# "There is no God" is an opinion, not a fact. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 9, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925 "2005-01-09T20:28:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/521 "2005-01-12T21:59:09Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I don’t see it as any less productive than the majority of Pit threads. And yet, the vast majority of those never make it past page one, which is kinda my point. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/522 "2005-01-12T22:01:08Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Many among that number are quick to accept the idea that if legend in Scripture contradicts the evidence of science, the Scriptural passage is most likely either figurative or incorrect. And others don’t have scripturally-based religions in the first place, and thus find “these _other people_’s religious writings aren’t describing facts, therefore _you_ are delusional” spectacularly unimpressive. Religious tools are intended for processing meaning. Scientific tools are intended for processing fact. Using religious tools to get at facts is like using a hex wrench for driving nails; complaining that religious tools aren’t dealing with the realm of fact is like complaining that a hex wrench is too thin and useless to drive a nail. Some religious folks want a universe in which there are no nails and never have been so hammers are useless; the technical term for these people is “morons”. Others are sufficiently unclear on the construction of thought that they can’t figure out what tool to use in a given situation; this is ignorance that can be fought. That ignorance cannot be fought, however, by saying that having a set of hex wrenches is delusional; it may be that one person has no need for hex wrenches, or has all their rotation-inducing tool needs provided by screwdrivers, but someone who is, in essence, arguing that hex nuts don’t exist is going to come across as a complete fruitloop. People will ascribe meaning to things, and develop systems for manipulating said meanings. Some meanings may be more pleasant, more aesthetic, or more useful to more people than others. So be it. In a world where some people think that providing severed plant genitalia to potential partners is an appropriate dating behaviour conveying attraction and thoughtfulness and have other people actually agree with that meaning, anything is possible. People will assign the weirdest bloody meanings to actions; this is just something that happens. It’s when actions taken on the basis of those meanings get into other people’s spaces that problems develop. Religions are systems of _meanings_. In order to “debunk” it one has to either demonstrate that assigning meaning is of itself delusional (fat chance) or that there are other meanings which are in all cases superior that have been rejected irrationally. This cannot be done without knowing the purposes to which those meanings are being put and what criteria are being used for preferring those meanings. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/523 "2005-01-12T22:02:13Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > The difference is that I realize I’m making some assumptions, and you seem determined to prove that you’re not making an assumption, or that nobody else can possibly have a conversation if they’re making a different set of assumptions. That, my friend, is delusion. If nothing can follow from those assumptions, because logic has no primacy, how does one proceed, or make statements at all? If peanutbutter is jam, and the next minute it’s peanutbutter again, and I can’t say which, or even define them, how do I even express anything? Seriously, I’m not trying to show my faith in logic, or that it makes thought easierm if I choose to utilize it. I’m asserting it makes thought _possible_, and is hence would appear to be _essential_. Even if it doesn’t matter what assumptions you start with, if you’ve got no logic, nothing coherent comes from them. Please, start with an assumption, and then argue a point from it in a way I can comprehend, and indicates you have an intelligence, and are not some random language generator, without logic, and perhaps I can see what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/524 "2005-01-12T22:14:05Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > If nothing can follow from those assumptions, because logic has no primacy, how does one proceed, or make statements at all? If peanutbutter is jam, and the next minute it’s peanutbutter again, and I can’t say which, or even define them, how do I even express anything? Seriously, I’m not trying to show my faith in logic, or that it makes thought easierm if I choose to utilize it. I’m asserting it makes thought _possible_, and is hence would appear to be _essential_. Even if it doesn’t matter what assumptions you start with, if you’ve got no logic, nothing coherent comes from them. Please, start with an assumption, and then argue a point from it in a way I can comprehend, and indicates you have an intelligence, and are not some random language generator, without logic, and perhaps I can see what you mean. Okay, here’s my observations: 1. Jerry Falwell has conversations in which he successfully communicates his meanings. 2. Jerry Falwell doesn’t accept that the principles of logic trump the Bible. 3. Jerry Falwell blatantly ignores logic quite often, **even while he’s successfully communicating his meanings**. Therefore, my conclusion is that adherence to logic isn’t what makes thought possible. YOu gotta adhere to some system, but formal logic is one choice among many. It happens to be what I try to choose, but not everyone makes the same choice, and parodying them as saying “jam is peanutbutter” says more about your understanding of them than it says about them. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/525 "2005-01-12T22:18:36Z")
> [@Lilairen](#): > > Religious tools are intended for processing meaning. Scientific tools are intended for processing fact. Using religious tools to get at facts is like using a hex wrench for driving nails. > > Religions are systems of _meanings_. In order to “debunk” it one has to either demonstrate that assigning meaning is of itself delusional (fat chance) or that there are other meanings which are in all cases superior that have been rejected irrationally. If you don’t mind my asking, what on Earth do these statements mean? And would I need religious tools to understand? If I lack them, am I deficient, because I cannot say what anything means? Are religious tools and semantics the same, then, or, at least, two of a kind? Do religious systems have syntax built around the meanings? Are you also suggesting religions have no relevent application to fact, and that facts cannot convey meaning? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/526 "2005-01-12T22:26:25Z")
Far be it from me to speak for **Lilairen** , but I think **Lilairen** was referring to the idea of non-overlapping magistras; or simply put-religion and science serve different purposes. Religion (and some philosophy) is meant to address the meaning of purpose and morality. What you should do with your time on earth and how you should conduct yourself. Science is meant to address the how and the what, as in, how did we get here, what are we made up of, etc. Science can’t answer the ‘purpose’ of my life, nor can it answer to what my morals should be. Religion could (but doesn’t, I’m an atheist). I believe that’s what **Lilairen** was referring to…but I could be horribly wrong… ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/527 "2005-01-12T22:55:52Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Okay, here’s my observations: > > 1. Jerry Falwell has conversations in which he successfully communicates his meanings. > 2. Jerry Falwell doesn’t accept that the principles of logic trump the Bible. > 3. Jerry Falwell blatantly ignores logic quite often, **even while he’s successfully communicating his meanings**. > > Therefore, my conclusion is that adherence to logic isn’t what makes thought possible. Why? He follows logically from the belief in the Truth of the Bible, does he not? That this first principle is a fallacy does not render all illogical thenceforth; it just means he begins from an invalid argument. I don’t see how this demonstrates logic is superfluous to thought (if we are to say that “thought” must have some sort of basic coherence to be something other than complete randomness). Specific and consistent deviations from perfect logic do not imply that all logic is unnecessary, especially for thought, I should think. If anything, it demonstrates how rational people who have faith are not insane or worse, completely senseless. ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/528 "2005-01-12T23:01:27Z")
have no problem admitting when I am out of my depth. This, obviously, is one of those times. And I do appreciate **Lobsang** pointing out, as someone who isn’t an active participant in this thread (whether he was earlier or not is irrelevant), that just going back and forth endlessly is not contributing anything. So, I’ll leave this in much more capable hands than my feeble attempts to help from a strictly layman’s view. And **Contrapuntal** , so you’ll know that I’m not just bailing to avoid answering your last set of questions, I’ll offer this much before I go (and save my head from exploding). > [@](#): > > If “religious beliefs” is subset of “all beliefs” why do I have to take out the word “religious” for you to be able to answer the question with a yes? The reason I phrased it that way is so that it was beyond obvious (I had hoped) that I didn’t make any special exceptions for “religion” or those who believe in it. ARGH! Good Og, if I’m even remotely understanding you now (which I confess, may not be the case), I thought you’d used the Mayans as an example. I didn’t realize, if this is indeed what you’re asking, that you wanted me to address it specifically. If so, whether or not I think their belief (or anyone’s in anything) is superstitious or not, it’s not my place to judge, label or be anything but respectful. Again, as I’d _thought_ before, I really NOW can’t be anymore clearer than that. > [@](#): > > The only answers I have seen are “religious” and “leprechaunism”. Then you’ve missed what I’ve said. The “religious” answer, I believe, was offered by **jsgoddess** and IIRC, the “leprechaunism” suggestion was by **LHoD**. However, I know for a fact, that at least both **yosemite** and I have put forth the basically same responses. If you’re interested, perhaps you’d like to pursue the multiple times we’ve posted those in this thread. If not, just forget it and know that they’re out there if anyone still cares about them or that particular opinion. > [@](#): > > So human sacrifice is a valid religious belief? Although for the most part, _my_ questions have gone unanswered (and you have no idea how much I appreciate you at least giving it a shot), I won’t shy away from attempt to try on the ones that you ask. Last time, whether or not I think “human sacrifice” is a “valid religious belief” is irrelevant. The people who should make a call on that are those who can enact some sort of judgment… authorities, God, anyone that actually knows the practice is going on. If I _knew_ of someone participating in this activity, I would do everything in my power (up to and including my own death) to stop them. Or so I’d hope. Describing my feelings on the subject seems rather silly. However, since I know I have called such things “heinous,” “inhuman” or whatever, I’ll admit to error if I was instead supposed to always treat, even this, with respect. I’ll add though, if I was discussing with someone who just believed in it but never acted upon it or who had done it but given it up, I could certainly conduct _myself_ respectfully without jeopardizing my personal feelings or those acceptable within our culture. Because I believe that they, and I, might learn something beneficial if it stays at _that_ If not, and that makes me a hypocrite, then I’ll gladly own up to it and apologize for such. If it doesn’t and others feel that it was a horrible analogy, then I’ll once more opt for the “agree to disagree” default position that _I_ follow. So, if I do need to come back just to say I’m sorry, that I will do. Anything else and I’m already on record as having covered it. > [@](#): > > Well religion generally gets a pass in the sense that believing in, oh, I don’t know, good luck or rabbits foot charms or black magic can be called superstitious without fear of insult, and believing in God cannot. _I_ am not saying that it doesn’t. _I_ am saying that it doesn’t for _me._ And that’s ALL I can say. I cannot speak for anyone else. Respect covers everything, I _my_ HO and religion falls into that category. Period. No special exceptions. Not for the IPU, Mayans, my deist agnostic views or anything else. I respect the PEOPLE I discuss things with. There is nothing else I can say. If no one gets that really basic concept about _me,_ then I need to take up some other language. > [@](#): > > As for your false dichotomy, I have not called you or anyone else in this thread delusional. I don’t find it a particularly accurate word to describe religious belief. Um, that wasn’t a “false dichotomy” because “delusional” has been the absolute most bandied about word in this thread. Especially from those who champion the logic/science position. Now, I realize some perhaps haven’t singled that out to use and to them I apologize if it seems that I was aiming that there versus elsewhere. I was not. To you specifically, I’m sorry. I included that in a general sense to clearly state that I didn’t _personally care for myself_ but was here arguing on the behalf of respect to EVERYONE. You, me, them, the whole lot. That’s it. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding. Now, my towel is thrown in. I don’t know which side will prevail here the most, but I definitely believe that beating a dead horse takes top honors for the day. Good luck to the remainder of the hearty souls (on both sides) who wish to continue to duke it out (humorously speaking). Me and my simplistic idea are headed for the locker room. May peace be with y’all. ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/529 "2005-01-12T23:13:07Z")
The theists are playing a very clever game by defining proof only in terms of positive proof while making a negative claim (the existence of god can’t be disproved). But there are other means of proof besides direct positive proof (e.g., “He was in Seattle when the crime was committed in St. Louis”). For example: 1. We should reject ideas which, if accepted, require us to accept other ideas which we know aren’t true. 2. We should reject ideas which, if accepted, lead to obvious absurdities. Belief in god fails on both counts. If I accept that the existence of god is possible, I also have to accept that the existence of the Pink Invisible Magic Panda is possible, that it’s elephants all the way down (with the caveat that our understanding of the elephants has evolved over time so that now we know they can’t be perceived except by a willing heart with the grace of the elephants themselves), and an infinite number of such absurdities. It turns the universe into an Alice-in-Wonderland funhouse that defies knowing – yet without any of the predictive power of quantum mechanics. The theists are also playing a clever game by refusing to define this god which they say exists. Suppose I said that a qubarkaar exists, and then claimed you couldn’t prove it didn’t, so your denial was mere opinion, and then refused to provide any qualities for this qubarkaar which all qubarkaarists could agree upon, then pointed to some ancient and conflicting stories about it (which contained obvious errors of fact) and had people describe their own internal communication with it. Would it be wise, or even sane, to accept such nonsense? Of course not. So my challenge to the theists, before this goes any farther: Define this thing you say exists. Once you’ve done that, in a way that doesn’t induce conditions 1 and 2 above, then we’ll happily go about disproving it. If you can’t agree on a definition, then god must be considered a mere idea, not a reality. Not even the possibility of a reality. And there, my friends, is your proof. He who has elephants, let him ride! \ Y’know, we need a button that purges all snarks and hijacks from a thread. \ ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/530 "2005-01-12T23:15:15Z")
The theists are playing a very clever game by defining proof only in terms of positive proof while making a negative claim (the existence of god can’t be disproved). But there are other means of proof besides direct positive proof (e.g., “He was in Seattle when the crime was committed in St. Louis”). For example: 1. We should reject ideas which, if accepted, require us to accept other ideas which we know aren’t true. 2. We should reject ideas which, if accepted, lead to obvious absurdities. Belief in god fails on both counts. If I accept that the existence of god is possible, I also have to accept that the existence of the Pink Invisible Magic Panda is possible, that it’s elephants all the way down (with the caveat that our understanding of the elephants has evolved over time so that now we know they can’t be perceived except by a willing heart with the grace of the elephants themselves), and an infinite number of such absurdities. It turns the universe into an Alice-in-Wonderland funhouse that defies knowing – yet without any of the predictive power of quantum mechanics. The theists are also playing a clever game by refusing to define this god which they say exists. Suppose I said that a qubarkaar exists, and then claimed you couldn’t prove it didn’t, so your denial was mere opinion, and then refused to provide any qualities for this qubarkaar which all qubarkaarists could agree upon, then pointed to some ancient and conflicting stories about it (which contained obvious errors of fact) and had people describe their own internal communication with it. Would it be wise, or even sane, to accept such nonsense? Of course not. So my challenge to the theists, before this goes any farther: Define this thing you say exists. Once you’ve done that, in a way that doesn’t induce conditions 1 and 2 above, then we’ll happily go about disproving it. If you can’t agree on a definition, then god must be considered a mere idea, not a reality. And there, my friends, is your proof. He who has elephants, let him ride! \ Y’know, we need a button that purges all snarks and hijacks from a thread. \ ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/531 "2005-01-12T23:19:34Z")
Sorry about the double post. I thought I aborted the first in time. Please refer to the second of the seemingly twin posts. The first contains an obvious mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/532 "2005-01-12T23:28:39Z")
To lend some possible to weight to my argument that false premises do not render all that follows illogical, since the assumption appears to be that anything I say is wrong, followed by gainsaying using bad examples, I quote a [math professor](http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/logic.htm): > [@](#): > > As an academic discipline, logic lies on the boundary between mathematics and philosophy. In philosophy, logic is used whenever a philosopher argues a certain position. (Caution: Such an argument may be perfectly valid, but you may still take issue with the conclusion, depending on whether or not you believe the premises to be true.) I suppose there are folks out there who operate with impaired logic on a regular basis, but I’d be willing to bet those people could be said to operate with _impaired thought_, as in, they are not sane. If you want to say insanity is just as valid as sanity, I will concede the utter futility of my argument. There’s no reasoning with the insane, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/533 "2005-01-12T23:53:40Z")
Short answer: **Meatros** has me correct. > [@Loopydude](#): > > If you don’t mind my asking, what on Earth do these statements mean? And would I need religious tools to understand? If I lack them, am I deficient, because I cannot say what anything means? Are religious tools and semantics the same, then, or, at least, two of a kind? Do religious systems have syntax built around the meanings? Are you also suggesting religions have no relevent application to fact, and that facts cannot convey meaning? Meaning is something that is created by human brains, human minds; it is, occasionally, associated with facts, but it is not of itself factual. (Fact: Person A hands Person B a handful of cut flowers while standing on B’s steps. Meaning: encoded. Sometimes very loosely: “Oh, that’s a nice gesture. How sweet and romantic.” Sometimes in great detail: “Nice gesture. Okay, these roses are _yellow_, which has the meaning of friendship, so this gesture is not romantic.” If I’m remembering that right, at least; that’s not from my culture. Sometimes anamolously-according-to-culture: “Great. I’m being treated as a generic person who’s supposed to be thrilled at being handed severed plant genitalia.”) Someone dreams, repeatedly, of a black-veiled woman with a sword, standing in the wind and with a rainbow behind her. (Reported fact.) What does this _mean_? No meaning exists until one picks a toolset and applies it, a process requiring human discretion; someone who picks “Jungian imagery” will find or create different meanings than someone who grabs “devotion to the orisa”. Some people may like to have multiple toolsets (or portions thereof) available to them, so that they can select whichever seems most appropriate or effective to their needs and the current situation; this is my own personal preference. (I have yet to see a good argument against this flexibility.) Mythology is a process of worldview creation and expression – the stories not only encapsulate those worldviews, but code them so the meaning can be transferred and shared. (Meaning isn’t something that can be transferred without encoding, in my experience; the visible stuff – the facts – has to carry the same subjective material to all relevant parties. The phrase “If you loved me you’d” is rooted in meaning-encoding protocols.) It’s not purely a religious thing – there’s a reason I suggested earlier that folks try looking at dating threads currently in the Pit through the toolset of analysis of conflicting relationship-protocol mythology. I would not presume that you are deficient if you do not find any of these toolsets useful or appealing; I would presume that you either do not have a need for toolsets addressing those concerns or have other tools that you find serve the function for you better. Perhaps you don’t have dreams of veiled women with swords; perhaps you see no need to ascribe meaning to them when you do. I would call the study of the syntax of meaning systems in religion “theology”. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/534 "2005-01-13T00:07:56Z")
> [@Sample\_the\_Dog](#): > > The theists are playing a very clever game by defining proof only in terms of positive proof while making a negative claim (the existence of god can’t be disproved). And those who argue for them out of well-meaning, but misguided politesse, it seems. Moreover, I think this chilling fact speaks to the relatively caustic nature of this “epistemic relativism” to rational thought, by saying all experience is valid, and then claiming experience of external evidence provides no more intrinsically useful way of knowing than any other. What’s worse is that while those who rely on external evidence as their basis of logical thought can show that evidence to others as a potent and utterly honest means of corroberation, this is not, and can not be true of any other kind of experience. The relativist argues the validity of faith by claiming we must have faith in their “internal evidence”, their “other ways of knowing”, yet provide us absolutely no means of judging why we should. Rather, they say we are impertinent or asking. Faith requires faith, then (be it in internal experience, or any other unverifiable notion they decide on their own is real). To avoid being impolitic, they must further deny the necessary function of logic, ironically attemting to use logic to argue the point, as if meaningful expression of any kind did not demand it. It strains credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/535 "2005-01-13T00:09:10Z")
> [@faithfool](#): > > (Bolding mine.) > Already answered. And the bolded part is all we’ve ascertained since we’ve been going through. Then again, the answers we (I think that includes everyone here that feels “delusional” is not the correct word used to be descriptive) believe have already answered the question. I have already agreed that calling religious people “delusional” is counterproductive and that I have no urge to do so. **gum** and I are good, so I’ll leave our “agree to disagree” view where it is. Thank you **gum**. > [@](#): > > Nope, _I_ am not saying that theists say that. I’m contending that anyone called “deluded” isn’t going to (probably) agree, change their way of thinking because you called them “delusional” or do anything but feel disrespected. Yes, we agree here already. I doubt there is anything anyone could say that will change the minds of the true-believers. > [@](#): > > I have no idea, seeing as I’m not a mental-health professional. But considering that they probably have no dog in that fight nor are they bothered by using “delusional,” I would tend to guess it _might_ be because they DO NOT SEE IT THAT WAY. Just my WAG. Well yes, you’re right. They clearly do not. My question is: Why not? Do we have any mental-health wizards in the audience? _My_ opinion to this, and I stress opinion, is that you are stating your opinion here. Now, you probably don’t agree with my opinion. That is your right. But that is my answer. > [@](#): > > Testy: Why does religion get a pass on criticism? > [@](#): > > Already answered. No, it hasn’t been answered. Religion is rarely criticised and God forbid soemeone should start trying to class it as a mental illness. Now why is that? > [@](#): > > Testy: Is it the idea that all opinions are equal? > [@](#): > > To me, yes. This is obviously wrong. While everyone has a right to their opinion, they are certainly not all of equal value. Next time you are ill, you could get an opinion from **QtM** on your illness or you could get one from me. Given that I’m an IT guy, which opinion would have the greater weight with you? > [@](#): > > Testy: Just because a lot of people have this belief? > [@](#): > > Nope. “A lot” has nothing to do with it. _I_ feel it is appropriate, when in a discussion of any sort, to speak respectfully to that other person or persons. Period. I am not making a case for simply slamming all the faithful here. Somehow I have failed to make myself clear to you. I agree, and have agreed once or twice before in this thread, that calling believers “deluded” is rude and counterproductive. Now, could we drop the idea that Testy is going to suddenly start shouting “deluded fool!” at all the believers? My question, as simply as I can put it is: Why isn’t religion classed as a delusion like any other delusion? Thank you. Testy ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/536 "2005-01-13T00:30:15Z")
**Testy** , you just knew I’d come back in here for a polite question, didn’t you? 😉 However, I’m beyond thrilled to see that I can now, at least in my own little world that I live in, can add you to the list of people who are understanding me somewhat. To that I say… Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now for that question. > [@](#): > > Why isn’t religion classed as a delusion like any other delusion? I’ll do my best to give you _my_ opinion. I have no idea. Not why some do or some don’t. As I’ve said, _I_ do not out of respect. The same way I wouldn’t disrespect anyone’s belief in anything else. IE: Your example about medical advice given from **QtM** or you, the IT guy. Regardless of who’s suggestion I would follow, I would still listen patiently and respectfully. Kind of like here, how I’ve tried to, consistently I hope (if not, someone please call me on it, point it out and then I’ll issue an apology), be respectful no matter what, even if I’ve felt like throwing my monitor, myself and the cat out the window. But again, I can only speak for me. And just like, I’m assuming, you wouldn’t hazard a guess as to what a physician would do in any given situation, then I can’t possibly guess why religion hasn’t been classified one way or another by those powers that be. Like I said earlier, perhaps it’s because they don’t. I also reiterate, that I doubt it’s because they dislike the common weight carried by the word “delusional,” nor do I think they care that some find religion to be a “sacred cow.” I’m assuming they go with research, observation, whatever their logic is, facts available to them, study, peer review, trial and error and maybe context. (If an example is needed here from me, let me know and I’ll try my best.) Plus, there’s probably a whole other host of things that I don’t have a clue about, not being a specialist of this sort and all, and other things specific to each hypothesis. Or is it theory? Anyway, that’s the best I’ve got. Hope that helps explain my position. And once, thank you for being so polite and respectful. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/537 "2005-01-13T00:31:39Z")
Seems this idea that the usefulness of logic must be taken on faith has been a prevalent one, though it seems the philosophers hoist themselves on their own petard in the effort to argue it. A [voice of dissention](http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/boghossian/papers/AnalyticityReconsidered.html) (or an appeal to sanity, if you prefer). > [@](#): > > On the assumption that our warrant for believing in elementary logical truths cannot be explained, the outstanding problem is to explain our a priori knowledge of conceptual truths. For this purpose, the crucial semantical notion is that of Frege-analyticity. I have argued that this notion is bound to be in good standing for a meaning realist. > > If the project of explaining logic is not ruled hopeless, then I have tried to show how the doctrine that appears to offer the most promising account of how we grasp the meanings of the logical constants – namely, Implicit Definition – can explain the epistemic analyticity of our logical beliefs and, hence, our a priori warrant for believing them. As long as we are not prepared to countenance radical indeterminacy, we should have every confidence that this form of explanation can be made to work. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/538 "2005-01-13T00:33:03Z")
> [@Testy](#): > > My question, as simply as I can put it is: Why isn’t religion classed as a delusion like any other delusion? “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” -Voltaire Not to say that all religious people are fools, by any means… But once you throw reason and logic out the window, you’re left only with blind faith. And, for many religious folks, to admit that their belief in a God has just as much foundation as someone else’s belief in a _different_ God, or in Elves, or Pixies… well… There’s also the fact that many theists get increasingly worked up the more you press them for justification for their view. And if you point out that it’s as delusional as a belief in the Greek Gods or what have you… Well, we’ve seen what happens via this very thread. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/539 "2005-01-13T00:51:24Z")
> [@faithfool](#): > > **Testy** , you just knew I’d come back in here for a polite question, didn’t you? 😉 Hehehehe. Yes, I’m trying to convert you to the dark side. > [@](#): > > However, I’m beyond thrilled to see that I can now, at least in my own little world that I live in, can add you to the list of people who are understanding me somewhat. To that I say… > > Thank you. > Thank you. > Thank you. > > Now for that question. > > I’ll do my best to give you _my_ opinion. I have no idea. Not why some do or some don’t. As I’ve said, _I_ do not out of respect. The same way I wouldn’t disrespect anyone’s belief in anything else. IE: Your example about medical advice given from **QtM** or you, the IT guy. Regardless of who’s suggestion I would follow, I would still listen patiently and respectfully. Kind of like here, how I’ve tried to, consistently I hope (if not, someone please call me on it, point it out and then I’ll issue an apology), be respectful no matter what, even if I’ve felt like throwing my monitor, myself and the cat out the window. I may have mis-coded the nested quotes in that last reply. What I was getting at with the comparison of my opinion vs. **QtM** ’s opinion is that not all opinions are created equal. You being a nice person, I suspect you would indeed listen carefully to whatever medical bullshit I might spout and then, having common sense, go ahead and do whatever **QtM** told you. You would have made a value judgement on the relative worth of our opinions. > [@](#): > > But again, I can only speak for me. And just like, I’m assuming, you wouldn’t hazard a guess as to what a physician would do in any given situation, then I can’t possibly guess why religion hasn’t been classified one way or another by those powers that be. Like I said earlier, perhaps it’s because they don’t. I also reiterate, that I doubt it’s because they dislike the common weight carried by the word “delusional,” nor do I think they care that some find religion to be a “sacred cow.” I’m assuming they go with research, observation, whatever their logic is, facts available to them, study, peer review, trial and error and maybe context. (If an example is needed here from me, let me know and I’ll try my best.) Plus, there’s probably a whole other host of things that I don’t have a clue about, not being a specialist of this sort and all, and other things specific to each hypothesis. Or is it theory? This sounds like something a mental-health professional should be pinned down and forced to answer. My own belief is that religious belief should be classed with other beliefs in invisible, intangible beings. I’m not sure if this has been studied or considered. I have certainly never heard of anyone doing so. Please note how I cleverly avoided that loaded term we’ve been discussing! > [@](#): > > Anyway, that’s the best I’ve got. Hope that helps explain my position. And once, thank you for being so polite and respectful. 🙂 You are very welcome to the polite and respectful. I find it helps with getting answers. Actually, I think this question could be better addressed in GD than in the Pit. Is that considered a valid threat? “OK buddy, if you don’t stop it I’m going to have to take it to GD!” Best regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/540 "2005-01-13T00:53:06Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” -Voltaire > > Not to say that all religious people are fools, by any means… > But once you throw reason and logic out the window, you’re left only with blind faith. And, for many religious folks, to admit that their belief in a God has just as much foundation as someone else’s belief in a _different_ God, or in Elves, or Pixies… well… > > There’s also the fact that many theists get increasingly worked up the more you press them for justification for their view. And if you point out that it’s as delusional as a belief in the Greek Gods or what have you… Well, we’ve seen what happens via this very thread. Yes, but that is what the Pit, and probably GD, are for. There is no place to hide, obfuscations are identified, and one has the choice of either defending their arguments or conceding. Regards Testy [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925.md?page=28)