Intro: Time on my hands

Irreligious wrote

The fact that you can't prove it does exist.

Nope. That accomplishes nothing.

Eva wrote

both delusions are parallel, and there's nothing you can say to deny it, serene bovinity.

They are not parallel. Unless and until you prove that there is no God, belief in God is not a delusion and, therefore, the two things cannot be compared. No amount of mooing on your end can make it so. In fact, it is a delusion to think that it can. Hmmm. I wonder ... Hey, Eva! Ordered any troops into Russia recently?

Kamikaze189 wrote

Sartre1's point is that faith and delusion are the same thing.

One guy believes he can step in front of a train and stop it like superman, while another believes in god. Neither have proof, so they are both either using faith or being deluded.

So which is it? Is leaping to a conclusion absent-mindedly really a virtue?

His point is a proposition. Propositions are either true or false. What is the proof that faith and delusion are the same thing? Stating it does not prove it.

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

It is pretty darned easy to prove that I am not Zeus.

Not if you really believed you were. Your resistence to the evidence or lack thereof is what we would commonly refer to as the delusion.

[Rhinoqulous]

Lily, unless you can prove there are no invisible mango-spirits of redemption who watch you shower and make fun of your genitals, belief in invisible mango-spirits of redemption is not delusional (and thus equal to your belief in gawd).

Rhinoqulous wrote

Lily, unless you can prove there are no invisible mango-spirits of redemption who watch you shower and make fun of your genitals, belief in invisible mango-spirits of redemption is not delusional (and thus equal to your belief in gawd).

That is a proposition. Now argue it.

[Rhinoqulous]

Lily wrote

That is a proposition. Now argue it.

My point exactly. You don't need to prove a disbelief (as you state atheists do in proving gawd doesn't exist). If you did you'd have to disprove the existence off all non-existence things.

Irreligious wrote

Not if you really believed you were. Your resistence to the evidence or lack thereof is what we would commonly refer to as the delusion.

That is irrelevant--of course a deluded person is going to be impervious to reason. We are talking about comparing pathologies. Obviously, that means others are involved, so that my delusion and the delusion of a believer in God can be compared. So, again I say, to prove that I am not Napoleon is easy. Now, prove that there is no God. Then let's compare the pathologies involved when someone believes in God anyway.

Rhinoqulous wrote

My point exactly. You don't need to prove a disbelief (as you state atheists do in proving gawd doesn't exist). If you did you'd have to disprove the existence off all non-existence things.

Not quite. I say that there is sufficient proof that belief in God is perfectly rational. That puts you in the position of showing where I am wrong so that we may compare "pathologies".

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

Nope. That accomplishes nothing.

Well, of course not if you're under the delusion that the thing you claim exists does even when you can't prove that it does. It won't work with you any more than it would work with the person living under the delusion that he/she is Zeus.*

*Looks like this needed its own post.

[Rhinoqulous]

Lily wrote

Not quite. I say that there is sufficient proof that belief in God is perfectly rational. That puts you in the position of showing where I am wrong so that we may compare "pathologies".

Who said anything about "pathologies" (I know who did, but that's not the point of my post). You're making the claim that atheists need to "prove" god doesn't exist. All I'm doing is pointing out your flawed logic (and that it hardly seems fair that you require atheists to "prove god doesn't exist" while all you need is "sufficient proof that belief in god is rational").

[Eva]

moo-cow, grow up. santa claus exists. prove he does not.

Rhinoqulous wrote

Who said anything about "pathologies" (I know who did, but that's not the point of my post). You're making the claim that atheists need to "prove" god doesn't exist. All I'm doing is pointing out your flawed logic (and that it hardly seems fair that you require atheists to "prove god doesn't exist" while all you need is "sufficient proof that belief in god is rational").

Stay on topic! Someone claimed that belief in God is a delusion on a par with someone believing that he is Napoleon. Until you can prove that belief in God is a delusion, you cannot argue that it is the same pathology exhibited by someone who believes himself to be Napoleon. We need some sort of proof for that claim.

Got any?

Eva failed miserably. (quelle surprise!)

[Eva]

irre, this is the perfect thread....afterall, we do have time on our hands to debate this stupid delusions......

[Eva]

uh-oh....the "standard of proof" dilemma, once again....

[Professor Chaos]

Lily wrote

Not quite. I say that there is sufficient proof that belief in God is perfectly rational.

Over and over you say this.

Over and over you refuse to provide said proof.

Hmmm.....