[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]vegetables are good for me, they must be a lie. It simply isn't a factual argument, I don't know what can be done with it. I know that it certainly won't convince a Christian.domatron23

Now if you were to tell me that vegetables are good for me and you had a vested interest in me eating vegetables I might well suspect you. It's only because I know by a posteriori evidence that vegetables are in fact good for me that my suspicions are allayed.

I still think that my argument has merit but it needs more development to avoid objections like these. One thing I do think you have right though is that this argument isn't really for a Christian audience. It would be best used as an argument for strong atheism presented to weak atheists. Preaching to the choir one might say.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

The psychological evidence you mention; that humans tend to prefer and enforce what they think, would seem to enforce the notion of religious delusions from faith - not just from Christianity.

I'd say that's not true that new information does not affect view. Deductive rationalisation does not re-enforce conclusions. The scientific framework for discovery itself  (based on this logic) can question existing scientific paradigms in the light of new discovery.

Bad science (take cold water fusion discovery, for example) can be dismissed, based on the lack of evidence supporting it - no matter how much people want to believe in it. There's the difference between rational and irrational thought.

GabuEx

I'm not talking about science or religion.  I'm talking about people.  People always like having their views substantiated, and don't like having their views refuted.  We're not robots and we're not Spock, much as some scientifically-minded people would like to think they are.  If someone has spent years and years of their life arguing in favor of a position such that it's become a part of their life, they're not going to part with it just like that; they will always try to find validation of their position in whatever new evidence comes along.  This is true both of the religious and of scientists - there's a reason why people still persist in pitching a scientific idea even after most of the scientific community has moved on and declared it discredited.  Probably one of the most courageous acts that anyone can ever do is to admit the possibility that they have been wrong their entire life.

I will certainly grant that science is structured in such a way to mitigate the effects of this psychological phenomenon whereas Christianity isn't (although I have always maintained that one is not supposed to glean scientific facts from Christianity anyway), but then, again, I still don't see what the point of this thread is.  No offense to anyone involved, but this smacks as just a petty attack on Christianity with no broader or deeper point being made, as if to just say, "Ho ho ho, look at how silly and un-scientific Christianity is."

If we can't discuss and underpin the basis for our views here (in this open to all union), then what's the point of it?

I think you assume that science has boundaries, whereas I think the unexplained is a scientific frontier. 

RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Who says fairies don't exist? Many people can believe certain things without objective evidence, and know assuredly they are right... but that doesn't mean they are "deluded." We can't always rely on our senses and sometimes we can be fooled by them. Unless you can explain absolutely everything about the universe, I don't think it is fair to evaluate other's beliefs as "deluded."domatron23

Yeah I figured I'd get flak for declaring Christianity to be a delusion.

Point taken but hypothetically presupposing here that the beliefs of Christians are false would you agree that it is a self-reinforcing delusion?