Secular Nativity

[Gordon]

I don't think he is in this case, he is arguing against the use of the word deluded.

In #289 he said "No to prove a delusion you have to provide incontrovertible evidence against.", which is not the case. A delusion can be an unjustified false belief which, by dint of being incoherent, doesn't require rebuttal and can simply be dismissed. 

That he doesn't like the term is his problem - and even though I haven't used it much myself, until today, I'd say it is relevant when someone claims that 2/3 day dead person didn't stay dead.

[Maeght]

In #289 he said "No to prove a delusion you have to provide incontrovertible evidence against.", which is not the case. A delusion can be an unjustified false belief which, by dint of being incoherent, doesn't require rebuttal and can simply be dismissed. 

That he doesn't like the term is his problem - and even though I haven't used it much myself, until today, I'd say it is relevant when someone claims that 2/3 day dead person didn't stay dead.

He is going by the definition of 'a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions' - hence his post #289.

I don't get the thing about people normally staying dead. That normally people do but Jesus didn't because he was divine is surely the point.

[Outrider]

I don't get the thing about people normally staying dead. That normally people do but Jesus didn't because he was divine is surely the point.

It's the point of the story, but as justifications for belief go, it's fairly circular. You have to accept the divinity of Jesus to allow for the idea that Jesus might have been able to do what no-one else in history has been demonstrated to do, which is being cited to justify the idea of divinity in the first place.

O.

[Maeght]

It's the point of the story, but as justifications for belief go, it's fairly circular. You have to accept the divinity of Jesus to allow for the idea that Jesus might have been able to do what no-one else in history has been demonstrated to do, which is being cited to justify the idea of divinity in the first place.

O.

You have to accept the accounts in the Bible surely. Plus the church traditions (e.g. about the apostles willingly becoming martyrs). I've heard plenty of theists say that the 'fact' of the resurrection shows Jesus was divine.

[Gordon]

He is going by the definition of 'a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions' - hence his post #289.

I don't get the thing about people normally staying dead. That normally people do but Jesus didn't because he was divine is surely the point.

I'd say that the notion of 'God' qualifies as "a false belief or judgment about external reality" but that the nature of this particular claim is such that there can never be incontrovertible evidence to the contrary since the claim itself is incoherent - and that to request such evidence, as Vlad has, is an invitation to commit the NPF.

Jesus being dead and then not is an example of a specific claim that is contrary to external reality and I'd say that anyone who accepts that claim sees it as a special case and that, therefore, they are indulging in special pleading: but for me it is a clear unjustified false belief for which there is no credible supporting evidence.

While 'delusion' may not be often applied to religious convictions it is, in my view, not totally inappropriate when it is applied to unjustified false beliefs.

[Maeght]

I'd say that the notion of 'God' qualifies as "a false belief or judgment about external reality" but that the nature of this particular claim is such that there can never be incontrovertible evidence to the contrary since the claim itself is incoherent - and that to request such evidence, as Vlad has, is an invitation to commit the NPF.

Jesus being dead and then not is an example of a specific claim that is contrary to external reality and I'd say that anyone who accepts that claim sees it as a special case and that, therefore, they are indulging in special pleading: but for me it is a clear unjustified false belief for which there is no credible supporting evidence.

While 'delusion' may not be often applied to religious convictions it is, in my view, not totally inappropriate when it is applied to unjustified false beliefs.

They would say, surely, that because Jesus was divine you can't compare his reality with that of non-divine humans. The reality for a divine human could be that they can come back from the dead, so not special pleading to say Jesus did.

Not atheist though of course. Maybe Walt/Vlad will comment.

[Gordon]

They would say, surely, that because Jesus was divine you can't compare his reality with that of non-divine humans. The reality for a divine human could be that they can come back from the dead, so not special pleading to say Jesus did.

I'd say it was fallacious special pleading - Jesus is divine, but nobody else ever was/is.

[Maeght]

I'd say it was fallacious special pleading - Jesus is divine, but nobody else ever was/is.

Christians believe he was unique don't they? So the reality for him isn't the same as the reality for others.

An interesting discussion on Christian beliefs between atheists 

[Gordon]

Christians believe he was unique don't they? So the reality for him isn't the same as the reality for others.

An interesting discussion on Christian beliefs between atheists 

Indeed - and I'm off to bed now. Goodnight Maeght.

[Maeght]

Indeed - and I'm off to bed now. Goodnight Maeght.

Me too. Goodnight Gordon.