Is antitheism a delusion?

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[splashscuba]

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 ?

[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.

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Shaker]

What's the difference between an atheist comedian (of which there are many) and an anti-theist one, according to you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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,

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Strawman again, Vlad? Please stop doing this. I haven't said anything about what is real, other than the general meaning of delusion.