Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on August 19, 2015, 12:14:15 PM
-
The ingredients are all there, the thinking and behaviour are statistically abberant in the human population. The element of grandeur and superiority
even above evolved processes, the self appellation of ''Bright'', the weakness of the majority.....seems like an open and shut case.
-
No more or less a delusion than theism, Vlad.
-
No more or less a delusion than theism, Vlad.
What about the statististics. Most human beings are theist,
-
Vlad, stop drinking!
-
Dear Vlad,
What are you drinking!! It should be free on the NHS. :P
Gonnagle.
-
No more or less a delusion than theism, Vlad.
What about the statististics. Most human beings are theist,
Just because an opinion is held by a majority does not make it right. Just because an opinion is held by a minority does not make it wrong, and or necessarily delusional.
Your argument is exceptionally weak vlad. Try harder next time.
-
The ingredients are all there, the thinking and behaviour are statistically abberant in the human population. The element of grandeur and superiority
even above evolved processes, the self appellation of ''Bright'', the weakness of the majority.....seems like an open and shut case.
How would a philosophical/political/social stance be a delusion?
You could try to argue, in theory, that the lack of an experience of a god is some form of 'delusion of mundanity', I suppose, but it'd probably be better depicted as some sort of 'disability'.
The statistics only help this case if you can show - and I suspect it's not that case - that the majority of people (which would mean a significant majority of believers) base their faith on some sort of sense of personal revelation, and even then you'd need something more significant than just the statistics to make a compelling case.
O.
-
Just because an opinion is held by a majority does not make it right. Just because an opinion is held by a minority does not make it wrong, and or necessarily delusional.
And, of course, the opposite also applies.
-
The ingredients are all there, the thinking and behaviour are statistically abberant in the human population. The element of grandeur and superiority
even above evolved processes, the self appellation of ''Bright'', the weakness of the majority.....seems like an open and shut case.
How would a philosophical/political/social stance be a delusion?
You could try to argue, in theory, that the lack of an experience of a god is some form of 'delusion of mundanity', I suppose, but it'd probably be better depicted as some sort of 'disability'.
The statistics only help this case if you can show - and I suspect it's not that case - that the majority of people (which would mean a significant majority of believers) base their faith on some sort of sense of personal revelation, and even then you'd need something more significant than just the statistics to make a compelling case.
O.
yes....I see that about a philosophical/political/stance etc.
But what about the feelings of superior implicit in antitheist behaviour in terms of claiming superior intelligence (L.James), Having bucked evolution, moral superiority(R.Dawkins et al)
-
But what about the feelings of superior implicit in antitheist behaviour in terms of claiming superior intelligence (L.James), Having bucked evolution, moral superiority(R.Dawkins et al)
As comparable to the claims of moral superiority ("You can't be good without God!") of theists? By which, of course, I mean SOME theists. You're attempting to draw a rule from your particular take on the implications of a small subset of atheists.
I'm not aware of L. James and, I'm afraid, I don't have the time to look them up right now - perhaps they're drawing an unsupported conclusion from the correlation between superior intelligence and lack of religious belief, I don't know.
You find Professor Dawkins, say, to be 'morally superior'. I don't find that, particular, but even so there are people with a sense of moral superiority in any reasonably sized sub-set of the populace.
As to the suggestion that Professor Dawkins thinks we've bucked evolution...? I can't imagine an interpretation of the events more at odds with how I see them - maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant.
O.
-
Maybe Vlad is thinking of certain comments Dawkins has made - as has Steve Jones for that matter, but Vlad isn't obsessed with him so won't mention him - that in many ways the things that humans do have taken them out of the loop of natural selection to a considerable extent, though not entirely.
-
But what about the feelings of superior implicit in antitheist behaviour in terms of claiming superior intelligence (L.James), Having bucked evolution, moral superiority(R.Dawkins et al)
As comparable to the claims of moral superiority ("You can't be good without God!") of theists? By which, of course, I mean SOME theists. You're attempting to draw a rule from your particular take on the implications of a small subset of atheists.
I'm not aware of L. James and, I'm afraid, I don't have the time to look them up right now - perhaps they're drawing an unsupported conclusion from the correlation between superior intelligence and lack of religious belief, I don't know.
You find Professor Dawkins, say, to be 'morally superior'. I don't find that, particular, but even so there are people with a sense of moral superiority in any reasonably sized sub-set of the populace.
As to the suggestion that Professor Dawkins thinks we've bucked evolution...? I can't imagine an interpretation of the events more at odds with how I see them - maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant.
O.
I would recommend you read the work of antitheist L,James and his theories that religion is due to both education and nascent intelligence.
R. Dawkins is famous for his religion root of all evil hypothesis and has commented on the immorality of the religious in comparison to the non religious coupled with a belief in moral progress with the enlightenment.
Theists have by definition less smug self belief than antitheists and this would hence represent a symptom of delusion in the antitheist.
In any case any delusion on the part of theists is irrelevant to whether antitheism is delusion....surely.
-
Maybe Vlad is thinking of certain comments Dawkins has made - as has Steve Jones for that matter, but Vlad isn't obsessed with him so won't mention him - that in many ways the things that humans do have taken them out of the loop of natural selection to a considerable extent, though not entirely.
Well Shakes, S Jones could never be accused of delusionally motivated attention seeking.....not sure about R. Dawkins though.
There is something of the messianic about the Dawkter and he does little to disavow those drawn in................I exclude my self from that of course.............. I just think he has great hair......and that means a lot to me in a man.
-
R. Dawkins is famous for his religion root of all evil hypothesis
Only if you're unfamiliar with what he has actually said as opposed to what you think he has said.
-
But what about the feelings of superior implicit in antitheist behaviour in terms of claiming superior intelligence (L.James), Having bucked evolution, moral superiority(R.Dawkins et al)
As comparable to the claims of moral superiority ("You can't be good without God!") of theists? By which, of course, I mean SOME theists. You're attempting to draw a rule from your particular take on the implications of a small subset of atheists.
I'm not talking about atheists but antitheists.
-
I'm not talking about atheists but antitheists.
In practice you pretty much have to be the former in order to be the latter. (It's arguably a necessary condition but not a sufficient one, of course).
It may be technically possible for someone to maintain the position "I adhere to a religious belief, and religious belief is wrong" in that there's no logical contradiction involved, but you'd have to go a long way to find such an individual.
-
Well Shakes, S Jones could never be accused of delusionally motivated attention seeking.....not sure about R. Dawkins though.
Well firstly that may reflect your rather bizarre and somewhat creepy obsession with Dawkins since Steve Jones is hugely well known and very high profile in his own right.
But also given that Dawkins spent many yeas in the role of Professor of Public Understanding of Science I think it is actually his job to be high profile and in the media.
But quite how this makes his 'attention seeking' (which actually means ... err ... his job) delusional. Why is Dawkins courting media attention (pretty successfully I would have thought) which is his role somehow delusional?
-
Well Shakes, S Jones could never be accused of delusionally motivated attention seeking.....not sure about R. Dawkins though.
Well firstly that may reflect your rather bizarre and somewhat creepy obsession with Dawkins since Steve Jones is hugely well known and very high profile in his own right.
But also given that Dawkins spent many yeas in the role of Professor of Public Understanding of Science I think it is actually his job to be high profile and in the media.
But quite how this makes his 'attention seeking' (which actually means ... err ... his job) delusional. Why is Dawkins courting media attention (pretty successfully I would have thought) which is his role somehow delusional?
Thanks for your opinion.
My opinion is that it is arguable that Dawkins spent those years promoting antitheism rather than science as opposed to his successor De Sautoy.
-
Ah yes, the incredible disappearing Du Sautoy. Tell me, is he still helping the public to understand science these days? Only he seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth.
-
I would recommend you read the work of antitheist L,James and his theories that religion is due to both education and nascent intelligence.
I'll add it to my horrendously long list of things I still need to read :)
R. Dawkins is famous for his religion root of all evil hypothesis and has commented on the immorality of the religious in comparison to the non religious coupled with a belief in moral progress with the enlightenment.
Again, not how I read his comments. He thinks that religion had deleterious effects on human society, yes, but not that it's 'the root of all evil', and he has said on many occasions that evil is done for any number of reasons, religion being only one of them. On the Channel 4 show he appeared in 'The Root of all Evil', he is on record as having become involved before that title was decided upon, and having complained about it prior to it being broadcast.
As to the idea that the Enlightenment has heralded a noticable moral progress - I'd say it's a marker for the start of a change in the rate of progress, whether you actively link it as causitive is a bit more speculative.
Theists have by definition less smug self belief than antitheists and this would hence represent a symptom of delusion in the antitheist.
Really? How is it definitionally less smug to think that you are the point of creation as opposed to believing you are an insignificant speck on an unremarkable piece of rock in an unexceptional part of an unimaginably vast universe?
O.
In any case any delusion on the part of theists is irrelevant to whether antitheism is delusion....surely.
[/quote]
-
I'm not talking about atheists but antitheists.
Apologies, but you do have a tendency to conflate the two, it makes it difficult to know when you mean it and when it's hyperbole.
O.
-
Well Shakes, S Jones could never be accused of delusionally motivated attention seeking.....not sure about R. Dawkins though.
Well firstly that may reflect your rather bizarre and somewhat creepy obsession with Dawkins since Steve Jones is hugely well known and very high profile in his own right.
But also given that Dawkins spent many yeas in the role of Professor of Public Understanding of Science I think it is actually his job to be high profile and in the media.
But quite how this makes his 'attention seeking' (which actually means ... err ... his job) delusional. Why is Dawkins courting media attention (pretty successfully I would have thought) which is his role somehow delusional?
Thanks for your opinion.
My opinion is that it is arguable that Dawkins spent those years promoting antitheism rather than science as opposed to his successor De Sautoy.
Fine you are entitled to your opinion. But I trust you will accept firstly that the role requires you to be high profile within the media - so you can't criticise him for being 'attention seeking' as that was his job even though you might not agree with his views.
And secondly that none of this makes his attention seeking somehow delusional, which was your claim.
-
On the Channel 4 show he appeared in 'The Root of all Evil', he is on record as having become involved before that title was decided upon, and having complained about it prior to it being broadcast.
Wikipedia:
Dawkins has said that the title The Root of All Evil? was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy. The sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous.
-
Ah yes, the incredible disappearing Du Sautoy. Tell me, is he still helping the public to understand science these days? Only he seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth.
Don't you think that's because he is not a controversialist and the media isn't interested in you if you are.
Still we have one atheist who isn't there and one who when he was there preferred
to talk about religion.
-
Ah yes, the incredible disappearing Du Sautoy. Tell me, is he still helping the public to understand science these days? Only he seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth.
Don't you think that's because he is not a controversialist and the media isn't interested in you if you are.
Still we have one atheist who isn't there and one who when he was there preferred
to talk about religion.
And?
One of the aspects of being a university academic is the notion of academic freedom - so it is perfectly reasonable for one post holder to decide to take the role in one direction and his successor to do it in a different way.
But you still haven't addressed why Dawkins courting the media (which was and actually still is his job) is somehow delusional.
-
Ah yes, the incredible disappearing Du Sautoy. Tell me, is he still helping the public to understand science these days? Only he seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth.
Don't you think that's because he is not a controversialist and the media isn't interested in you if you are.
Still we have one atheist who isn't there and one who when he was there preferred
to talk about religion.
And?
One of the aspects of being a university academic is the notion of academic freedom - so it is perfectly reasonable for one post holder to decide to take the role in one direction and his successor to do it in a different way.
But you still haven't addressed why Dawkins courting the media (which was and actually still is his job) is somehow delusional.
It is delusional I believe if he regards he has a message for the world or that he has a pivotal and special role present role in changing the world.
Whether somebody who travels the world spreading the apparently globally important message of antitheism while contracted to raise the public awareness of science with his own named web present announcing a fairly grandiose vision of protecting reason and science is likely to fit that description I don't know....one way or the other.
Hence the title of the thread.
But then we also have to profile the rest of antitheism as well.
If say celebrities are over represented among antitheists what might that mean?
-
Ah yes, the incredible disappearing Du Sautoy. Tell me, is he still helping the public to understand science these days? Only he seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth.
Don't you think that's because he is not a controversialist and the media isn't interested in you if you are.
Still we have one atheist who isn't there and one who when he was there preferred
to talk about religion.
And?
One of the aspects of being a university academic is the notion of academic freedom - so it is perfectly reasonable for one post holder to decide to take the role in one direction and his successor to do it in a different way.
But you still haven't addressed why Dawkins courting the media (which was and actually still is his job) is somehow delusional.
It is delusional I believe if he regards he has a message for the world or that he has a pivotal and special role present role in changing the world.
Whether somebody who travels the world spreading the apparently globally important message of antitheism while contracted to raise the public awareness of science with his own named web present announcing a fairly grandiose vision of protecting reason and science is likely to fit that description I don't know....one way or the other.
Hence the title of the thread.
But then we also have to profile the rest of antitheism as well.
If say celebrities are over represented among antitheists what might that mean?
No more delusional that the massively greater number of theists promulgating their 'apparently globally important message'.
But I don't believe he considers that 'he has a pivotal and special role present role in changing the world'. I think that is rather more the preserve of leaders of religion who consider themselves to be the representative (or other such grandiose guff) of god on earth, and somehow specially appointed by god. Dawkins is simply an academic appointed to a particular post and fulfilling the obligations of that post in a manner that he considers best, in line with academic freedom.
So again why is this delusional and approach of the Pope, or ABofC or any one of thousands of other religious leaders not delusional.
-
If say celebrities are over represented among antitheists what might that mean?
One thing it would mean is that you can't tell the difference between correlation and causation. Whether anti-theists are actually over- (over according to whom?) represented amongst celebrities or not I have no idea; but to be a celebrity is by definition to be conspicuous in the public eye, so a celebrity who is an anti-theist is going to be notable by definition of being a celebrity. It doesn't demonstrate that there are more celebrities-who-are-anti-theists than non-celebrities-who-are-anti-theists.
-
If say celebrities are over represented among antitheists what might that mean?
One thing it would mean is that you can't tell the difference between correlation and causation. Whether celebrities are actually over- (over according to whom?) represented amongst celebrities or not I have no idea; but to be a celebrity is by definition to be conspicuous in the public eye, so a celebrity who is an anti-theist is going to be notable by definition of being a celebrity. It doesn't demonstrate that there are more celebrities-who-are-anti-theists than non-celebrities-who-are-anti-theists.
I think the problem with this argument is that most people tend to peter out after their first couple of high profile anti-theists (if this is even correct). Hence the standard phrase 'atheist extremists like Dawkins' which actually translates to Dawkins, cos I can't think of anyone else.
So except for the bizarrely obsessed (like Vlad) I suspect few ordinary people would be able to name anyone beyond Dawkins in that category. At a push they might mention Hitchens (but he's dead), maybe Grayling (but I suspect very few people will have ever heard of him), Harris (likewise). And then there are a couple of others who are much better know for other things and although most people will have heard of them, very few will associate them with anti theism (even if they understand what this is). Fry and Gervais probably fit in that category.
So at a push we might have half a dozen people in this celebrity anti-theist category, which of course is rather less than the regular 'media loving' contributors to Thought for the day, before you even start on any number of high profile religious leaders and religious apologists, who are ten a penny.
-
The ingredients are all there, the thinking and behaviour are statistically abberant in the human population.
Might be
The element of grandeur and superiority even above evolved processes, the self appellation of ''Bright'', the weakness of the majority.....seems like an open and shut case.
Er, that's not atheism. You do know it just means not believing in gods ?
-
Ah yes, the incredible disappearing Du Sautoy. Tell me, is he still helping the public to understand science these days? Only he seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth.
Don't you think that's because he is not a controversialist and the media isn't interested in you if you are.
Still we have one atheist who isn't there and one who when he was there preferred
to talk about religion.
And?
One of the aspects of being a university academic is the notion of academic freedom - so it is perfectly reasonable for one post holder to decide to take the role in one direction and his successor to do it in a different way.
But you still haven't addressed why Dawkins courting the media (which was and actually still is his job) is somehow delusional.
It is delusional I believe if he regards he has a message for the world or that he has a pivotal and special role present role in changing the world.
Whether somebody who travels the world spreading the apparently globally important message of antitheism while contracted to raise the public awareness of science with his own named web present announcing a fairly grandiose vision of protecting reason and science is likely to fit that description I don't know....one way or the other.
Hence the title of the thread.
But then we also have to profile the rest of antitheism as well.
If say celebrities are over represented among antitheists what might that mean?
No more delusional that the massively greater number of theists promulgating their 'apparently globally important message'.
But I don't believe he considers that 'he has a pivotal and special role present role in changing the world'. I think that is rather more the preserve of leaders of religion who consider themselves to be the representative (or other such grandiose guff) of god on earth, and somehow specially appointed by god. Dawkins is simply an academic appointed to a particular post and fulfilling the obligations of that post in a manner that he considers best, in line with academic freedom.
So again why is this delusional and approach of the Pope, or ABofC or any one of thousands of other religious leaders not delusional.
I'm sure Davey there is a thread out there asking whether religion is a Delusion. Indeed Dawkins has written a book on it....but this is not that thread.
Thank you for your beliefs regarding R Dawkins.
-
No more or less a delusion than theism, Vlad.
What about the statististics. Most human beings are theist,
Numbers prove nothing. The fact is God and organized religion doesn't make sense in this modern world. Anything primitive will quite obviously be frowned upon.
-
No more or less a delusion than theism, Vlad.
What about the statististics. Most human beings are theist,
Numbers prove nothing. The fact is God and organized religion doesn't make sense in this modern world. Anything primitive will quite obviously be frowned upon.
Thank you for that.
Delusion though is a mental aberration.
I wonder if a tiny minority of Antitheists can legitimately call a majority population mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Surely that in itself is grandiosely deluded.
-
No more or less a delusion than theism, Vlad.
What about the statististics. Most human beings are theist,
Numbers prove nothing. The fact is God and organized religion doesn't make sense in this modern world. Anything primitive will quite obviously be frowned upon.
Thank you for that.
Delusion though is a mental aberration.
I wonder if a tiny minority Antitheist can legitimately call a majority population mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Surely that in itself is grandiosely deluded.
On that score we are all deluded because out psychic state is a function of the unconscious which we can't fully know about so we are governed by subliminal forces. What I say as an atheist/antitheist is that the religious are generally more deluded than the non-religious. I'm speaking in much broader terms than just the intellectual realm which the likes of Dawkins tends to adhere to.
-
If say celebrities are over represented among antitheists what might that mean?
One thing it would mean is that you can't tell the difference between correlation and causation. Whether anti-theists are actually over- (over according to whom?) represented amongst celebrities or not I have no idea; but to be a celebrity is by definition to be conspicuous in the public eye, so a celebrity who is an anti-theist is going to be notable by definition of being a celebrity. It doesn't demonstrate that there are more celebrities-who-are-anti-theists than non-celebrities-who-are-anti-theists.
And I suppose it depends whether they use their celebrity appearances
to promote antitheism rather than say, comedy.......I'm afraid the names of antitheist comedians temporarily escapes me....perhaps someone could provide me with a name?
-
What's the difference between an atheist comedian (of which there are many) and an anti-theist one, according to you?
-
What's the difference between an atheist comedian (of which there are many) and an anti-theist one, according to you?
who did you have in mind?
-
What's the difference between an atheist comedian (of which there are many) and an anti-theist one, according to you?
One sings and the other disnae.
-
What's the difference between an atheist comedian (of which there are many) and an anti-theist one, according to you?
Or even a comedian who happens to be an atheist.
Actually I can't think of a single comedian who 'markets' themselves as an atheist comedian.
-
What's the difference between an atheist comedian (of which there are many) and an anti-theist one, according to you?
One sings and the other disnae.
Ah, nearly sane perhaps you could provide the name of an antitheist comedian
-
What's the difference between an atheist comedian (of which there are many) and an anti-theist one, according to you?
One sings and the other disnae.
Ah, nearly sane perhaps you could provide the name of an antitheist comedian
More than happy to oblige, on the name of getting the traditional call and response, Will Durst.
-
What's the difference between an atheist comedian (of which there are many) and an anti-theist one, according to you?
One sings and the other disnae.
Ah, nearly sane perhaps you could provide the name of an antitheist comedian
More than happy to oblige, on the name of getting the traditional call and response, Will Durst.
Right then....apparently Will Durst was about to make an appearance but couldn't go on because he ''felt a little funny''.
His manager told him to ''get on quick before it wore off''.
......thanks Sane...that was a close one,
-
Just because an opinion is held by a majority does not make it right. Just because an opinion is held by a minority does not make it wrong, and or necessarily delusional.
I think that little gem of wisdom might have been brought up on this board before. The only explanation for why Vlad seems to have forgotten it is that he is a goldfish poster, by which I mean he can only remember the last six posts and if he doesn't continually open his mouth (metaphorically), he will suffocate.
-
Just because an opinion is held by a majority does not make it right. Just because an opinion is held by a minority does not make it wrong, and or necessarily delusional.
I think that little gem of wisdom might have been brought up on this board before. The only explanation for why Vlad seems to have forgotten it is that he is a goldfish poster, by which I mean he can only remember the last six posts and if he doesn't continually open his mouth (metaphorically), he will suffocate.
Delusion though is a mental aberration.
I wonder if a tiny minority of Antitheists can legitimately call a majority population mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Surely that in itself is grandiosely deluded
-
Delusion though is a mental aberration.
I wonder if a tiny minority of Antitheists can legitimately call a majority population mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Why not? I would suspect that pretty much everybody has mental aberrations of one form or another.
-
Delusion though is a mental aberration.
I wonder if a tiny minority of Antitheists can legitimately call a majority population mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Surely that in itself is grandiosely deluded
Unfortunately you are either deluded or lying here. It is as judged against reality or rational argument, not simply a factor of numbers.
-
I wonder if a tiny minority of Antitheists can legitimately call a majority population mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Where is your evidence that the majority of people in the UK believe in god. Actually I think most surveys over recent years have demonstrated that a majority actually don't believe in god, typically with significantly more than 50% indicating that they either 'do not believe in god but believe in a higher power' or 'do not believe in god or a higher power'.
-
I wonder if a tiny minority of Antitheists can legitimately call a majority population mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Where is your evidence that the majority of people in the UK believe in god. Actually I think most surveys over recent years have demonstrated that a majority actually don't believe in god, typically with significantly more than 50% indicating that they either 'do not believe in god but believe in a higher power' or 'do not believe in god or a higher power'.
First of all I am talking about antitheists who consider theists mentally abberant.
Secondly you seem to be suggesting that UK residents are a different species from the world population the majority of which are theist.
So let me repeat
I wonder if a tiny minority of Antitheists in the world can legitimately call a majority population in the world mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Surely that is a sign of grandiose delusion in antitheists.
-
Delusion though is a mental aberration.
I wonder if a tiny minority of Antitheists can legitimately call a majority population mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Surely that in itself is grandiosely deluded
Unfortunately you are either deluded or lying here. It is as judged against reality or rational argument, not simply a factor of numbers.
Let's see your proof that antitheism is reality...or that the majority of the worlds population are mentally abberrant.
-
Strawman again, Vlad? Please stop doing this. I haven't said anything about what is real, other than the general meaning of delusion.
-
I wonder if a tiny minority of Antitheists can legitimately call a majority population mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Surely that in itself is grandiosely deluded.
There is no number of people that makes the claim 'Do this or the zombie sky-wizard will be angry' right. It's right or wrong based on whether there really is a zombie sky-wizard who cares, say, what consenting adults do with their genitals.
O.
-
I wonder if a tiny minority of Antitheists can legitimately call a majority population mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Where is your evidence that the majority of people in the UK believe in god. Actually I think most surveys over recent years have demonstrated that a majority actually don't believe in god, typically with significantly more than 50% indicating that they either 'do not believe in god but believe in a higher power' or 'do not believe in god or a higher power'.
First of all I am talking about antitheists who consider theists mentally abberant.
Secondly you seem to be suggesting that UK residents are a different species from the world population the majority of which are theist.
So let me repeat
I wonder if a tiny minority of Antitheists in the world can legitimately call a majority population in the world mentally aberrant.(e.g.The God Delusion)
Surely that is a sign of grandiose delusion in antitheists.
Even if the whole population of the planet believed in a deity, it doesn't mean it exists unless there is verifiable evidence to support its existence!
-
Even if the whole population of the planet believed in a deity, it doesn't mean it exists unless there is verifiable evidence to support its existence!
Sort of. It likely exists or not regardless of our knowledge of the fact. We can only have any confidence in the claim based on the available evidence.
For instance: America existed before the European nations were aware of it, but without evidence there was no reason for anyone in Europe to claim that it was there.
O.
-
Even if the whole population of the planet believed in a deity, it doesn't mean it exists unless there is verifiable evidence to support its existence!
Sort of. It likely exists or not regardless of our knowledge of the fact. We can only have any confidence in the claim based on the available evidence.
For instance: America existed before the European nations were aware of it, but without evidence there was no reason for anyone in Europe to claim that it was there.
O.
A deity could exist, that is possible, if improbable, just like I could have fairies at the bottom of my garden. Without actual evidence to support the existence of a deity or fairies, the default position must be scepticism, imo.
-
Even if the whole population of the planet believed in a deity, it doesn't mean it exists unless there is verifiable evidence to support its existence!
Sort of. It likely exists or not regardless of our knowledge of the fact. We can only have any confidence in the claim based on the available evidence.
For instance: America existed before the European nations were aware of it, but without evidence there was no reason for anyone in Europe to claim that it was there.
O.
A deity could exist, that is possible, if improbable, just like I could have fairies at the bottom of my garden. Without actual evidence to support the existence of a deity or fairies, the default position must be scepticism, imo.
Absolutely, couldn't agree more. However, if you go around saying something that is effectively 'we have no evidence, therefore god doesn't exist' you fall into a trap whereby someone puts on you the onus for proving your claim.
If, on the other hand, you maintain that second position you used, that in the absence of evidence you have no reason to accept THEIR proposition, you put the onus back on them to prove the initial claim.
O.
-
Strawman again, Vlad? Please stop doing this. I haven't said anything about what is real, other than the general meaning of delusion.
There is a general meaning without clinical connotations then.......Would that be based on some kind of philosophical materialism by any chance?
-
Even if the whole population of the planet believed in a deity, it doesn't mean it exists unless there is verifiable evidence to support its existence!
Sort of. It likely exists or not regardless of our knowledge of the fact. We can only have any confidence in the claim based on the available evidence.
For instance: America existed before the European nations were aware of it, but without evidence there was no reason for anyone in Europe to claim that it was there.
O.
A deity could exist, that is possible, if improbable, just like I could have fairies at the bottom of my garden. Without actual evidence to support the existence of a deity or fairies, the default position must be scepticism, imo.
Absolutely, couldn't agree more. However, if you go around saying something that is effectively 'we have no evidence, therefore god doesn't exist' you fall into a trap whereby someone puts on you the onus for proving your claim.
If, on the other hand, you maintain that second position you used, that in the absence of evidence you have no reason to accept THEIR proposition, you put the onus back on them to prove the initial claim.
O.
I don't think I have actually said as there is no evidence, therefore the deity doesn't exist. If I have implied that, then I apologise. As I have stated a many times, it is just possible a deity could exist in some dimension or other.
-
Even if the whole population of the planet believed in a deity, it doesn't mean it exists unless there is verifiable evidence to support its existence!
Sort of. It likely exists or not regardless of our knowledge of the fact. We can only have any confidence in the claim based on the available evidence.
For instance: America existed before the European nations were aware of it, but without evidence there was no reason for anyone in Europe to claim that it was there.
O.
A deity could exist, that is possible, if improbable, just like I could have fairies at the bottom of my garden. Without actual evidence to support the existence of a deity or fairies, the default position must be scepticism, imo.
Absolutely, couldn't agree more. However, if you go around saying something that is effectively 'we have no evidence, therefore god doesn't exist' you fall into a trap whereby someone puts on you the onus for proving your claim.
If, on the other hand, you maintain that second position you used, that in the absence of evidence you have no reason to accept THEIR proposition, you put the onus back on them to prove the initial claim.
O.
I don't think I have actually said as there is no evidence, therefore the deity doesn't exist. If I have implied that, then I apologise. As I have stated a many times, it is just possible a deity could exist in some dimension or other.
But very unlikely.
ippy
-
I don't think I have actually said as there is no evidence, therefore the deity doesn't exist. If I have implied that, then I apologise. As I have stated a many times, it is just possible a deity could exist in some dimension or other.
But very unlikely.
ippy
And guessing about the identity of said unlikelihood is a foolish pastime. Yet quite a number of believers do it!