What is "atheism?"

Without getting into a discussion of taxonomic classifications for religious positions, what do you think the term "atheist" in a very broad, social context means? In other words, when I say "atheist" what do you think most reasonable people would think of?

Is it the lack of a belief in a god, the assertion that no god exists or some other thing entirely? Do you think there is a disparity between what most religious people consider atheism to be and what most atheists consider atheism to be?

the assertion that no god existsFrattracide

"Theism" is the belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.

"A-" is a prefix denoting the lack of what it prefixes.

Therefore, "atheism", strictly speaking, is the lack of a belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.

And yes, I do feel that there tends to be a disparity between the popular image of atheism and real atheism; I see altogether too often people picturing atheists as some sort of God-hating, nihilistic individuals.

"Theism" is the belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.

"A-" is a prefix denoting the lack of what it prefixes.

Therefore, "atheism", strictly speaking, is the lack of a belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.

And yes, I do feel that there tends to be a disparity between the popular image of atheism and real atheism; I see altogether too often people picturing atheists as some sort of God-hating, nihilistic individuals.

GabuEx

But some atheists perpetuate that problem. Calling theists weak/delusional and claiming a higher ground of rationality are things that I see atheists do a lot. Even on this site I've seen atheists that have created their own religion without realizing it. I think we can help dissolve that nasty image of atheism if we act more courteous and do away with a sense of intellectual superiority.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

"Theism" is the belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.

"A-" is a prefix denoting the lack of what it prefixes.

Therefore, "atheism", strictly speaking, is the lack of a belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.

And yes, I do feel that there tends to be a disparity between the popular image of atheism and real atheism; I see altogether too often people picturing atheists as some sort of God-hating, nihilistic individuals.

dracula_16

But some atheists perpetuate that problem. Calling theists weak/delusional and claiming a higher ground of rationality are things that I see atheists do a lot. Even on this site I've seen atheists that have created their own religion without realizing it. I think we can help dissolve that nasty image of atheism if we act more courteous and do away with a sense of intellectual superiority.

That's a complaint used by many theists - that atheist's have created their own religion without realising it. I can't see that as a serious criticism - only as a smoke-screen put up by the faithful to compare atheist reasoning to their own.

I think the issues you portray are more synonymous with God-lovers, who often seem to claim a high ground for their faiths as being more justified than simple rationalism and claim their own spiritual superiority as a core belief.

Atheism is a beleif that is largely arrived at intellectually. There is far less coercion and far more independent thinking in individuals reaching the conclusion of atheism by themselves, rather then be guided by a faith. Courteousness is fine, and showing intellectual superiority is a fundamental way of framing or understanding a debate.

Do you think there is a disparity between what most religious people consider atheism to be and what most atheists consider atheism to be?Frattracide

Yes but I've only really had this issue over the internet. The theists that I interact with in real life are generally pretty on to it although goodness knows what they might say if I ask them what atheism is. I might just ask them next time I meet up and see what their perceptions are.

The broad social meaning of atheism probably varies considerably from city to city. South Carolina might have a concept of atheism as a very negative bad thing whereas in Christchurch New Zealand the concept is likely far more benign.

A typical concept of what an atheist is might be "one who opposes traditional religious values". If there's one thing I've learnt it's that most (not all) theists are theists because of the social conventions that are associated with organized religion. They are theists because they feel as if they belong to a community ingroup so atheists are simply the opposing outgroup.

But some atheists perpetuate that problem. Calling theists weak/delusional and claiming a higher ground of rationality are things that I see atheists do a lot. Even on this site I've seen atheists that have created their own religion without realizing it. I think we can help dissolve that nasty image of atheism if we act more courteous and do away with a sense of intellectual superiority.

dracula_16

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

But some atheists perpetuate that problem. Calling theists weak/delusional and claiming a higher ground of rationality are things that I see atheists do a lot. Even on this site I've seen atheists that have created their own religion without realizing it. I think we can help dissolve that nasty image of atheism if we act more courteous and do away with a sense of intellectual superiority.

ChiliDragon

Anonymity also tends to embolden people.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]I actually see it more on this site than anywhere else. The atheists I know "in the real world" are a lot less quick to dismiss theists in the way you describe... probably because when people know each other face to face they know more about each other than just beliefs.domatron23

Anonymity also tends to embolden people.

Very true. Though instead of "embolden" I would have said "bring out the worst" in people. ;)

I think, after thinking about it for a little bit, that it's a lot more common among atheists who originally came from a very religious background and were raised into a certain religion without having much choice in the matter. Since the switch from theism to atheism for a person in that position came from thoroughly questioning everything they were raised with, it's easy to come to the conclusion that the only reason a person can be raised in a religion and stay in it is from lack of questioning, either from stupidity or willful denial. Which is fine, that is often the case. It's the ones who start treating all theists they come across as complete idiots because of this conclusion, that become a bit annoying. :)ChiliDragon

How do you know this, or are you making assumptions about what atheists think? I can understand the faithful becomming annoyed, since their personal faith can not be rationalised, but it is rare to find an atheist bemoaning their own lack of spirituality.

I've mentioned before reasons I think "clever people can believe stupid things" - as listed in Ben Goldacre's book - Bad Science (Ch 13). Topics like perceptions towards randomness and pattern seeking, regression to the mean, bias towards positive evidence, bias on prior beliefs, availability - or cognitive awareness of a particular thing fom the density of one's environment, social influences and communal re-enforcement are all good reasons with evidential backing for clouding of rationality in people.

Are we talking about atheist behaviour in this union, in Gamespot, in general, or all three?

I'm drawing a conclusion based on how I've seen a lot of atheists on Gamespot treat theists. And I never said atheists "bemoan their own lack of spirituality". I'm saying that the attitude of "if you would just try to actually think for a change you'd realize how wrong you are" is narrow-minded and a bit insulting regardless of who it comes from.ChiliDragon

Ok, thanks. I'm not sure I've seen this sort of behaviour as much from atheists as from theists on Gamespot, myself. It was me that mentioned atheists not bemoaning their lack of spirituality as a contrast to theists bemoaning a lack of rationality in their faith.

Most exchanges about religion that I've witnessed around these parts have been more involved than people asking each other to "think" for a change. But isn't the essence of debate suggesting ideas that the other person might not be aware of? Isn't it rather narrow-minded to assume that you already have thought about all the ideas being put forwards in a debate?

Atheism in a social context often is commonly believed to be a rebellion against God, religion, and traditional values. I do not think that most theists see atheists as God-haters. Some perhaps, but I think rebels against God would be a more accurate description. For some people, atheism is a religion, a faith or a belief that requires faith, and/or a cult. The people who believe these sort of things are not reasonable however, or at least not on this issue.

What atheism is and what atheists consider it to be a whole different story entirely. Atheism is an affirmation of a lack of a belief in a god or a belief in no god, so a fetus, for example, can't be considered an atheist, because he hasn't affirmed his lack of a belief in a god. Atheism is not a religion as it has no supernatural component, an organized set of beliefs, nor required worship. Atheists can be religious however, such as Theravada Buddhists, and they don't have to reject traditional values. However, the typical atheist is not religious and tends to compromise with traditional values by keeping what they see as best and discarding what they see as bad. Atheism is not a faith either and doesn't require faith. There are logical arguments against the existence of the supernatural, which many atheists support. However, many atheists have different reasons for disbelieving in a god. Atheism is also not a cult. I think most atheists agree with my definition of atheism.

As you can see, there is a disparity between how society views atheism and how atheism is viewed by atheists. Clearly, atheists have a more rational approach to defining atheism, which is probably why they express such a belief. Theists create straw men arguments for atheism to make atheism seem insufficient in a modern world, but it's the theists' definitions that are out of date and out of luck, for them at least.

[...] what do you think the term "atheist" in a very broad, social context means? In other words, when I say "atheist" what do you think most reasonable people would think of? Frattracide

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

"Theism" is the belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.

"A-" is a prefix denoting the lack of what it prefixes.

Therefore, "atheism", strictly speaking, is the lack of a belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.

And yes, I do feel that there tends to be a disparity between the popular image of atheism and real atheism; I see altogether too often people picturing atheists as some sort of God-hating, nihilistic individuals.

dracula_16

But some atheists perpetuate that problem. Calling theists weak/delusional and claiming a higher ground of rationality are things that I see atheists do a lot. Even on this site I've seen atheists that have created their own religion without realizing it. I think we can help dissolve that nasty image of atheism if we act more courteous and do away with a sense of intellectual superiority.

Why does the bible get away with it and not an atheist?

Secondly what does an atheist do if he sincerely believes that theists are delusional? The old testament and other religious texts can spout all sorts of unprecedented non-sense which people continue to believe in and yet atheists should play the political correctness game?:| 

Getting offended in a religious debate shows weakness of character and personality and from my experience it's mostly the theists who are most notorious at getting offended and then complaining about it...Gambler_3

I think people have every right to get offended in a debate. Its one thing being offended by an idea, but its another to be offended by an attack on your character. However, since peoples' characters are influenced by their beliefs and ideas, there may be some cross-over of perceived offense taken.

Its what you do with the offence taken that's important. There are plenty of written (and unwritten) responses, aside from an offended, or purposefully equally offensive one.

Secondly what does an atheist do if he sincerely believes that theists are delusional?

Gambler_3

Keep it to himself?

I mean, what does one expect the result to be if you tell someone to his face that he's delusional?

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

Secondly what does an atheist do if he sincerely believes that theists are delusional?

GabuEx

Keep it to himself?

I mean, what does one expect the result to be if you tell someone to his face that he's delusional?

I believe one has to be agressive to actually leave an impression on a theist. I remember once on the dawkins forum someone compared muhammad to hitler Now I was the sort of a muslim who didnt even complain about danish cartoon but that comparasion got me quite offended AND made me think on how could one possibly even think about making such a comparasion. It really made me question the character and life of muhammad and to study on him more deeply.

It helped me alot otherwise if all the atheists had simply kept the discussion with a mask of irrational respect, I may have never become an atheist who knows. The fact that there are sane people who so vehemently oppose my beliefs really made me analyse them from a nuetral perspective. I guess this is just personal experience but I think it applies and should be practiced especially on the internet because there is no chance of violence and damaging real life human relations, but all the oppurtunities of gaining knowledge. In real life I would only openly call those people deluded who let their beliefs affect their or others life adversely. 

The same result that happens when people call me delusional, satan, hell-bound etc etc? I just laugh and tell people to grow up, you know why? Because I am very confident in my beliefs and no matter what a theist may say, I am not going to get scared or get insecure about myself. I cant say the same thing about an average theist...

I believe one has to be agressive to actually leave an impression on a theist. I remember once on the dawkins forum someone compared muhammad to hitler Now I was the sort of a muslim who didnt even complain about danish cartoon but that comparasion got me quite offended AND made me think on how could one possibly even think about making such a comparasion. It really made me question the character and life of muhammad and to study on him more deeply.

It helped me alot otherwise if all the atheists had simply kept the discussion with a mask of irrational respect, I may have never become an atheist who knows. The fact that there are sane people who so vehemently oppose my beliefs really made me analyse them from a nuetral perspective. I guess this is just personal experience but I think it applies and should be practiced especially on the internet because there is no chance of violence and damaging real life human relations, but all the oppurtunities of gaining knowledge. In real life I would only openly call those people deluded who let their beliefs affect their or others life adversely. 

Gambler_3

All I can say to this is... yes, you are correct that this is just personal experience, and I can tell you that insulting someone to their face breaks pretty much all the rules of basic human relations and what one ought to do in order to convince someone of their position.  If you insult someone, the effect that this is going to have is to immediately put this person into a defensive posture, and they will regress to the primal, instinctual state when one is under attack.  This is a very bad state to put someone in, because in this posture, you are the enemy, and their job is to repel your attacks and protect themselves, not to listen to anything you have to say.

If someone comparing Muhammad to Hitler caused you to seriously evaluate that comparison, then frankly that sounds an awful lot to me like you were already distanced from Muhammad, and were already ready to challenge your beliefs, whether or not you knew it at the time.

Most exchanges about religion that I've witnessed around these parts have been more involved than people asking each other to "think" for a change. But isn't the essence of debate suggesting ideas that the other person might not be aware of? Isn't it rather narrow-minded to assume that you already have thought about all the ideas being put forwards in a debate?

RationalAtheist

It is, and the assumption that one has already considered everything about the topic at hand should always be discouraged. Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about this particular union in my earlier posts, but rather Gamespot in general. For obvious reasons, if I felt that the atheists in this union had an openly hostile and contemptuous attitude towards theists, I wouldn't still be posting here. Though I don't always make it obvious at all times, I do like it here, and I do enjoy the discussions and debates we have. :)

ChiliDragon

Phew! I think this union is unusual in its make-up of regulars - and all the more brilliant because of it. I've only recently been nosing around OT again, so might be out of date in my appraisal of attitudes there.

That said, I think that it's a fine line between calling someone's arguments and reasoning stupid, and calling the person behind the arguments and reasons stupid as well. Since it's very difficult for two opposing sides in a debate to agree on where that very fine line is, one side will sometimes firmly argue that the line was crossed while the other insists they never did, and that is where negative perceptions of "the other side" are created--through misunderstandings, not through malice.

ChiliDragon

Too true - sometimes it is hard to disassociate an idea from a believer of it. I just noticed the Aristotle quote in your sig; that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it". Wise words!

Atheism in a social context often is commonly believed to be a rebellion against God, religion, and traditional values. I do not think that most theists see atheists as God-haters. Some perhaps, but I think rebels against God would be a more accurate description.Genetic_Code

Yeah, that's definitely the common understanding of atheism that I see the most among theists.

Atheism is an affirmation of a lack of a belief in a god or a belief in no god, so a fetus, for example, can't be considered an atheist, because he hasn't affirmed his lack of a belief in a god.Genetic_Code

I think the implicit/explicit distinction in atheism must be mentioned here. Consciously rejecting theism or affirming your lack of belief in God is explicit atheism while simply not believeing in God because you've never entertained the idea of God is implicit atheism. You and I are explicit atheists whereas fetuses and rocksare implicit atheists.

While I agree that explicit atheism is the only type really worth discussing (implicit atheism is rather trivial) I wouldn't quite go so far as to make it a necessary feature of what atheism is. Atheism is simply the condition of not holding a belief in God(s) and that condition applies to anybody and anything that is not a theist.

Atheism is simply the condition of not holding a belief in God(s) and that condition applies to anybody and anything that is not a theist.domatron23

But nobody answered this as I expected so I'll have to scream,

WHY DOES THE BIBLE GET AWAY WITH CALLING ATHEISTS AS FOOLS AND DELUSIONAL? CAN IRONY GET ANY MORE STRONGER WHEN A BIBLE BELIEVER(looks at fellow christian members) IS CRITICIZING ATHEISTS FOR CALLING THEM DELUSIONAL??

But nobody answered this as I expected so I'll have to scream,

WHY DOES THE BIBLE GET AWAY WITH CALLING ATHEISTS AS FOOLS AND DELUSIONAL? CAN IRONY GET ANY MORE STRONGER WHEN A BIBLE BELIEVER(looks at fellow christian members) IS CRITICIZING ATHEISTS FOR CALLING THEM DELUSIONAL??

Gambler_3

Does it? Why not rebuke their allegations with a bit of rationalism. Its far easier for "us" than it is for "them" to do this. Personally, I constantly do entertain the prospect that I'm a delusional fool. Debate, rationalism and introspection steer my own delusional foolishness away from religious observance.

You can call it irony - Freud may have called it transference.

You do know that the bible and quran call all atheists as fools, blind, deaf, dumb etc??

Why does the bible get away with it and not an atheist?

Secondly what does an atheist do if he sincerely believes that theists are delusional? The old testament and other religious texts can spout all sorts of unprecedented non-sense which people continue to believe in and yet atheists should play the political correctness game?:|

Gambler_3

I don't put enough credence into the Bible and Qur'an get offended at what they say about atheists. I simply couldn't care less about it.

One can discuss the wacky ideas in the Old Testament without insulting the other side. If someone believes that theists are delusional, I would say that that's a statement of faith, in which case, I would expect that person to never criticize the legitimacy of having faith (if the person wants to be consistent).

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

But nobody answered this as I expected so I'll have to scream,

WHY DOES THE BIBLE GET AWAY WITH CALLING ATHEISTS AS FOOLS AND DELUSIONAL? CAN IRONY GET ANY MORE STRONGER WHEN A BIBLE BELIEVER(looks at fellow christian members) IS CRITICIZING ATHEISTS FOR CALLING THEM DELUSIONAL??

RationalAtheist

Does it? Why not rebuke their allegations with a bit of rationalism. Its far easier for "us" than it is for "them" to do this. Personally, I constantly do entertain the prospect that I'm a delusional fool. Debate, rationalism and introspection steer my own delusional foolishness away from religious observance.

You can call it irony - Freud may have called it transference.

If anything it's the atheists which should be more offended because the theist goes a bit furthur when it considers bible to be the ultimate objective reality cuz then it implies that atheists are divinely cursed to be deluded. When I call someone deluded it's just my petty little opinion or faith or whatever you want to call it which shouldnt really bother a theist whos confident about himself.

But atheists dont get offended, maybe it has something to do with atheists being generally more mature and intelligent.

I think the definition varies from person to person.  While the technical definition is the belief that there is no God or divine figure, this shows itself differently with different people. 

For some, atheism is merely disbelief and the thought process never goes beyond that.  For others, atheism is an entire philosophical way of thought that effects every component of life.  Ironically, some openly use atheism as a way of showing their disfavor towards God as if to wish him away.  Even within theistic circles there are those that ascribe belief in a God but are "practical atheists," living their lives as if there is no God. 

Sometimes atheism is seen to be synonomous with logic and reason as if one produces the other.  This view is most clearly seen in those who ascribe themselves as being militant atheists and even by many Christians.  Those Christians who take this view tend to say that using logic, reason, and philosophy is actually evil and contradictory to all things related to God (While, I think the irony here is they used some form of [bad] logic to arive at this conclusion thus making them evil according to their own views). Heck, I have personally been told to beware of philosophy because I'll end up turning from God (a thought that I find to be entirely unbiblical because of the claim by Jesus that he is the Truth).

It could also be said that the viewpoint of atheism can become an idol to people, using it as a way to gain a form of salvation.  The salvation sought might be intellectualism, freedom from the Law of God, acceptance from peer pressure, etc.

Of the various descriptions I gave, they may not describe many atheists but this is merely what I have observed over the years.  Some become atheists merely because they question the existance of God from a logical perspective, I just do not think that it is always that simple.

But nobody answered this as I expected so I'll have to scream,

WHY DOES THE BIBLE GET AWAY WITH CALLING ATHEISTS AS FOOLS AND DELUSIONAL? CAN IRONY GET ANY MORE STRONGER WHEN A BIBLE BELIEVER(looks at fellow christian members) IS CRITICIZING ATHEISTS FOR CALLING THEM DELUSIONAL??

Gambler_3

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think any atheist has ever been engaged in a conversation on GameSpot with the Bible during which the Bible called them delusional.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

But nobody answered this as I expected so I'll have to scream,

WHY DOES THE BIBLE GET AWAY WITH CALLING ATHEISTS AS FOOLS AND DELUSIONAL? CAN IRONY GET ANY MORE STRONGER WHEN A BIBLE BELIEVER(looks at fellow christian members) IS CRITICIZING ATHEISTS FOR CALLING THEM DELUSIONAL??

GabuEx

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think any atheist has ever been engaged in a conversation on GameSpot with the Bible during which the Bible called them delusional.

Even within theistic circles there are those that ascribe belief in a God but are "practical atheists," living their lives as if there is no God.

mindstorm

I've heard a similar phrase. The exact phrase was actually "practicing atheist" on the CWU. I don't think it's genuinely honest. I think there are people who believe in God and truly try to live their life as though there is a God, but since they fail in the eyes of certain people, to these people they are not theists. It comes close to being the no true Scottsman fallacy, if not so. However, I do think that believing and acting in one way should not contradict, so your views on what it means to act as an atheist could be differen than others. The belief part is hardly unquestioned.

But nobody answered this as I expected so I'll have to scream,

WHY DOES THE BIBLE GET AWAY WITH CALLING ATHEISTS AS FOOLS AND DELUSIONAL? CAN IRONY GET ANY MORE STRONGER WHEN A BIBLE BELIEVER(looks at fellow christian members) IS CRITICIZING ATHEISTS FOR CALLING THEM DELUSIONAL??

Gambler_3

You're right, it is rather ironic. Nevertheless, generalizing a group of people as fools is sort of a dick move no matter who does it. Also pointing out that a person is guilty of the same thing they accuse you of is actually a logical fallacy known as tu quoque. Their fault in no way detracts from your own.

In any case I'm against generalizing people as foolish but generalizing them as delusional is not only permissable but necessary under certain points of view. To be deluded simply means to hold a false belief. If you're a theist then you must believe that strong atheists are deluded as two mutually exclusive beliefs (God is and God is not) cannot be true at the same time. Likewise if you're a strong atheist you must believe that all theists are deluded. 

It's not an insult to call someone deluded in respect to a certain belief and we should really give up the stigma that comes with it.

One can discuss the wacky ideas in the Old Testament without insulting the other side. If someone believes that theists are delusional, I would say that that's a statement of faith, in which case, I would expect that person to never criticize the legitimacy of having faith (if the person wants to be consistent).

dracula_16

I believe that all theists are delusional. I couldn't hold the belief that God does not exist without doing so. Where exactly have I employed faith here?

Those Christians who take this view tend to say that using logic, reason, and philosophy is actually evil and contradictory to all things related to God (While, I think the irony here is they used some form of [bad] logic to arive at this conclusion thus making them evil according to their own views). Heck, I have personally been told to beware of philosophy because I'll end up turning from God (a thought that I find to be entirely unbiblical because of the claim by Jesus that he is the Truth).mindstorm

Hm, interesting. I have a Christian friend who's kind of like the type you mention. I shared some of my philosophy with him and really encouraged him to do more research on the issues that he had taken on faith before. He texted me back with this verse which he seemed to be using to suggest that too much philosophy leads people away from God.

Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Perhaps the person who cautioned you wasn't being quite as unbiblical as you think.

In any case I'm against generalizing people as foolish but generalizing them as delusional is not only permissable but necessary under certain points of view. To be deluded simply means to hold a false belief. If you're a theist then you must believe that strong atheists are deluded as two mutually exclusive beliefs (God is and God is not) cannot be true at the same time. Likewise if you're a strong atheist you must believe that all theists are deluded. 

It's not an insult to call someone deluded in respect to a certain belief and we should really give up the stigma that comes with it.

domatron23

Well, the problem there, however, is that the word "delusion" has a very specific medical definition, that being a false belief held despite ample evidence against it, and which is a symptom indicative of mental illness.  Of course, it also has nonmedical definitions that do not include the implication of mental illness, but given that there absolutely do exist atheists who believe all religious belief and belief in the supernatural to be mental sickness, I would not imagine it would be unreasonable for a theist to believe they are being accused of being mentally ill if an atheist were to call them delusional.  It seems as though it would be much easier for one to simply affirm their stance that they are "wrong" as opposed to declaring them "delusional".

Hm, interesting. I have a Christian friend who's kind of like the type you mention. I shared some of my philosophy with him and really encouraged him to do more research on the issues that he had taken on faith before. He texted me back with this verse which he seemed to be using to suggest that too much philosophy leads people away from God.

Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Perhaps the person who cautioned you wasn't being quite as unbiblical as you think.

domatron23

I think that this actually gives a very good discussion of just what Paul meant.

I don't imagine it would convince your friend, but he really ought to understand that the chapters and verses were found nowhere at all in the original documents of the Old and New Testaments, and as such, attempting to isolate a single verse and act as if it alone has meaning in isolation is really quite an anachronistic take on the Bible.  Its contents were books and letters intended to be read as a whole, not as individual tidbits of wisdom.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

In any case I'm against generalizing people as foolish but generalizing them as delusional is not only permissable but necessary under certain points of view. To be deluded simply means to hold a false belief. If you're a theist then you must believe that strong atheists are deluded as two mutually exclusive beliefs (God is and God is not) cannot be true at the same time. Likewise if you're a strong atheist you must believe that all theists are deluded. 

It's not an insult to call someone deluded in respect to a certain belief and we should really give up the stigma that comes with it.

GabuEx

Well, the problem there, however, is that the word "delusion" has a very specific medical definition, that being a false belief held despite ample evidence against it, and which is a symptom indicative of mental illness.  Of course, it also has nonmedical definitions that do not include the implication of mental illness, but given that there absolutely do exist atheists who believe all religious belief and belief in the supernatural to be mental sickness, I would not imagine it would be unreasonable for a theist to believe they are being accused of being mentally ill if an atheist were to call them delusional.  It seems as though it would be much easier for one to simply affirm their stance that they are "wrong" as opposed to declaring them "delusional".

Hmm, I see the difficulty.

I know there are atheists who see theism as a mental illness but I certainly don't support that line of thought. I only mean delusion as a synonym of "factually wrong" and only in the non-medical sense. Nevertheless I do think that some theists believe something false with ample evidence against their position (YEC's in particular) though this generally only indicates a special sort of sociological conditioning rather than a mental unbalance.

In any case though "wrong" is a much simpler and less likely to be equivocated term than "delusional". I certainly agree with you on that.

Hm, interesting. I have a Christian friend who's kind of like the type you mention. I shared some of my philosophy with him and really encouraged him to do more research on the issues that he had taken on faith before. He texted me back with this verse which he seemed to be using to suggest that too much philosophy leads people away from God.

Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Perhaps the person who cautioned you wasn't being quite as unbiblical as you think.

 

domatron23

For example, Scripture may clearly state A, B, and C.  In our efforts to have intellectual superiority we may try to make sense of A in light of B but C is neglected in the process.  This does not mean there is an actual contradiction, we just are not always perfect in our understanding of the things of God.  As a clear example of this, Christians must make sense of man's free will in light of God's sovereignty, and putting too much emphasis over one neglects the other.  Many Christians over the centuries have become heretics after taking their theological ideologies too far.

To put this more simply, we are to be aware of the fact that we are incapable of having perfectly rational thought in light of the Fall of man.  Sometimes we must simply admit that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and quit trying to be God.  As far as that passage, I am under the impression that it simply means that we should worship Christ, not our intellectual prowess.  Using reason in and of itself is not evil.

I believe that all theists are delusional. I couldn't hold the belief that God does not exist without doing so. Where exactly have I employed faith here?

domatron23

Unless you can provide evidence that proves that all theists are delusional, I'm inclined to think that that belief is one that requires faith. The same goes for the belief that God does not exist; that sounds like a matter of faith. I have a hard time imagining how anyone could know something like that.

You were speaking in absolutes, but I think that that's unnecessary when we're dealing with something that may or may not exist.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

I believe that all theists are delusional. I couldn't hold the belief that God does not exist without doing so. Where exactly have I employed faith here?

dracula_16

Unless you can provide evidence that proves that all theists are delusional, I'm inclined to think that that belief is one that requires faith. The same goes for the belief that God does not exist; that sounds like a matter of faith. I have a hard time imagining how anyone could know something like that.

You were speaking in absolutes, but I think that that's unnecessary when we're dealing with something that may or may not exist.

Hey drac sorry I've taken a while to get back to you. Gamespot has kind of taken a back seat to family and sports recently.

In any case let me respond. My belief that every single theist is delusional ("delusional" here taken to denote the apprehension of a false belief rather than clinical insanity) follows necessarily from my position of strong atheism. If you hold that God does not exist then you can not help but believe that people who hold that he does exist are wrong.

Since that's the case I don't have to specifically provide evidence that all theists are delusional, I merely have to justify strong atheism. It works exactly the same in reverse. All that a theist has to do to support a stance that every strong atheist is deluded is justify the existence of God.

In any case how would you support a belief in strong atheism and the corollary that theists are deluded? You could point out that an absence of evidence does constitute evidence of absence if we should expect an abundance of evidence given the existence of God (and I think we can expect evidence particularly with personal Gods that desire relationships of worship/glorification/submission).

You could invoke the dysteleological argument which argues that the universe displays what Dawkins calls "blind pitiless indifference" instead of purposeful design.

You could walk down that well treaded path of finding contradictions within a tri-omni God or between it and free will.

You could develop an understanding of why a belief in God is a psychological, sociological construct and cast aside the actual existence of the proposed being as superfluous to consideration. Many children do the same thing when they discover exactly who is putting Christmas presents under their tree and why they were told that they would only get them if they behaved themselves.

There are surely more but you get the picture. Basically though if I have reasons to support my strong atheism then I also have reasons to support my position that theists are deluded. And since I have established this belief (not knowledge, I'm not certain about it all nor should anyone be) with reasons rather than wishes I don't think that it should be called faith.

Oh I'm totally digging the confucius sig btw. It's a very Socratic notion although in Wikipedia-ing it it seems as if Confucius predates Socrates.

Oh I'm totally digging the confucius sig btw. It's a very Socratic notion although in Wikipedia-ing it it seems as if Confucius predates Socrates.

domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Oh I'm totally digging the confucius sig btw. It's a very Socratic notion although in Wikipedia-ing it it seems as if Confucius predates Socrates.

ChiliDragon

Absolutely. I think it's Plato's Apology where he goes into that line of reasoning. I'm kind of bummed that he wasn't the first one to express that sentiment but I guess we can fall back on the line "great minds think alike".