Is antitheism a delusion?

[Outrider]

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.

[floo]

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!

[Outrider]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[floo]

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.

[ippy]

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

[Leonard James]

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!