…flaw in your arguement… :smack:
Apparently KC should head off to bed.
You’re post was pretty difficult to parse, and contained a lot of spurious information (which really doesn’t seem to help whatever point you’re trying to make, but I digress), so I’ll just focus on this blatantly wrong statement.
Science doesn’t necessarily require you to do anything, but does provide a good frameword for investigation using a tried-and-true methodology. Certainly, there are lots of things that have been demonstrated to work with a high degree of accuracy and reproducibility, such that one can proceed from these well-established principles, instead of reinventing the wheel every time a new line of investigation is explored. That doesn’t mean one is required to believe those principles we rely on absolutely, but one can be awfully confident in them, and ought to have a damn good reason to doubt them before telling everybody they’re unreliable. If you’re going to say something like “gravity can shut off sometimes”, and you understand the current theory of gravity, you’re going to be highly skeptical, even dismissive, and you’d have considerable justification to take such a stance. Certainly scientists, being human beings, can be prone to believing some things, given how seemingly perfectly reliable they are, but I suppose one really should be open to radical changes in understanding from time to time, if the new theories are tenable.
Sorry, I’ve been fixed. 
Hey, I’m just calling them as I see them.
Apparently not, as I’ve no idea what you’re referring to here. How’s that?
Though I fear hijacking a hijack, science does not depend on faith, and all “laws” are subject to change if the preponderence of evidence requires such. Nothing in physics was more certain than Newton’s Laws, but science modified them with astonishing speed when the evidence said so.
Umm, we’re discussing if a higher being exists, not what its motives may be. So the second half of this paragraph is pointless. As for the first half, if you wish to suggest that a person who is convinced of God’s existence because God placed a picture of his Mom in a sandwich is as rational as someone who understand what parts of the Bible are backed by evidence and which aren’t , and chooses to believe anyway - be my guest. But I’m not going to trust your opinion much about anything.
Now I know I won’t trust you on anything.
They did. The correction at normal velocities is too small too measure - usually. You do know that time dilation was measured during orbital flights, right?
Wrong. Another myth you believe in. Cite. Someone did a back of the envelope calculation at a party, demonstrating that mathematical models can be wrong, especially if done after wine. Physics never claimed that bumble bees can’t fly.
You know Democritus didn’t use the scientific method, right? That when a bunch of philosophers throw out a bunch of ideas, one of them might be a bit right. The structure of the atom is demonstrated from first principles, and only then did someone notice that Democritus happened to believe in something similar.
Do try to understand something about science before you make a further fool of yourself.
gobear, you’re too good for this one. 
Please, Lord, prove you exist by striking this thread with a bolt of lightning.
Well, in the opinions of some of us, He loves us too much to do something like that.
As his active sending or passive permitting of the recent tsunami to kill tens of thousands of people so amply proves.
Not so: the objective nature of a universe that is accessible through human sensory perception was, and is, more certain; it also cannot be proved by any tool available to scientists. Nor can the principle of causality. Nor can Occam’s razor.
Loopy, you’re hung up on the denotation of the word “deluded,” while ignoring its connotations. That you were doing so originally made you ignorant; that you’re doing so after having it explained to you makes you–well, asshole may be pretty strong, but it certainly doesn’t make me want to be on your team.
Daniel
If not “delusional,” then what should we call it? I personally consider “delusional” to be insulting but am unsure what else to use. Any other belief in unprovable or possibly even nonexistant forces (IPUs, MSPs) would be considered a delusion. Why does religion get a pass?
Regards
Testy
::: looks around and wonders if it is now safe to post :::
Timidly… LHoD, I shout hallelujah because someone else got it too. YIPPEE!! I’m sure that’s just one more reason, among many, why I’ve got a crush on ya. Of course, working with animals helps.
::: blushes :::
Golly, now I’m blushing too :D. I definitely get what you’re saying, and my position differs from [what I understand to be] that of gobear and Loopydude as follows:
While I have equal belief in YHWH and in leprechauns, in Jesus’s divinity and astrology’s utility, I’m not particularly concerned about the fact that other people disagree. What I don’t know about the universe monumentally eclipses what I do know, and I figure I’m just muddling along like everyone else is. As long as they leave me to my guesses about the nature of the cosmos, I’m happy to leave them to their guesses. And I won’t call them names in the process.
Once their guesses about the universe start impinging on me–for example, if they start forbidding me from holding public office because my guess is different from theirs–then sure, I might call them names. But I won’t call all religious folks names at the same time. I’ll do my best to limit my namecalling to the ones that are being tweakers.
And calling someone “delusional” is namecalling. Hiding behind the dictionary is either disingenuous cowardice or terrible ignorance about the nature of a living language.
Sure, you and I have different guesses about the nature of the universe; Polycarp and I have different guesses. I don’t see where I’d get off judging my guess as objectively better than y’all’s, though: I’m nowhere knowledgeable enough to do that.
Daniel
Picky, picky, picky. I think you’re putting Descartes before the horse.
Before Voyager (you fixed fellow you! :eek: ) snuck in between…
::: shouting :::
He talked to me! He talked to me! 
Ahem. Well. That’s all we’ve been trying to get through. Is that despite different beliefs (many of which are undoubtedly interesting and worth pursuing), everyone is capable of doing so without being insulting. Now whether or not the word “delusion” should carry no value judgment is irrelevant, for lots of people feel that saying “Oh, that’s so gay (or ghey – whatever)!” don’t mean it the way it sounds to those it offends. However, most here at least, find it to be a pejorative. Therefore, they don’t use it. And with conflicting views on anything, especially on line where you brain can engage before your mouth is in gear (except maybe for those poor lost souls in chat 
– 'cause that shit moves fast!), there is time to consider how you’ll come across to other folks.
Again, that’s MHO. I’m just glad that there are others that share it.
[QUOTE]
How would you describe someone who believes in leprechauns, and furthermore makes serious and consequential life decisions based on that belief, in terms that could not be considered “namecalling”? I am looking for a neutral, but fully descriptive term here. I do not mean to advocate “delusional” as my choice, as it obviously has negative connotations for (at least) some posters in this thread, but how would you describe someone who has a belief that to you is irrational?
How about “blind faith”?
Blind faith doesn’t have the same connotation. Something you have blind faith in may very well be true, and might have evidence to support it.
A delusion has none, and its support is only blind faith.
I do believe there is a difference.
Statement 1: I believe that Pixies and Elves created the world in seven days.
Statement 2: I believe that God created the world in seven days.
Why is one delusional, but the other is blind faith?
All respect due to the theists in this thread, you may think people who call you on your irrationality are assholes. And, to you, they may even be assholes. But that is only because religion is (no pun intended) your sacred cow. You most likely wouldn’t have a problem calling someone who ran the country based on his belief in Wood Sprites delusional . Why, then, is God so much cooler than Wood Sprites?
But faith isn’t a guess. It’s a claim to knowledge a priori, and quite often in spite of contradicting evidence. Your equal belief in Christ the Divinity and Leprechauns is justified, because they both have no evidence to back their existence. In fact, there’s been considerable evidence gathered throughout the years that cast both the existence of Leprechauns, and the notion of Christ’s Divinity, in serious doubt. Yet you’re not willing, despite your admitted perception of parity between the Christ God and Leprechauns to state openly you find the notion of either delusory? Why? It’s not inaccurate. It’s not a biased statement, in any literal sense. You should be as free to express yourself as anyone else without being stifled or accused of bigotry, especially if what you’re expressing is reasonable, equinaminous, and fair. That seems to me to be the point no one can admit here.
Say you challenged me to a debate about perceptions of body image, stated you had a BMI of 42, and I observed you are morbidly obsese. You call me insensitive and insulting. You find such a stark characterization beyond the pale for polite discussion. I point out this is a debate, not a tea party, and that the terminology, whether you like it or no, is a perfectly valid, even technically correct description. Well, in your mind it’s correct, but that’s your oppinion, you retort. I show you the definition of morbidly obese. You counter that while it’s pedantically correct to use such words, they’re hurtful and I shouldn’t use them. Well, what should I call it, I ask. Something else, you say, something less pejorative. I point out again that “morbidly obese” is not pejorative, it’s an accurate, valid, dispassionate description, and while certainly not a euphamism, should not be a means of description or characterization worthy of censure, regardless of how it makes you feel. It doesn’t qualify as hate speech. You tell me I’m daft, and point out that just because calling somebody a fat fucking pig is accurate, I shouldn’t do it. I point out again there’s a big difference between “you’re morbidly obese” and “you’re a fat fucking pig”, both in terms of accuracy and intent. My purpose is to make a valid point, not to hurl epithets. Well, that’s what you’re doing, you asshole, you counter. So, you want me to say you’re pleasantly plump, or big-boned, is that it? I don’t find those satisfactory means of expressing the concept I’m trying to get across, and whether I say something over a paragraph, or over two words, what I think, and what I mean, is that you are morbidly obese. That term conveys precisely what I’m trying to say, and is in every way a valid, understandable, and technically accurate. It’s a good way to put it. It’s not a bigoted or hyperbolic statement. If it makes you uncomfortable, maybe it’s because being morbidly obese is generally not regarded as a positive state of physical health. I can’t help that. I’m sorry it bothers you. I feel it is important to express the concept as is, because it’s an important concept. Morbid obesity has implications, not just for you, but for me as well, because an epidemic of obesity has society implications, from the relatively benign, to the positively destructive, and I don’t think an equinanimous means of expression related to the subject should be stifled because you find it disturbing or insulting. I might find it disturbing and insulting to think I have to behave in such a timid and dissembling manner that I cannot say “morbidly obese” without fear of censure. You haven’t even given me a suggestion for how I might convey my thoughts accurately, and in a way that doesn’t disturb your sensibilties, which you clearly value over mine to the point you would be deliberately insulting toward me. Have I made myself clear?
“Boy, what an asshole.” is your final position.
Yeah, you guys have made yourselves very clear, and I do get what you’re saying. I just happen to think it’s unwarrented, repressive, and patently unfair. Get used to disappointment, 'cause you’re in the minority, asshole, appears to me the best advice I can get out of you folks. I’m already quite used to being disappointed by theists, thanks, so that’s little additional help. Not that you are concerned, or, I suppose, should be obliged to be, but I refuse to admit that I am acting wantonly in how I am expressing myself, nor do I submit to the notion that, although you may find “delusory” inappropriate, that it actually is. Perhaps just because it offends your sensibilities, it’s still not wrong. Maybe I think I’ve got a valid and well-conceived position on the subject, and feel it’s unfair to have it suppressed. Maybe I find the use of words I deem good something to assert myself over, without being cowed by the majority for having an unpopular position.
Since I’ve already stumbled back in here, let me ask Contrapuntal, FinnAgain and Loopydude this…
1.) Why is it necessary to call them anything? Is this a job that’s been given out to certain people and I just missed it because I was watching cartoons that day?
-and-
2.) Specifically to Loopydude, have you not noticed that several people thus far (like ME! ME! ME!) are not theist or have very little belief in God or don’t care one way or another? Therefore this is “not a sacred cow” to them. I know I’d feel the same away about someone letting a door slam in another’s face, not thanking a waitress for bringing your water or those stupid dots they’ve started putting on current movie release to prevent some people for copying them and selling the product.
If this doesn’t make my position to you known, maybe I should just offer to buy you a glass of wine. But I will add, I, personally, DO NOT CARE if you call me delusional. I may have a feeling about that though. However, everyone is perfectly allowed to believe what they want, have opinions or anything else. I simply was stating what I felt should be a universal stand for everyone who wishes to participate graciously in society. Across the board. Faith or not.