Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are not doing any kind of methodology. You need to show how you get from adverse reactions to the idea of God existing to God actually existing.

Neurology is making great strides etc. ha ha ha.......

[Rhiannon]

I've never read the God Delusion, Vlad, or any other books on atheism. Not one. It's personal experience that makes 'God does not exist' real for me. Of course if God could be demonstrated I'd have a bit of a problem, but as it is...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

The only odd thing here is a suggestion that a methodology is needed to establish a forty foot truck is there. It isn't and we have already satisfied ourselves though not universally....what about the blind?, that it is there.
Methodology does not conjur it into existence.

I'll take the latter bit first. I have already said that methodology does not conjure it into existence, so stop misrepresenting me.

You picked the 40 foot truck example. I didn't say we needed any particular methodology to determine it just that there obviously was one. I think you regret this example now because you are undermining your own position.

Claim = 40 foot truck: Methodology: Many simple ones available.

Claim = God, creator of Universe: Methodology : Vlad says so. He experiences it so it must be true.

[Rhiannon]

Neurology is making great strides etc. ha ha ha.......

Science doesn't do God though. Isn't that what you said?

[Stranger]

And besides on that great day when the God Delusion went onto the bookshelves
I don't think any of you guys stopped to ask the question.....delusion ........or self revelation.

You still haven't said how you tell the difference...

You really don't have anything but unsupported assertions, do you?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

There is a problem here with you using the word delusional here since a delusion usually refers to people thinking that something is in fact something else.

Yes, the experience in your head being caused by God.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Neurology is making great strides etc. ha ha ha.......

I beg your pardon, are you quoting me?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You still haven't said how you tell the difference...

yep I have stated that the word ''delusion'' has a definition which is different to ''God delusion'' which would be more akin to ''ontological naturalism delusion'' in which the so called atheist puts aside his manifest disturbance by God and pretends to a commitment to full blown ontological naturalism.

Whenever I ask which other delusion atheists equate delusion of God to, they are quite unforthcoming......perhaps I will have more luck with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, the experience in your head being caused by God.

............rather than?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science doesn't do God though. Isn't that what you said?

Did you not notice the ha ha ha.

On the other hand......... if the same centres are found to operate in revulsion to God as say rebellion against adult authority? Hmmmm Interesting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll take the latter bit first. I have already said that methodology does not conjure it into existence, so stop misrepresenting me.

You picked the 40 foot truck example. I didn't say we needed any particular methodology to determine it just that there obviously was one. I think you regret this example now because you are undermining your own position.

Claim = 40 foot truck: Methodology: Many simple ones available.

Claim = God, creator of Universe: Methodology : Vlad says so. He experiences it so it must be true.

To be fair the last sentence misrepresents me. I have always been at great pains to say you have to find God for yourself but I suppose you are new to this board.

Besides we are analysing antipathy to God here.

[Shaker]

Besides we are analysing antipathy to God here.

... which doesn't seem to exist anywhere but in what I'm sure you like to think of as your mind.

[Stranger]

yep I have stated that the word ''delusion'' has a definition which is different to ''God delusion'' which would be more akin to ''ontological naturalism delusion'' in which the so called atheist puts aside his manifest disturbance by God and pretends to a commitment to full blown ontological naturalism.

Whenever I ask which other delusion atheists equate delusion of God to, they are quite unforthcoming......perhaps I will have more luck with you.

According the the Oxford Dictionaries site, delusion means An idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

That seems to cover many versions of god.

How do you propose we equate delusions?

You still haven't told us about how we could assess the truth of claims about gods....

[Stranger]

Besides we are analysing antipathy to God here.

We are? You maybe would prefer that to actually coming up with any reasoning, evidence or methodology for assessing the truth of claims of the existence of gods.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

According the the Oxford Dictionaries site, delusion means An idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

Cant be a delusion then since any definition of reality is an ontological philosophy and rational argument has not dismissed God.

How can something though held by the majority of people in the world be labelled as a mental disorder I don't know.......(Note for dumbasses ....that is different from an argumentum ad populum.)

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

To be fair the last sentence misrepresents me. I have always been at great pains to say you have to find God for yourself but I suppose you are new to this board.

Besides we are analysing antipathy to God here.

Since when are we?

I don't have any antipathy to God as I have no reason to believe he exists.

As for finding God for ourselves, how would we know that we had found God rather than simply being mistaken?

[Shaker]

How can something though held by the majority of people in the world be labelled as a mental disorder I don't know.......(Note for dumbasses ....that is different from an argumentum ad populum.)

Explain the difference between the two, by all means.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... which doesn't seem to exist anywhere but in what I'm sure you like to think of as your mind.

I see then Shaker that like me you never really bother with Floo's posts.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

............rather than?

you mistakenly attributing an experience of God for early having an experience of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

you mistakenly attributing an experience of God for early having an experience of God.

How could I be I mistaking it?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

.

Whenever I ask which other delusion atheists equate delusion of God to, they are quite unforthcoming......perhaps I will have more luck with you.

Maybe because the question doesn't make any sense? What do you mean by equating delusions?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Explain the difference between the two, by all means.

Yes, usually something common to the majority is not referred to as a disorder Shaker.

It may be considered so in that tiny community known as antitheism but statistically they are not normal themselves...are you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe because the question doesn't make any sense? What do you mean by equating delusions?

The question is asking for an exemplar delusion. That is surely a simple and reasonable request.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

How could I be I mistaking it?

Well firstly you are shifting the burden of proof. It's your claim that this experience is God, it's up to you to show how you know it?

You would need to tell me the specific details of the experience.

[Shaker]

Yes, usually something common to the majority is not referred to as a disorder Shaker.

Why not?