Here is an appropriate quote from one of the articles link above, an interview with Robert Anton Wilson:
Anybody ready?
BTW, before I go any further, I have taken our question on whether calling this a “delusion” is an insult or not (I suppose, pertaining directly to the “Don’t be a jerk.” rule) to TPTB to get a clear ruling and for everyone to specifically know, and not be afraid, of where they stand.
I’ll let you guys know as soon as I hear back. Or y’all can email too. Which might be even better.
I suppose you missed my post on this subject, but hell, I don’t mind repeating myself repeatedly…
I HAVE NOOOOOOOOOO COWS!! SACRED OR OTHERWISE!!! NO COWS HERE, NO SIR! HAVEN’T BEEN FOR A MIGHTY LONG TIME AND DON’T PLAN ON EVER GETTING ANY MORE!! EVER! AMEN!
How’s that? Now it’s out of the way. Your (someone’s?) take on the Robot Turtles sounds intriguing. I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter. 
And in keeping with our “going 'round and 'round” theme… if your belief (strongly or not is irrelevant) in the Great RTs is not harming me by trying to legislate something, prevent something else or HARM anyone, then believe your little heart out. Again, I may try to talk to you, let you see the light in regards to the Real True Way of the Pink Mongoose, but ultimately, if you aren’t negatively impacting anyone’s world anywhere, we’re on fine ground.
To your last post; I’m ready! Pick me! Pick me! Of course, we’ll probably have to take somewhere else on a different topic so as not to continue being completely mired down in the specifics of this one. But I’m game. Plus, I’ll try to keep it at 500 words or less.
::: hides crossed fingers behind back :::
Actually I think I’m right in the middle of the chasm - something like the Coyote - not falling as long as I don’t look down.
On one hand, I’m all for politeness. On the other, many atheists lose it since there is a big elephant in the parlor of our society. Now some theists say that the elephant may be there, but they’re going to act like it isn’t because of some benefits they get from it. (Steady source of peanuts.) Others steadfastly deny it. The elephant, for those of you in the peanut gallery out there, is the lack of evidence for any deity, and the counter-evidence for many versions of said deity.
Now why should we care if there is an elephant there or not, you ask. Well, the problem is that the elephant pooped in this easy chair, and the man of the house wants us to sit there, and, there being no elephant in his eyes, can’t see why we’re objecting. The first class, by the way, says that there’s no poop, but if we think there is we can sit somewhere else. The second, after we lose it and yell at him that “there is so poop there, you delusional jerk,” says, “how dare you call me delusional!” and has a hissy fit.
My relative equanimity comes not from any innate goodness, but from having an atheist grandfather and father-in-law, growing up as a majority minority (Jewish in New York) and working in a field where almost everyone is either atheist or respectful of atheists, even if they are religious. I have not had any rights removed by people saying it is god’s will. If I had, I probably wouldn’t be so nice.
Voyager - holding up sign saying “uh oh” and plummeting to canyon floor.
Hmmm, Finn must be a bachelor.
Wait a minute. Are you locking the guy up for his beliefs or his actions? If someone is killing people in the name of a deity or because he’s an atheist who belives that all theists should be killed, he gets locked up either way. I think it’s equally rediculous for athiests or theists to impose their beliefs and state that those who don’t share their belief are wrong. Judging their actions is a totally different animal all together.
I think it was a combination of the late hour and me misunderstanding what you were disagreeing with. I thought you were disagreeing that the laws of science can change, which is why you I thought you brought up GR. Obviously this is not the case. All that extrainous stuff was more counter arguement to this.
As for faith as part of science, I feel we must just disagree. I have faith that not only are most laws very close to nature but also that the experiments and evidence that lead to them was not erroniously gathered or calculated. I think it is somewhat a leap of faith that what we know is correct while you do not see it as so. Such is the wacky world of perception.
The only reason that theists have grounds to claim that the non-existence of god hasn’t been proven is that they are allowed to continually jimmy the rules so that the existence of god is unfalsifiable.
They assert that god’s existence is beyond proof and disproof, without being able to say why this should be so – just that it is. As science advances, god retreats from the here-and-now into non-space and non-time, and scriptures (upon which much of this belief is based) which were once considered true are shown to be untrue.
I recall one similar thread (no cite, many months back, maybe even before I joined) in which one poster claimed that god can’t be disproven because someone might in the future come up with a definition for god that works!
I can’t think of any other proposition that is credited by sane people which has the dubious creds of this one. It has origins in ignorance (not stupidity, mind you), has no predictive value, must be continually redefined, spawns oceans of contradictions, cannot be agreed upon in its details or even most essentials by its adherents, and is grossly inconsistent over time.
Of course, this doesn’t make theists stupid or ignorant or anything of the sort. After all, Newton, Tolkien, and my grandparents were all deeply faithful, and I have the deepest respect for them.
Belief in god is perfectly understandable from the point of view of cognitive and evolutionary psychology. It’s perfectly natural that people should be prone to religious thinking.
But for my money, the non-existence of God – any god that someone can actually describe… not some amorphous and slippery idea of god in general – is fact. I don’t consider it opinion.
Loopydude, you’re deluded to think the things you’ve said in this thread.
(And of course, I’m not being insulting in saying so!)
Yet, if you can’t prove it to atheists like I, what hope do you have of proving it to theists?
I’m not insulted, though I can’t say if I agree or not, given that I don’t what portion of what I’ve said is delusory. I’d like an exlanation for that statement, if you don’t mind taking the trouble.
Frankly, the fact I have any hope for a world inhabited by an overwhelming majority of increasingly-crowded theists might suggest an acutely delusory aspect of my character, but I’m not 100% convinced of that yet.
If you’d read my post, you would see I was considering communications outside of The Pit. I can call you bloody-cunt-face here, that’s not the issue. If you called me asshole in Great Debates, you’d get warned. If you did it again, you’d get banned. So, if delusional is as insulting as asshole, I’ll get banned if I use it elsewhere. That seems to be the logical conclusion I can draw from the conversation. To me, I would consider that unjust, because I’d be getting banned for making a descriptive statement that should not, and veritably does not, qualify as a vulgar insult. It’s not so much that getting called an asshole upsets me, it’s that I don’t see it as commensurate with my statements. In short, I think it’s an unfair response, sincerely, because I feel my position is quite tenable, and I’ve made cogent arguments for it. It’s a reasoned oppinion that I think has been supported with a great deal of evidence.
And I still haven’t been given one suggestion as to what might be a better way to express this oppinion.
That must be because you’ve taken advantage of the available resources here where, at least, I am concerned. 
< ----- Now, add my halo please.
And to think, I offered you dinner and an apology. Loopies these days, I just don’t know what to think of them anymore.
P.S. I’d like to say how glad I am to see a few more people joining back in. The more the merrier and I’m always glad to have delightful company.
I probably could say that calling someone “deluded” was “asshole behavior” (in certain circumstances) and not get banned, though. Right?
Who says that both words have to be equal? They mean different things—they are not equal.
Who said it was a “vulgar insult”? I think some of us are saying it’s insulting, assholish behavior, bluntly rude, and so forth.
:shrug:: Well, a lot of us don’t think that “deluded” is an appropriate (or polite) way to describe our beliefs, but obviously you disagree. So what? You insist that you should use the word anyway, and we insist that we will view you as an asshole for doing so. I don’t think you’re getting anywhere with this.
Once again, so what? You say it in that way, you have people reacting to you and thinking you are being rude and insulting. You can talk 'till you’re blue in the face, and it WON’T CHANGE THAT. If a lot of people told you, repeatedly and emphatically, that “anteater” was an insulting term to them, all your talking and whining about how “unfair” it was would not magically stop them from seeing it as an insult. You don’t get to tell them what they will or will not view as an insult. You never did.
I think I did. I said “mistaken” would be a good word. “I think you are mistaken.” Oh, I am sure it does not satisfy you, but that’s not my problem. You use your imagination. I am sure that IRL you are able to find a way to not offend people that you don’t want to offend. If you don’t want to offend people here, I have every confidence that you will find a way to do so. If you don’t care (and I’m not expecting you to, if you don’t want to), then there is absolutely no reason for you to change the way you express yourself. It’s all up to you. It always has been.
“Religious.”
I’m sorry about that. I don’t do the online-to-real-world thing, I’m afraid; fear of potential axe-murderers and all. It’s nothing at all personal, and I do think it’s a kind and generous gesture. However, as callous and ungrateful as it may sound, I’m not really here to make buddies; I’m here to exchange ideas and engage in discussions such as this. I find it stimulating, it’s good mental exercise while I’m waiting for things to “cook”, (and don’t feel like reading journals though admittedly, I should be doing that more), and I really don’t take it so seriously that I cry myself to sleep at night or something. Sure, I get little testy occasionally, but I can compartmentalize this experience in a healthy manner, I think. That’s why I don’t ask to be treated with kid-gloves, and also why I’m direct. You can express all the goodwill that is necessary right here online (or not); dinner and a drink is far above and beyond what is necessary, or desired, for security reasons more than anything.
Um, Loopy dear, I don’t know where you live, but suffice it to say that the only person I’ve ever met in-person from on-line was an ex-boyfriend from high school. Not that I ever wouldn’t, it’s just that my offer was only being playful and conciliatory. 'Tis all and nothing more. Blue Bird’s honor. I have enough problems in my life without said axe-murderers. And Og knows I’ve got plenty of those! As for myself, I prefer chainsaws, but only on Sunday afternoons. Those religious folks are hard to cut through.
I’m not sure how that would work. What about the man who believes in a literal MSP or IPU and worships them? Would I call him religious as well? In that case, it would seem that we’ve just redefined “religious” as “deluded.”
Seriously though, disbelief has to be the default position someone takes when confronted with an unlikely claim. All the arguments about whether God exists or not are pretty much a waste of time. Either God does not exist or, he exists but refuses to perform even the smallest act to convince you of his existance. The difference seems moot.
So, getting back to my first post, what should we call believers if we don’t use “deluded” or some mealy-mouthed version of it?
Regards
Testy
*Bolding mine.
Oh no you don’t. Not ever. 
Testy
Either you’re saying that every theist impacts you, or you’re not saying that.
If you are saying that, please explain how Polycarp impacts you.
If you’re not saying that, then you’re evincing something dangerously close to bigotry.
(Polycarp, I hope you don’t mind me using you as an example; if so, lemme know and I’ll knock it off. I could use my father-in-law instead.)
Sure, but trash Occam’s Razor, and how do you decide between these two explanations?
- The lack of any geological record whatsoever indicates that there was never a Great Flood.
- The lack of any geological record whatsoever indicates that God covered up all signs of the Great Flood using his Omnipotence, because He wants us to believe in Him based on faith, not on analysis.
Those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible are playing golf, and it’s absurd for you to criticize them for not playing by the rules of soccer.
Daniel
Well, playing by that second set of rules, nothing at all can be proved. If God existed and had a tendancy to play tricks like this then you couldn’t say for sure that he didn’t add or remove thoughts from your mind, make certain phenomena invisible etc. All bets are off.
I guess someone could play be the second set of rules but I think I’ll stick with the logic-based ones.
Regards
Testy