"There is no God" is an opinion, not a fact.

The BBQ Pit
341

So that’s how degraded your position has become?

Yes. Yes it is. A frightening thought which is probably why theists violently reject the notion. That and because they’re CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZY like a loon! :wink:

Actually, I prefer not to call them “insane” because that connotes a condition so grave that a person might not be able to function at all. I’ll stick with delusional. One can harbor a delusion and still be perfectly intelligent, able, and functional. If a person is delusional that doesn’t make him or her an evil, yucky, pariah. I think we all have some delusions to a greater or lesser degree. And some of these can bring great comfort.

By the very definition of “delusion” (which has already been posted here) people who believe in Martians controlling us, Pandas creating us, or the Christian God creating us are, in fact, delusional. I realize this makes you uncomfortable. Yet it remains true.

342

How about agreeing that those theists (and atheists) who understand the limit of evidence, and admit that belief is justified to the limits of the evidence are non-delusory, and those theists and atheists who either continue to hold onto refuted evidence or acts as if belief need not be justified by evidence some time, then as if the belief has been verified others, are delusory.

I include atheists because I once debated a hard atheist was was as delusory as the most wacko Creationist. If I say I know there is no God, and refuse to provide evidence, I’m delusory also. (Saying I believe there is no god is different.)

343

::: runs right back into to thread quickly to hug Voyager then will vanish :::

But first, can I have your babies??? 'Cause I think I luuuuurve you! :wink: :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

344

Yeah, that’s what they do. They want it all their way. They want to insult others and have those who they insult not react negatively to it. But it never has worked that way, and never will.

Voyager, as long as you remain civil and polite to those who do not wish to inflict or push their beliefs on others, then we’re cool. I’m all about “getting along” and being polite and civil. I don’t expect others to agree with me, or to even see my point of view. I just don’t think they have to be insulting to me when I’ve not been that way with them. A lot of strife could be avoided if people just aimed for simply “getting along.” Agreement isn’t mandatory in order to “get along.”

How silly of you to not realize that “deluded” is considered an insult, and when you call people “deluded” they will be insulted? Yes, that is silly. And deluded. One more time: You don’t get to say whatever you want, especially words that are considered insulting, and not risk being deemed an asshole. You can say it—hey, knock yourself out—but there will be a reaction. There is nothing you can do about that. THAT IS HOW ALL PEOPLE ARE. NOBODY LIKES BEING INSULTED IN A BLUNT WAY. To continue to protest that fact is, pardon me, deluded.

And some people don’t ask for any critique, but they get one anyway.

You’re deluded to think that you can use insulting words and not get called on it. This isn’t about how the “faithful” react, it’s about human nature, about how everyone reacts to deliberately insulting language. You can say whatever insulting (but "honest) thing you like, and you will experience reactions—no matter whether the person is an atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever. Every damned time, you’ll get that same negative reaction when you insult someone (all in the name of “honesty” of course). if you are unaware of this fact, you are either living under a rock, or are (one more time) deluded.

345

Loopy You seem to be using the word deluded in the classical way as in what the term originally meant and mean no insult. Problem is society has attached very negative connotations to the word. Like it or not they can not be separted from the word now. yosemite is right. The word is insulting. It is whether you meant it to be or not.

FWIW I am an atheist but would never use that word to describe a person of faith in the name of civility.

346

Or, it could be an experiment, to see if someone could actually be convinced of the accuracy of the term, and, in so doing, come to examine why it is accurate, be they perturbed by the implication or no.

You are perhaps correct: It was nutty of me to expect such open-mindedness.

347

As has already been discussed; it is logical to state “There is no God” in the same way it is logical to state “There are no Giant Robot turtles controlling my mind.” In both statements there is no absolute proof, and never can be. Yet it is reasonable to assume that there are no Giant Robot Turtles because there is absolutely no evidence of them. Precisely the same as “God”.

Yes you can state “There is a God” in response to anyone who states “There is no God”. It is your prerogative. But don’t think that the two statement have an equal weight.

Consider:

*“There are Giant Robot Turtles controlling my mind.”

“There are no Giant Robot Turtles controlling my mind.”*

Which statement comes closer to your idea of reality? Which one seems more like a delusion to you?

348

I am certainly not an Atheist. I too, await evidence of the existence of God (as he is commonly thought of–Abrahamic, and all that). I am probably more of a pantheist than anything.

See that? I guess that makes me a theist. But I’ve always said there is a big difference between considering God to be something known to exist (for example, the Cosmos) and considereing God something that there is no evidence of.

349

What. The. Fuck.

I’m sputtering at the monitor here over the ENORMOUS brush you’re wielding. Do you really mean to say that religious believers are the ONLY ones who have EVER done damage to…whatever it is you’re referring to? That non-believers are all shining paragons of virtue and goodness, and that everything would be all right if it weren’t for these pesky believers coming in and screwing everything up?

News flash: Religion doesn’t make people hate each other, and kill each other, and destroy things. Human nature does that. Religion may help channel that, but anything that unites people has the potential to do the same. Race and homeland, to give two examples that have also been used to inspire hate, death, and destruction.

I will remind you that there is no way to prove that Giant Robot Turtles are not controlling your mind, which is the point of the OP’s rant. Nyah nyah, you fucker.

350

Stunning. You may want to check your quotes, though.

351

Dio’s got a really good point. If you all want to believe God or Casper the Friendly Ghost or Santa Claus that’s fine. Just keep it to yourself. As soon as this stuff is allowed to be propagated in public intitutions–especially ones that we help pay for–then your beliefs are fair game.

352

And that’s what happens when you don’t proofread, boys and girls. I apologize for the misattribution.

353

Well, I have never seen a siamang, including pictures of the same. I gather they look like an overgrown gibbon, from the description.

So if we substitute in “Siamangs” for “Giant Robot Turtles controlling my mind” I have a premise which can be defended – the only proof of them is by authority, in publications which I know have made errors of detail.

Now which is more reasonable?

354

All this crap about delusion, who’s setting the standards of normality? You can’t choose between science and faith because science requires faith. The laws of science are not immutable and are useless without faith in them.

If some one sees the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwhich and sees evidence of God there where as someone else sees just a random pattern, who’s right? Hell, maybe both. Maybe neither. Maybe God did reach down to the toaster oven and bless the lunch of the believer. Questioning the motives of a higher being is futile at best. I’m sure my dog would love for me to explain why she can’t chew on those nice wires that run under my computer, but try as I might I can’t explain that to her in any way she’ll understand. She may wonder why her cries go unheard during the day, but how do I convince her that I have to go to work?

I got one for ya, gobear. Prove to me that homosexuality is fine.

355

The idea of delusion is value neutral. Calling an overweight woman a “fat hideous cow” is not value neutral. You may choose to take extreme umbrage at a statement that does not make any judgement whatsoever of your worth if you choose to, but when you do, it seems your skin in awfully thin.

I could get inulted if someone called me a Canadian, but it sure would be silly to do so. In fact even if I actually was a Canadian and thus the person was absolutely correct in calling me one it would still be rather silly. Because “Canadian” like “delusional” are merely descriptive adjectives that make no value judgements.

If you choose to attach extra baggage to a word, that is your problem.

356

Well, given that it’s been the theists for most of human history, I’d venture it’s them. Hence, delusion is extremely normal, so much so I wonder, quite honestly, I don’t experience it they way they do.

This is so wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to start. Maybe an example will help the most:

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity has been tested to the limits of our technological capability, and never has anyone been able to demonstrate that what we have observed deviates from predictions based on the theory, recently to an accuracy of better than around 50 parts-per-million. Pretty good, right?

Yet, physicists have gotten millions of dollars in funding to launch Gravity Probe B, an instrument designed to detect gravitomagnetism, in this context manifested as a phenomenon called frame dragging. Gen. Rel. predicts such weird effects, but it’s been fiendishly difficult to observe, because gravity is so weak, and the effects so small. But why should be bother expending the time and money, to launch one of the most sensitive detectors ever designed, to test a theory that, in every other test, has passed with such flying colors no one seriously doubts its accuracy?

Because you can never be sure.

Faith is the antithesis of science. General Relativity has provided us with, IMO, mind-blowing insight into the workings of the cosmos, and suggests realms of existence I must struggle with all my mind just to get the slightest grip on. It is probably the first or second-most important and far-reaching theoretical framework the human mind has ever conceived of. It has been shown in every assay tried to be without predictive flaw, and yet we’re still testing it. You do not need faith, nor ought you to have it, when investigating the world using the scientific method. You demand evidence, you build theoretical frameworks around that evidence, and you test those theories ceaslessly to see if the principles they contain can be violated. That is precisely how scientists go about thier business every day, and they actually often quite look forward (though not without trauma, at times) to the moments when old theories are overturned and modified due to new experimental insights. It is a constant pursuit of something that may be wrong with what we think we know, and typically the moment a scientist has faith in their theories, the moment they start to fail. It happens all the time, even to the greatest, because they’re human. But the discipline moves forward with or without them, never trusting what came before enough to abandon testing the fronteirs of what we think we know.

357

Read Grant’s post. It is not neutral. One more time—you can’t have it all your way. You can’t use a word that you know is often considered to be an INSULT and just expect people to not take it as an insult. You cannot expect them to not react negatively to you for saying it. Don’t like it? Not my problem. You can’t tell other people how they should interpret your words. You cannot dictate how they will react to you, or what opinion they will form of you. If enough of them think that “anteater” is an insult, and you know that they think of it as an insult, and you use the word anyway, you will get a bad reaction. Telling them that they “ought” to not feel insulted won’t change anything. You cannot insist that they should not view you as an asshole, if your actions indicate to them that you are.

And if you choose to be bothered because people view you as an asshole for words you choose to use, then that’s your problem. One more time: you cannot tell us not to view you as an asshole. If it bothers you that you are viewed as an asshole, stop using words that trigger the reaction. If you don’t mind being deemed an asshole, keep using the same words you are using. It’s really that simple.

358

Faith is not the anti-thesis of science. Science requires faith in certain principles, namely, the principles of scientific method. A scientist needs to have faith in the principle of induction, faith that a=a, faith that if a=b and b=c then a=c, etc. (those three happen to be unprovable principles of logic, but there are others as well, such as faith in the basic rationality of the universe). The principles of the scientific method do change, yes, but generally they are not proven or disproven, only believed in and not believed in. Pick up any philosophy of science book, from Kuhn to Lakatos, and it will show that scientists take at least * some * principles on faith.

Sorry if this is a hi-jack, but if it is, then it’s a hi-jack of a hi-jack. :smiley:

359

Easy. All I need is a bottle of wine, some scented candles, a Modest Mouse CD, and some lube.

360

Oh, I know Kuhn. Doesn’t mean I believe all of what he says. I don’t know where philosphers get some of these ideas, but generally the scientists I know, the ones who are doing actual science, use the scientific method because it works. They accept certain logical-seeming, if (per Gödel) unprovable axioms because they’ve shown themselves reliable in every instance tested. There seems to be no room for pragmatism in these philosophical discussions.