Atheists being persecuted in the USA.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

You addressed none of my points. It has nothing to do with the burden of proof (and even then, absence of evidence has never been considered evidence of absence by any rational person).

My point is you say theism is a delusion but it doesn't fit the definition.

To be delusional there must exist a proof of the contrary. There is simply none regarding the existence of gods. So theism is simply a belief, like anti-theism. Not a delusion.

> To be delusional there must exist a proof of the contrary.

I highlighted this quote, because it is demonstrably wrong.

You do not need proof to the contrary to reject a claim. To assert that you need proof of the non-existance of something to reject a claim is, in essence, an argument from ignorance.

You are essentially saying "You cannot prove this does not exist, therefore to believe in it is not delusional". Well, I do not agree with that, and I think there are many, many philosophers who would also reject this position.

Added to adress your edit -

> By your logic, again, any thought experiment or unprovable hypothesis is delusion, which is silly.

> Do you go around saying those who theorize time travel or the existence of multiverses are delusional? I don't think so.

Well, if they were to hold to the position that their hypothesis is absolutely true, with no evidence to support that position, then yes I would.

But the truth of it is, that people who talk about hypotheses generally recognise they are only hypotheses.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

You obviously don't understand the subject.

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

I never claimed you couldn't say you don't believe in god. Only that saying that those who do are delusional is a fallacy.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Well, if they were to hold to the position that their hypothesis is absolutely true, with no evidence to support that position, then yes I would.

Well, that explains your position, but it's not what delusion is.

Refer to the definition above which is quite clear. What you refer to is dogma, and yes, theism is dogmatic, like anti-theism.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

You obviously don't understand the subject.

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

I never claimed you couldn't say you don't believe in god. Only that saying that those who do are delusional is a fallacy.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Well, if they were to hold to the position that their hypothesis is absolutely true, with no evidence to support that position, then yes I would.

Well, that explains your position, but it's not what delusion is.

Refer to the definition above which is quite clear. What you refer to is dogma, and yes, theism is dogmatic, like anti-theism.

So if I claim I have a dragon in my bedroom, and offer no proof at all, I am not being delusional?

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Not until I can prove you have no dragon in your bedroom, which is easy since dragons are physical creatures.

You are making a poor job at using logic to defend your claim that theism is a delusion (it's not).

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Well I guess we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a valid worldview. For me, it requires evidence to be considered valid, and anything outside of that is speculation. If you demand that your speculation is absolute truth, without evidence, then I would call that delusional, but then that's just me.

For me, the person making the claim has to prove it, otherwise it's meaningless.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

I am not discussing your position regarding what is a valid worldview, which I kind of agree with.

Only your use of the world delusion, which is based on an incorrect belief about its meaning.

For me, the person making the claim has to prove it, otherwise it's meaningless.

According to this, the judiciary system, allowing testimonies as a valid evidences, is using meaningless information as proofs.


You have to admit it's kind of stupid

a reply to: boymonkey74

For someone that claims to not be an atheist you are very anti-Christian. I'm not attacking and hopefully my tone does not display as such. I'm very curious about you. I have engaged you several times over the years and you have always lashed out at Christians and anything to do with the Bible. So if you are not an atheist then where do you stand on spiritual things ? I have seen several times what you do not believe in so I am just curious to know what you do believe in.
In response to the video, all I can tell the maker of the video is boo hoo. Like someone else stated before We are all persecuted at some point however I will say this, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus are all persecuted for believing in something. Atheists are "persecuted" not for disbelief but rather for trying to force disbelief onto those around them. Those on here familiar with me know I am Christian and am not afraid to stand up and say so.
You do not see Christians or Muslims or Jews attempting to join atheist clubs to begin with let alone join them and try and force them to cave to Christian views like atheists do constantly.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
You are missing the entire concept of faith. Faith does not require proof.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

I am not discussing your position regarding what is a valid worldview, which I kind of agree with.

Only your use of the world delusion, which is based on an incorrect belief about its meaning.

Well, I did say "as an atheist". From my position, any claim in absolute belief in the supernatural (of any kind) without evidence is a delusion. I mean, if we were talking about bigfoot or ghosts here, I think many people would agree.

I'm not talking about those who "allow for it's existance" or whatever, but those who absolutely believe without evidence.

If there is no good reason to believe, then.. why believe?

Edited to address this comment -

> According to this, the judiciary system, allowing testimonies as a valid evidences, is using meaningless information as proofs.

The judiciary system works on an entirely different burden of proof to science. Anecdotal evidence (ie witness testimonies) is entirely unreliable as objective evidence of anything.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

I was not aware that your philosophical position allow to change the definition of a word?

I perfectly understand your position, but the word is not correct.

A delusion is a pathological condition. That's not what "classical" beliefs are.

For example there is nothing pathological in believing in the afterlife since it can't be proven.

If there is no good reason to believe, then.. why believe?

There are good reasons to believe. Maybe not scientific ones but still. Believing has been proved to increase lifespan and reduce anxiety.

And again, if you NEED proofs to believe in something, there is still a problem:

It's impossible to prove the existence of an objective reality, so why would anyone believe there is one?

originally posted by: Christian Voice
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
You are missing the entire concept of faith. Faith does not require proof.

Faith is indistinguishable from gullibility.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
I will just have to disagree with you there. No worries though.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Faith is personal belief and choice.

Gullibility is a propensity for being manipulated.


You obviously mix a lot of definitions or even invent your owns.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

I was not aware that your philosophical position allow to change the definition of a word?

I perfectly understand your position, but the word is not correct.

A delusion is a pathological condition. That's not what "classical" beliefs are.

For example there is nothing pathological in believing in the afterlife since it can't be proven.

Well I would consider it delusional, since I do not consider it a true belief. Is it a false belief? I guess that's the point you are really getting at.

Who knows, really. We are all agnostics with regard to these questions.

But as far as my own model of existence, I can not accept this as a true belief. I guess, if pinned down to this definition I do not know that they are delusional. However, I believe they are delusional.

originally posted by: Christian Voice
For someone that claims to not be an atheist you are very anti-Christian.

A lot of theists are anti-christian. They see Christianity as bastardizing God and being spiritually destructive. Some of their complaints about the behavior and belief systems of Christians have merit .... IMHO.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Faith is personal belief and choice.

Gullibility is a propensity for being manipulated.


You obviously mix a lot of definitions or even invent your owns.

Well, the definition I am using is -

readiness to believe the claims of others without sufficient evidence

Miriam Webster

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
However, I believe they are delusional.

I don't expect you to admit your definition of delusion is incorrect (and yet you can check it in a dictionary), but good luck convincing any mental health specialist that unprovable beliefs are delusions.


You know, it's funny because according to the definition, I showed you your understanding of delusion is incorrect and yet you stick to it. I could thus call that delusion

But it's probably more stubbornness and pride...

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Faith can be formed independently of claims from others, thus why it's not the same thing.

An isolated person on an island could still have faith in beliefs he formed himself.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

> Believing has been proved to increase lifespan and reduce anxiety.

The placebo effect is well understood in science. I believe this to be the explanation for this assertion.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
However, I believe they are delusional.

I don't expect you to admit your definition of delusion is incorrect (and yet you can check it in a dictionary), but good luck convincing any mental health specialist that unprovable beliefs are delusions.


You know, it's funny because according to the definition, I showed you your understanding of delusion is incorrect and yet you stick to it. I could thus call that delusion

But it's probably more stubbornness and pride...

Well the thing is, I believe they are wrong. I do not know they are wrong, but I believe it.

If someone believes strongly in something which is wrong, then they are deluding themselves.

As I said, I do not claim to know this. If I did I think your celebrations of your victory would be founded in reality. Unfortunately, you are grasping.




ETA - Am I deluded in my belief that they are deluded? Possibly. Who knows really? But based on my model for reality, then I believe they are deluded.