are right.
Okay, but for those times that the purpose is not ridicule? What if the purpose is to identify something that can be commonly agreed not to exist for the sake of comparing how one evaluates evidence regarding the existence of that thing versus god?