Is antitheism a delusion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Hope]

No more or less a delusion than theism, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No more or less a delusion than theism, Vlad.

What about the statististics. Most human beings are theist,

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad, stop drinking!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

What are you drinking!! It should be free on the NHS.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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)

[Outrider]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Outrider]

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]

[Outrider]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.