Thread: Dear Atheists

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

Your contradiction is when you make the claim that believing in God demonstrates a delusion. Delusion means "a false belief". This is synonymous to claiming that God does not exist... or the belief in God is false. So, I will await your retraction.

It's every bit as delusional as believing that an invisible dragon which breathes heatless fire lives in my garage.

It is delusional because it is a positive assertion which lacks falsifiability.

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

Of course you did when you brought the word "delusion" into it... a false belief... something that you have also stated that you cannot prove. Your contradiction is pretty stark. It also demonstrates the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy... an integral part of your contradiction. Just because you cannot prove it, does NOT mean it's a false belief.

We can safely say it is false because all evidence points to it not existing. It can not be analyzed through any known direct or indirect observations.

Delusion - (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

Your contradiction is when you make the claim that believing in God demonstrates a delusion. Delusion means "a false belief". This is synonymous to claiming that God does not exist... or the belief in God is false. So, I will await your retraction.

And, you shall have it, after a fashion. Although I do think Agent Ferris has a point about the matter of the use of this word, I perceive that you have a very specific meaning for it. I agree with Agent Ferris that is equally delusional to believe in the Tooth Fairy as it is to believe in god, I am not certain that you would count such belief delusional. Whatever the case, use of the word delusional is not central to my argument. If we say that delusional has the meaning "A false belief held despite evidence to the contrary" I concede that I misstated my argument. It was not my intention to convey that strong of a statement. I was operating under a much lighter meaning that I have seen employed "A fanciful belief".

I notice that you latched on to the word "delusional" and spread it through the rest of my arguments, despite the fact that I explained my arguments without the use of the word, and in contradiction to the word as you define it. Due to this, the responses that contain it shouldn't be addressed at this time. For example, I explicitly state that I am not making an argument that god doesn't exist, but you stubbornly keep referring to my use of the word delusional. Why not just ask me "You're saying that you are making no claim about the non-existence of god, and yet use the word delusional. Which is it?"

It is obvious that my central point isn't that god doesn't exist, nor do my arguments hang off of the word or definition of delusional. If I restated the sentence you extracted it from, I would simply replace the word delusional with the word fanciful. But, I am not going to make that statement, because I think it would detract from a clear discussion.

Instead, I retract the statement. My argument stands or falls separate from it, anyway.

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

No, you are incorrect, We CAN treat them as UNproven because that is what they are. They cannot be treated as false, but they cannot be treated as proven, either. It is then up to the individual to assess the information provided. Further, each scenario has a degree of provedness, similar to standard deviations in research.

Indeed they do have a degree of provedness, but they are equal. There is zero proof for either of them.

Your claim is erroneous since the reciprocal also applies to it. There is no objective evidence that God does NOT exist. You cannot discern what is or is not attributed to God, therefore you cannot disprove that an act, event, or anything cannot be attributed to Him, since you do not know the context.

My claim that there is no evidence for the existence of god is erroneous because there is no evidence for his non-existence? I don't think so.

Add to this that each individual theist's belief is person-specific.

Well, it certainly wouldn't be rational to consider each one, in that case. In fact, this is really an argument against considering ANY of them. It demonstrates the fancifulness of the notion.

Finally, since the position of a true atheist is not to not believe in God, but to not accept the concept of God, you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence against something who's concept you refuse to identify.

I have never heard that articulation as central to a true atheist belief, but whatever floats your boat. I am not even going to say whether I agree with it or not. I am going to suffice it to say that it is irrelevant to your or my point.

I reject this entire hypothesis as a contradiction to your prior post when you claimed that there is a difference in objective evidence between two different things.

I didn't say there was in fact a difference between evidence for the Tooth Fairy and evidence for god. I said it was possible for there to be. Further, I stated that it was necessary for there to be a difference in order to show falsehood, and that the possibility is what makes the claim falsifiable. It is up to you (if you want to turn me from my misguided path), to demonstrate the difference in evidence for the two claims.

There is significant objective evidence that dispels the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

What evidence? I know of no such evidence. In any case, lets move over to Unicorns. I bet you don't have any evidence that THEY don't exist.

This is not symmetrical to the objective evidence to that which dispels the existence of God... which I also have demonstrated that you cannot do. So, I would suggest that you attempt to present a valid analogy, since the one that you presented is not.

It is perfectly clear throughout most of my argumentation that I am not attempting to dispel the existence of god, so I am not sure what you are saying here.

Already done so. Objectively, we can track each tooth to who took it or where it went.

What if the Tooth Fairy doesn't take all teeth, but only the ones it turns out that we cannot track? She would be awfully busy taking ALL the teeth. In fact, its perfectly reasonable that she could only get to a small fraction of them.

Secondly, since belief in God is individual objectifying ...

I would agree that belief in god is the person objectifying a facet of their individuality, but it would be surprising to hear you say it.

... it would not be possible,

I do agree that the claim that god exists is not falsifiable, which is all you are really saying here. But, I am certain you don't think that makes it true.

And finally, the atheist position, as I have stated is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. The existence of God is unproven. Until you offer evidence that it is false, your position is nothing more than a belief, or a logical fallacy.

You are creating your own definition of atheist. There is nothing I can do about that. If you want to say I am not an atheist because I don't believe what you think an atheist ought to believe, I am not in the least attached to the label. But, you have failed to address my central claim, though you have attempted and failed to chip away at one of the premises to it and you have stubbornly knocked down a couple straw men. Good on ya!!

I will tell you this, though. The "atheist position" is under refinement. The end result is still going to be that believing in god is irrational, though the arguments to arrive there will have been adjusted a bit from those presented 10 years ago, and certainly those presented 100 years ago, or 1000. It is a scientifically minded position, so it is appropriate that such would be the case.

Do you really think that your definition of what an atheist ought to believe should hold precedence?

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

That's fine. This is a valid position to have. In hypothesis testing, you are taking the position of the negative. However, remember that though you reject the existence of anything and everything for which there is no evidence, that position is but an unproven theory.

Of course, only the negative position can be falsified. In order to falsify my position, one only has to produce a single instance of a demonstrable deity. If one believes in a deity, however, to falsify that belief, you have to prove that there are no god(s) anywhere in the universe, an inherently impossible proposition. Further, my position is one that *EVERYONE* uses for virtually everything in life. There is nobody out there who believes in everything, without reservation, just because it hasn't been proven wrong. That would require people to believe in every conceivable god, whether man has dreamed it up or not, every fantasy character, etc. Do you honestly think there is anyone out there like that?

Neither do I.

Originally Posted by iangb

Logically speaking, how do you know that your experiences from the past are an adequate way of predicting your experiences in the future?

Who said they are? You're the one out there jousting with a straw man. Past experiences teach us how the universe works. We continually test those experiences to find out if the universe still works that way. Until our experiences change, we are safe in assuming that those experiences still rationally explain the operation of the universe. Do you honestly wake up every morning surprised that you're not sleeping on the ceiling as gravity has reversed itself during the night?

Originally Posted by reefedjib

You just attacked in the previous post. You said "To claim that any of these things exist without any evidence to support it is absurd". That is a direct attack and is equivalent to called the person mentally deficient as a result of their beliefs.

That's an attack upon a belief, not upon a person. Learn the difference.

Originally Posted by BDBoop

LOL!! Because it's my thread, ya goof!

You're the one who keeps saying you don't want to talk about it. I've never seen someone who doesn't want to talk about it keep talking about it more in my life.

Originally Posted by Cephus

Of course, only the negative position can be falsified. In order to falsify my position, one only has to produce a single instance of a demonstrable deity.

Which was my experience, of course. Prior to the presentation of irrefutable evidence, I was an atheist, though I never felt the need to attack someone for their beliefs. Upon experiencing evidence to the contrary, I now believe in God 100%.

Originally Posted by Cephus

That's an attack upon a belief, not upon a person. Learn the difference.

The person holds those beliefs dear. An attack on the beliefs is an attack on the person. Surely you know this.