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.

[Outrider]

You have to accept the accounts in the Bible surely.

Why? We have nothing concrete, we have nothing evidentiary from the time, we have a few sparse sources that suggest Christianity was becoming a thing in the early years after the alleged events, and then we get the books of the New Testament accumulated, edited, re-written and selectively translated over the next few centuries. That the Jesus myth is likely based on a real person seems likely, but far from guaranteed, but to accept the claims of magic would require much more robust evidence than that.

Plus the church traditions (e.g. about the apostles willingly becoming martyrs).

People believe it profoundly, yes. People profoundly believe other, contradictory, religious teachings - they can't all be right, but they can very much all be wrong.

I've heard plenty of theists say that the 'fact' of the resurrection shows Jesus was divine.

That they think it's a fact doesn't make it a fact. I don't accept that the Theory of Evolution is a fact, it's just an incredibly robustly supported but technically refutable explanation for the phenomena that we see. If I don't accept that as a fact, I'm sure as hell not going to go with the resurrection myth on the strength of one extremely unreliable bed-time story.

O.

[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why? We have nothing concrete, we have nothing evidentiary from the time, we have a few sparse sources that suggest Christianity was becoming a thing in the early years after the alleged events, and then we get the books of the New Testament accumulated, edited, re-written and selectively translated over the next few centuries. That the Jesus myth is likely based on a real person seems likely, but far from guaranteed, but to accept the claims of magic would require much more robust evidence than that.

People believe it profoundly, yes. People profoundly believe other, contradictory, religious teachings - they can't all be right, but they can very much all be wrong.

That they think it's a fact doesn't make it a fact. I don't accept that the Theory of Evolution is a fact, it's just an incredibly robustly supported but technically refutable explanation for the phenomena that we see. If I don't accept that as a fact, I'm sure as hell not going to go with the resurrection myth on the strength of one extremely unreliable bed-time story.

O.

But delusion is not about proof. It’s about belief for which there is incontravertable evidence to the contrary. In the context of history then you have to provide an alternative account that is also incontravertable.

[ProfessorDavey]

But delusion is not about proof. It’s about belief for which there is incontravertable evidence to the contrary. In the context of history then you have to provide an alternative account that is also incontravertable.

That is non-sense on stilts - if you don't believe something there is no requirement to provide an alternative explanation. If you do believe something then the onus is on the believer to justify their belief.

Delusion is believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is false, or non believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is true.

But that isn't the territory we are on here, as the agnostic element of agnostic atheist (as I'd describe myself) relates the the notion that we do not have incontrovertible evidence that god exists and it is also pretty well impossible to prove that something doesn't exist and therefore we do not have incontrovertible evidence that god does not exists. In terms of knowledge we are in uncertain territory.

But the atheist (or theist) part is about belief - in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary it is not delusional to believe that something does not exist. But there is a further point, which is whether there is any credible evidence, that falls short of incontrovertible evidence, but evidence non-the-less. To my mind there is no credible evidence for the existence of god (albeit there is no incontrovertible evidence that god does not exist), which leads me to belief that god does not exist based on that lack of evidence. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm completely comfortable in my conclusion on the basis of belief (or rather lack of belief).

Where I struggle is with those who, despite a lack of evidence, still believe in god. While that doesn't get to incontrovertible evidence that god does not exist, to believe something where there is no credible evidence to support that belief seems close to delusional. And also inconsistent double standards as those who believe in a specific god (e.g. christian god) despite the lack of evidence also reject other gods (where the evidence is just as lacking) and other phenomena (flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapots, leprechauns) where there is similarly no credible evidence for their existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is non-sense on stilts.

Delusion is believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is false,

That’s what I just said!

or non believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is true.

But that isn't the territory we are on here

Where have you been?

as the agnostic element of agnostic atheist (as I'd describe myself) relates the the notion that we do not have incontrovertible evidence that god exists and it is also pretty well impossible to prove that something doesn't exist and therefore we do not have incontrovertible evidence that god does not exists. In terms of knowledge we are in uncertain territory.

But the atheist (or theist) part is about belief - in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary it is not delusional to believe that something does not exist.

Never said it was

But there is a further point, which is whether there is any credible evidence, that falls short of incontrovertible evidence, but evidence non-the-less.

what then is the evidence that God does not exist

To my mind there is no credible evidence for the existence of god (albeit there is no incontrovertible evidence that god does not exist), which leads me to belief that god does not exist based on that lack of evidence. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm completely comfortable in my conclusion on the basis of belief (or rather lack of belief).

Where I struggle is with those who, despite a lack of evidence, still believe in god. While that doesn't get to incontrovertible evidence that god does not exist, to believe something where there is no credible evidence to support that belief seems close to delusional. And also inconsistent double standards as those who believe in a specific god (e.g. christian god) despite the lack of evidence also reject other gods (where the evidence is just as lacking) and other phenomena (flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapots, leprechauns) where there is similarly no credible evidence for their existence.

Flying Spaghetti Monster has an author and is a horses laugh, fallacy, ditto orbiting tea pots and Leprechauns. They are merely contingent entities anyway.

[SteveH]

what then is the evidence that God does not exist.

None is necessary. Burden of proof again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None is necessary. Burden of proof again.

It is for a claim of delusion apparently. If you can’t get that I can’t help you.
But if you do it might bring you to thinking that belief in God is not a delusion after all.

[Outrider]

But delusion is not about proof. It’s about belief for which there is incontravertable evidence to the contrary.

That's one definition, yes. It can also be an understanding or experience in defiance of the evidence. If it's wrong it's a delusion, whether I can prove/disprove it or not. I can only prove that it's a delusion if I can prove that the belief is wrong, yes, but I can believe that it's a delusion without having that proof.

In the context of history then you have to provide an alternative account that is also incontravertable.

They made it up. We have thousands of other religious myths that, presumably, most of Christendom think were made up. Why should we think this one is any different?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's one definition, yes. It can also be an understanding or experience in defiance of the evidence. If it's wrong it's a delusion, whether I can prove/disprove it or not. I can only prove that it's a delusion if I can prove that the belief is wrong, yes, but I can believe that it's a delusion without having that proof.

They made it up. We have thousands of other religious myths that, presumably, most of Christendom think were made up. Why should we think this one is any different?

O.

Diverse myths seem though to have the same source. Gilgamesh and the flood.
A certain type of person dismisses myths per se. Tribalism might stop some arbitrarily from enjoying other myths. Being an expert in myths was instrumental in Lewis path to theism. There is no evidence he burned his books after conversion. Lewis’s autobiography shows they helped him to categorise various religious narratives and identify what he called reportage. His academic studies prevented him from writing them off as one kind of load of old cobblers. Your approach smacks of philistinism.

[SteveH]

It is for a claim of delusion apparently. If you can’t get that I can’t help you.
But if you do it might bring you to thinking that belief in God is not a delusion after all.

I don't think that belief in God is a delusion - I just get pissed off by your repeated failure to understand the basic and very simple principle of burden of proof. A claim that belief in God is a delusion is just another way of saying "there is no God", and, as a negative statement, is the default position unless you can provide reasonable grounds for belief.. (btw, "belief in God" is a hopelessly vague phrase).

[ProfessorDavey]

That’s what I just said!

Nice quote mining Vlad.

From your reply, when you quote me:

'That is non-sense on stilts.

Delusion is believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is false,'

Why did you remove the key further element - this is what I said (my emphasis on the bit you removed when replying):

'That is non-sense on stilts - if you don't believe something there is no requirement to provide an alternative explanation. If you do believe something then the onus is on the believer to justify their belief.

Delusion is believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is false,'.

Why did you ignore my bit about onus, which is what related to my 'non-sense on stilts' comment.

[ProfessorDavey]

Flying Spaghetti Monster has an author and is a horses laugh, fallacy, ditto orbiting tea pots and Leprechauns. They are merely contingent entities anyway.

Again - nice selective quoting.

Firstly from my standpoint there is very little difference between these things and god - all appear to me to lack any credible evidence for their existence and are therefore entities conjured up by humans for one purpose or another.

But secondly I also mentioned other gods (which you presumably don't believe in). So the claim of double standards remains - there is no more evidence for the christian god than for any other gods. So why do you believe in one (despite the lack of credible evidence) yet do not believe in the existence of other gods (which also lack credible evidence).

[Outrider]

Diverse myths seem though to have the same source. Gilgamesh and the flood.

So one person made it up and subsequent people copied/borrowed/stole/repurposed it - I'm not sure that makes it any more likely that it's true. We have Christmas when we do because early Christians tried to overwrite the pre-existing mid-winter festivals; it doesn't make it true that Jesus was suddenly born in December, though.

A certain type of person dismisses myths per se.

I'm sure they do. Another certain type of person thinks their preferred myth is somehow qualitatively different to all the other myths.

Tribalism might stop some arbitrarily from enjoying other myths.

It might, yes. Stepping outside of that and seeing them all as cultural tropes helps with that, I find.

Being an expert in myths was instrumental in Lewis path to theism. There is no evidence he burned his books after conversion.

I don't know his history well enough to know, but I suspect he thought The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Book of Acts belonged in different sections of the library, though.

Lewis’s autobiography shows they helped him to categorise various religious narratives and identify what he called reportage. His academic studies prevented him from writing them off as one kind of load of old cobblers.

And yet innumerable other scholars categorise them similarly as archetypal stories, as cultural tropes and tribal markers. They've traced the development of the Christian god from an early tribal war-god amongst a pantheon through the Jewish development of Yahweh as a monotheistic deity, and onto the Christian mixed message of a monotheism with multiple other divine entities and a whole host of special pleading.

Your approach smacks of philistinism.

Oh, no, I've been called a name by Vlad. Well I've definitely lost that argument then... Your ad hominem smacks of someone without an argument to make, who just realised he'd resorted to an attempted argument from authority that rested on C S Lewis, but keep slinging those out, they're some of your best work.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again - nice selective quoting.

Firstly from my standpoint there is very little difference between these things and god - all appear to me to lack any credible evidence for their existence

And of course physical evidence is important for a physicalist and are therefore entities conjured up by humans for one purpose or another.[/quote]
I disbelieve in fairies, Leprechauns and Teapots because they should be observable and aren't.

But secondly I also mentioned other gods (which you presumably don't believe in). So the claim of double standards remains - there is no more evidence for the christian god than for any other gods. So why do you believe in one (despite the lack of credible evidence) yet do not believe in the existence of other gods (which also lack credible evidence).

As far as I can recall you've never asked me about other gods.

[ProfessorDavey]

As far as I can recall you've never asked me about other gods.

Wrong - did you actually bother to read my post:

'And also inconsistent double standards as those who believe in a specific god (e.g. christian god) despite the lack of evidence also reject other gods (where the evidence is just as lacking) and other phenomena (flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapots, leprechauns) where there is similarly no credible evidence for their existence.'

You even quoted this in your reply (338), so struggling to see how you could have missed it.

[Maeght]

Why? We have nothing concrete, we have nothing evidentiary from the time, we have a few sparse sources that suggest Christianity was becoming a thing in the early years after the alleged events, and then we get the books of the New Testament accumulated, edited, re-written and selectively translated over the next few centuries. That the Jesus myth is likely based on a real person seems likely, but far from guaranteed, but to accept the claims of magic would require much more robust evidence than that.

People believe it profoundly, yes. People profoundly believe other, contradictory, religious teachings - they can't all be right, but they can very much all be wrong.

That they think it's a fact doesn't make it a fact. I don't accept that the Theory of Evolution is a fact, it's just an incredibly robustly supported but technically refutable explanation for the phenomena that we see. If I don't accept that as a fact, I'm sure as hell not going to go with the resurrection myth on the strength of one extremely unreliable bed-time story.

O.

All this was in response to you comment that '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.' I disagreeing with that - not saying you actually have to accept the Bible etc but rather that for someone to believe that Jesus is divine they have to accept the Bible etc