The God Delusion

157 posts / 0 new
Last post
Apollo's picture
The God Delusion

This is a post I intended to post in the book club section, but found no way to post.

Some things that AngelinaMason wrote (in the book club section) resonate with me. I too grew up in a conservative christian family, although a Protestant. Lots of things didn't make sense to me, but as a young person then, I just went with the flow and kept my mouth shut. Later as I had the opportunity to learn and grow, I abandoned Fundamentalist Christianity. They are really mixed up. But there was nothing compelling to make me abandon theism per se. Periodically I test my theist beliefs by reading alleged heavy weights such as Dawkins. So on to the God Delusion.

1. The meaning of delusion is belief in something that is impossible. So Dawkins has set himself the goal of proving that the existence of a creator god is impossible. I don't see anything in Dawkin's writing that proves such a thing. In fact it seems to be rationally coherent to believe God created the universe, while Dawkin's claims at proof are just a fairy tale.
2. The crux of his claim seems to be in the area of probability, that against all odds, the universe created itself at the time of the big bang, and somehow accident abiogenesis occurred. Is it possible? I guess so. Anything is possible. But that doesn't prove what he claims her proves, namely, that belief in a Creator God is a delusion. In order to prove his delusion thesis, he must show that it is necessary. He never gets around to demonstrating the necessity of his claim.
3. I might add here that theists sometimes suffer from the same problem as Dawkins: some claim that it is necessary God exists, but they too never demonstrate it. There are no arguments to prove the existence of God, but there are plenty to show that belief in God is reasonable. (By "reasonable" I don't mean necessary. In logic, there are possible implications and there are necessary implications. the God debates only result in possible, not necessary, implications.
4. Dawkins usually hauls out the jaded evolution argument. Charles Darwin was a christian, he went to Cambridge apparently to study for the ministry in his church. Despite atheist myths to the contrary, Darwin was not an atheist. In fact when he died, he was honored by the church with a burial in Westminster Abby. Atheists are, however, unlike to tell people about that and instead leave out facts that are inconvenient for the faith in their atheist myths, and fairy tales. the reality is, I believe, that
5. While Darwin's church honored him as a great man and scientist, fundamentalist Christians were, to say the least, appalled. Herein lies another strange issue with Dawkins: he seems to assume that all Christians are fundamentalist Christians. I don't blame him for criticizing the Fundy's as they are in my view, foolish. But Dawkins is picking on the easy targets, the light weights. They are easy to pick on, and when Dawkins does that, he acts like he is a heavy weight. he, like the Fundy's are foolish.

Although some of Dawkins beliefs are possible, they are not necessary truths, so he fails at what he promised. When he, as well as legions of atheists claim he succeeded, they're telling a tall tale they have faith in. If atheists hope to become mature critical thinkers, they need a model of greater skill and intellect than Dawkins exhibits.

One thing that inspired me to write this is AngelinaMason's post above. She's questioning her roots and I say good for her. I hope she also questions Dawkins, and doesn't just gobble it up like a good Catholic.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

's picture
Apollo, the reason this

Apollo, the reason this thread can't be posted in the book section is because only AR folks create thread in that section.

Your OP should've been included in THAT thread, as a post, and not a thread, so those who read the book, can participate.

Or did you have something else is mind?

arakish's picture
The meaning of delusion is

The meaning of delusion is belief in something that is impossible.

Wrong. Delusion is the belief in something that is proven to be demonstrably incorrect. Furthermore, Dawkins does not "set out to prove the God Hypothesis is impossible." Instead, he presents the improbability of any god existing. God can never be proven to be 100% impossible. Instead, look at all the evidence that has been presented over the last about 3000± years, and I will say, "I am not convinced."

No atheist has ever said that "God is impossible." Instead, we say, "I do not believe your unsubstantiated preposterous claims."

Get your bullshit correct. I never read beyond #1 because in just that item you had already spewed too much woo.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"1. The meaning of delusion

"1. The meaning of delusion is belief in something that is impossible."

Not even close.

Delusion
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
-----------------------
2 "it seems to be rationally coherent to believe God created the universe, while Dawkin's claims at proof are just a fairy tale."

claims = 2
evidence = 0

This seems fairly typical for theists who breeze onto this site to preach, then leave. I anticipate that like all the others you'll be gone without ever offering any objective evidence.
-----------------------------------
3 " There are no arguments to prove the existence of God, but there are plenty to show that belief in God is reasonable."

Two more claims, both demonstrably wrong. Still no evidence anywhere in sight, same old theists.
------------------------------------
4. Dawkins usually hauls out the jaded evolution argument. Charles Darwin was a christian,

Evolution isn't an argument, and Darwin died an atheist, you're on fire.

" Despite atheist myths to the contrary, Darwin was not an atheist. In fact when he died, he was honored by the church with a burial in Westminster Abby. Atheists are, however, unlike to tell people about that and instead leave out facts that are inconvenient for the faith in their atheist myths, and fairy tales. the reality is, I believe, that"

Hahahhahahhahahhahahaha - you're trolling, busted matey. Talk about overplaying your hand, hilarious.
-------------------------------------------
5. "While Darwin's church honored him as a great man and scientist, fundamentalist Christians were, to say the least, appalled. Herein lies another strange issue with Dawkins: he seems to assume that all Christians are fundamentalist Christians."

Two more claims, and both wrong again, trolltacular.
-------------------------------------------
"Although some of Dawkins beliefs are possible, they are not necessary truths, so he fails at what he promised."

Professor Dawkins made no promises and expressed no beliefs in TGD.

"When he, as well as legions of atheists claim he succeeded, they're telling a tall tale they have faith in. If atheists hope to become mature critical thinkers, they need a model of greater skill and intellect than Dawkins exhibits."

And you will need to try a lot harder than this poor effort, if you're going to troll successfully. 0/10...must do better...

Sheldon's picture
Interesting article here on

Interesting article here on Darwin's loss of faith, can't say i agree with it entirely, but unlike the troll who started this thread it does attempt some objectivity:

"At the end of the first sketch of what was to become The Origin of Species Darwin balanced the extraordinary grandeur of life with the pain inherent in natural selection. "From death, famine, rapine, and the concealed war of nature we can see that the highest good, which we can conceive, the creation of the higher animals has directly come."

This was the issue. If "higher animals" – with all their splendour and sophistication, their grace and their grandeur, ultimately their minds, metaphysics and morality – if they were indeed "the highest good, which we can conceive" then maybe evolution by natural selection was not simply compatible with the idea of God but actively supportive of it. Everything hung on how the scales balanced between life's grandeur and its potential for grief.

Those scales titled towards scepticism for the decade of so after Darwin first developed his theory but remained in the balance. He remained a theist of a Christian flavour throughout the 1840s although one with precious little faith. (Whether he had much faith before is itself questionable, as his perceptive wife, Emma, recognised even before they were married).

When, however, his daughter Annie died in 1851, aged 10, suffering moved from being a theoretical problem to an agonisingly personal one. Most Victorian families lost children (Darwin himself lost two others in infancy) but Annie was his favourite and, unlike most Victorian fathers, he had witnessed every last, degrading moment of her short life. The experience destroyed what was left of his Christian faith.

The claim that evolution destroyed Darwin's faith is, thus, only a half-truth, usually made to prove somehow that evolution killed God. By the same reckoning, the claim that evolution had nothing to do with his loss of faith (which was entirely due to Annie's death) is no more accurate, and is often made for equally polemical purposes (usually to demonstrate that evolution presents no challenges whatsoever to religious belief).

In reality, Darwin's loss of faith was, as he recognised, gradual and complex. The reasons were not new – suffering always has been and always will be most serious challenge to Christianity – but they were newly focused. Plenty of Darwin's scientific contemporaries, men like John Stevens Henslow, Charles Lyell, Asa Gray, George Wright, Alexander Winchell, and James Dana, could accommodate their Christian beliefs with the new theory. Indeed, as historian James Moore has remarked "with but few exceptions the leading Christian thinkers in Great Britain and America came to terms quite readily with Darwinism and evolution."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/sep/17/darwin-evol...

Another viewpoint expressed here:

"200 years after the birth of Charles Darwin, his theory of evolution still clashes with the creationist beliefs of some organized religions. For him personally, it meant the end of his belief in creation by God"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/charles-darwin-confessions/

If Darwin initially baulked at the idea of atheism it was to expected given the epoch in which he lived. To claim this meant he was not an atheist, is as risible as claiming christianity led the abolition movement, whilst failing to notice almost everyone of the epoch was a christian of one stripe or another, and southern slave owners almost exclusively christian.

Algebe's picture
Apollo: The meaning of

Apollo: The meaning of delusion is belief in something that is impossible.

While nobody can conclusively disprove the existence of a god, religion is delusional for three reasons.

First, all religions assign very specific and detailed attributes and actions to their god figure without any evidence other than continuously elaborated myths.

Second, all religions claim that their beliefs are true and all others are false, and the psychological foundation for that assumption is so fragile that they must resort to various forms of violence to shore it up.

Third, while claiming that their beliefs are sustained by a vague transcendental notion that they call "faith", many religious leaders hypocritically resort to spurious "proofs" based on pseudo-science masquerading under names like "intelligent design" or "irreducible complexity".

Conclusive proof of god's non-existence isn't necessary to establish that all three of these behaviors are delusional.

Randomhero1982's picture
On the first point, The

On the first point, The meaning you gave for delusion is incorrect as others have pointed out and I'm sure you know.
Furthermore, it is NOT rationally coherent to go from the proof of how humans evolved, to how Earth and the solar system came to be, to the big bang and then to a God.

That is simply playing a God of the gaps card that has zero evidence to support it.

The best you could say is that, something came before the big bang/quantum fluctuations and we currently don't know what it is... that is the honest approach.

And to claim that Dawkins lacks skill or intellect in actuality displays a scary level of thought or lack there of! He's a genius in his field, perhaps not in theology though and that is the point and approach that should have been made.

Secondly, His thesis is that humans are delusional, and that the notion of a God is a part of a delusion many share. The fact a God cannot and has not ever been proven is evidence of that.
Also, the fact that science continually bridges our thirst for knowledge with answers/explanations that either dismiss/destroy or relegate theistic explanations is further proof.

His point that The God hypothesis doesn't answer any question better then another thesis gives him credence.

The evolution is only seen as jaded if you are being intellectually dishonest.
All humans evolved from an ancestral primate, we developed that way and continue to do so.
This biological law throws out the Adam and Eve story, the immaculate conception of Jesus... and continuing down the scientific route, no one ascends to anywhere unless by technological means I.e. jet pack, planes and so on.

To dismiss the argument is foolish in my humble opinion.

In closing evolution is proven, factual, predictable and testable... everything the claims within theology are not.

Cognostic's picture
@OP: In fact it seems to be

@OP: In fact it seems to be rationally coherent to believe God created the universe, while Dawkin's claims at proof are just a fairy tale.

1. How so? You have just made the same error you accuse Dawkins of making. There is nothing at all rationally coherent about a belief in god. The God hypothesis has not met its burden of proof. The null hypothesis asserts, that which has no evidence supporting it can be rejected. All Dawkins has to say is "That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence." and he has in fact proved a reason for not believing in God or gods.

2. @ "The crux of his claim seems to be in the area of probability" Do you know what "probability" means? "Probability is the measure of the likelihood that an event will occur. See glossary of probability and statistics. Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1, where, loosely speaking, 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty." We have a 100% probability that life will occur in our universe. It's here. There is a ZERO percent probability that the universe was "CREATED." There is no evidence what so ever for a creator. Show me a creator and your probability score will rise. And who said the Universe is Necessary. Necessary does not enter into the equation at all. There is no necessary condition for the creation of the universe that we know of at this time. Asserting that there is, is just nonsense.

3. "There are no arguments to prove the existence of God, but there are plenty to show that belief in God is reasonable. " Now there is a moronic statement. If there are no arguments to prove the existence of a God or gods, belief in this or that god "CAN NOT BE REASONABLE." How is this not blatantly obvious?

4. "Dawkins usually hauls out the jaded evolution argument." Dawkins is a frigging biologist. OF COURSE HE TALKS ABOUT EVOLUTION! How dense are you. Clinton Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008. HE IS ONE OF THE PREMIERE EXPERTS IN THE COUNTRY ON BIOLOGY. Where Dawkins usually slips up is when he begins discussing THEOLOGY. He is not as well grounded in that as BIOLOGY. He has made a few silly comments that theologians have pointed out, but you would be insane to challenge the man on BIOLOGY.

"Christians are fundamentalist Christians. I don't blame him for criticizing the Fundy's as they are in my view, foolish. But Dawkins is picking on the easy targets, the light weights. They are easy to pick on, and when Dawkins does that, he acts like he is a heavy weight. he, like the Fundy's are foolish."

Do you even pay attention to what you write? "I fully agree with Dawkins, Fundy's are foolish. But I disagree with him for pointing them out.. Do you not see the contradiction?

6. "Although some of Dawkins beliefs are possible, they are not necessary truths, so he fails at what he promised." So cite the beliefs you are talking about. All you did was make an erroneous assertion here.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Apollo - In logic, there are

Apollo - In logic, there are possible implications and there are necessary implications. the God debates only result in possible, not necessary, implications.

You have any idea how many theists come to this site and claim the opposite?

Apollo's picture
I'll try to do a topic per

I'll try to do a topic per post. This post is about the meaning of delusion.

Most people take the meaning of delusion to be a false belief. If it is truely a false belief, then what is believed is impossible. (Otherwise, one would have the definition as 'a false belief that could be true'; so we haven't really shown it is false. In this case, the meaning of delusion becomes convoluted.)
If one believes in something that's possible, then it isn't a delusion.
So in order to show a belief is a delusion, one has to show it is necessarily false, not just possibly false.

Ergo, The title of Dawkins book promises that the book will show the existance of God is impossible, and therefore belief in God is a delusion.

However, it could be that dissenters prefer the convoluted definition of delusion, in which case their definition is irrational.

Sheldon's picture
"If one believes in something

"If one believes in something that's possible, then it isn't a delusion.
So in order to show a belief is a delusion, one has to show it is necessarily false, not just possibly false."

Complete nonsense, why don't theists know how to Google word definitions?

Delusion
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

The delusions need not be impossible at all. Besides it is axiomatic that we cannot know whether unfalsifiable claims are possible or impossible. That aside I'm sure we would all be enthralled to here you evidence how a deity is possible?

"The title of Dawkins book promises that the book will show the existance of God is impossible, "

No it doesn't, not at all, and I am starting to think we are dealing with yet another chippy theist who hasn't read Professor Dawkins's book. Oh and it's existence not existance (sic) ffs. If you can't be bothered to take a few seconds to spellcheck a word then no wonder you haven't a clue how they are defined. I'm really starting to tire of the moronic procession of theists that are traipsing through here lately, stinking up the place with their asinine absurdities.

"However, it could be that dissenters prefer the convoluted definition of delusion, in which case their definition is irrational."

Oh ffs..wait, are you being ironic? You are aren't you, I have been duped, kudos then as you really had me believing you were an illiterate moron there, well done really, I was completely taken in.

Apollo's picture
"...theists who breeze on

"...theists who breeze on site to preach, then leave...." or something like that.
Sheldon,
I was referred to this site by an atheist who claimed 1. Science isn't wrong about anything ever. 2. Athiests are science based, therefore not mistaken about anything. When I attempted to dialogue with him to draw out his views. For instance I asked what science books did he read and like? He didn't offer a single title, as he apparently hadn't read any. So I came here to learn what atheists have to offer. For example, I started the following thread to offer atheists the the opportunity to give me their views.

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/what-separates-belief-...

I'd like to invite you to write your views in that thread. In short, I came to this site to let you preach to me and ask questions of your views. You might change my mind on something, but in order to do that, you have to be sharp. I don't fall for any old athiest myth. For example, the thread cited in this post was about the atheist myth concerning "objective facts". the atheists who responded there, although most were well meaning, were utterly naive about the topic.

Sheldon's picture
"I was referred to this site

"I was referred to this site by an atheist who claimed 1. Science isn't wrong about anything ever. 2. Athiests are science based, therefore not mistaken about anything."

I'm dubious, but even if you really have met someone that moronically stupid, why couldn't you see the claims for the asinine stupidity they are? Why bring them here at all, and a cursory read of the regular posters here would have disavowed you of the stupid idea that they shared those asinine views about science. Atheism can't be wrong as it makes no assertions, and is simply the lack of belief in a deity, but atheists being human can, and again the stupidity of the claim speaks for itself, so I am very dubious about your claim. Given the content and nature of your posts, the claim sounds just stupid enough for you to have created it yourself to troll with.

"When I attempted to dialogue with him to draw out his views. For instance I asked what science books did he read and like? He didn't offer a single title, as he apparently hadn't read any. "

Gerraway, was he able to recommend any books on English grammar?

"So I came here to learn what atheists have to offer. For example, I started the following thread to offer atheists the the opportunity to give me their views."

Yes I think I am starting to see the problem, had you considered just Googling the definitions of belief, and fact, respectively? You might ponder those definitions, and find the results edifying, though again I am dubious.

"I'd like to invite you to write your views in that thread. In short, I came to this site to let you preach to me and ask questions of your views. You might change my mind on something, but in order to do that, you have to be sharp."

Oh I fear my meagre intellect would be profoundly inadequate, and again I find your claim highly dubious. .

"For example, the thread cited in this post was about the atheist myth concerning "objective facts"."

There is no such myth, atheism is the absence of one single belief, that a deity or deities exist.

"the atheists who responded there, although most were well meaning, were utterly naive about the topic."

No doubt they were intimidated by your novel use of punctuation and grammar, it is very disconcerting.

Randomhero1982's picture
Science isn't wrong about

Science isn't wrong about anything ever.

Well that's bollocks, science is simply a tool and the best one humans have of testing, predicting and understanding the natural world.

Either your friend is:
A) Retarded
Or, B) Grossly mistaken

Athiests are science based, therefore not mistaken about anything

Ohhh fuck a duck.... come on people!

Let's just clear this up once and for all!

Atheism is simply a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more! This really isn't difficult!

It's like telling parents you don't believe in santa!
"What??? You want to stone children to death?"
"What's that? You don't believe in oxygen as being necessary to humans???"

It is just one position on one claim!

Furthermore, your friend not offering you titles to read, does not mean he hasn't read one (although he probably hasn't going by the bollocks before hand) that is logically shite.
You've made a wild leap in assumptions without evidence.

Sapporo's picture
I don't think @Apollo could

I don't think @Apollo could have read the book very carefully, as Dawkins never actually says that the existence of god is impossible. He is actually quite explicit, in that (in the book) he regards himself as a 6 on this scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

"I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." - Richard Dawkins

arakish's picture
@ Sapporo

@ Sapporo

What do they say about like minds? I did not see your post, since you posted while I was still writing mine. We both linked to that same page on the Great Wiki.

rmfr

Sapporo's picture
arakish: @ Sapporo

arakish: @ Sapporo

What do they say about like minds? I did not see your post, since you posted while I was still writing mine. We both linked to that same page on the Great Wiki.

rmfr

:p snap!

arakish's picture
And you just proved how all

And you just proved how all Religious Absolutists are delusional. And incapable of any kind of rational thought.

What Religious Absolutists Abdicate and Abandon for Delusional Faith
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Thinking: The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form an objective judgment.

 

And William Lane Craig, Master Apologist explains and defines why NO Religious Absolutist can EVER be OBJECTIVE:

"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence then it is the former (Christian faith) which must take precedence over the latter (TRUE truth and hard empirical evidence)."

 

Analytical Thought: The abstract separation of a whole into its constituent parts in order to study the parts and their relations in a coherent and logical process.

Deductive Reasoning/Analysis: A process of reasoning from one or more statements or premises to reach a logically certain conclusion.

Rational Thought: Having reason or understanding to reflect on and to exercise the powers of judgment, conception, or inference in orderly ways or processes.

Logical Reasoning/Analysis: The process of using a rational, systematic series of steps based on sound procedures and given statements to arrive at an objective conclusion.

The above is what Absolutists abdicate and abandon. Let’s look at what they replace it with…

Faith: The practice of training one’s mind to ignore evidence, logic, and reason, while being able to believe in fairy tales, and being proud of it rather than ashamed. Your biblical definition for faith is just a cop-out for the true definition. "The demonstrably provable delusional belief in something that does not exist."

And what I find most shameful is that some otherwise very intelligent people (excepting you, obviously) sacrifice that intelligence for their faith. Damnit, what the hell is wrong with you people? One of you could actually be the next Nobel Prize winner who discovers something so profound…

============================================================

Apollo: "Most people take the meaning of delusion to be a false belief."

More or less correct. However, delusion is defined as "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder." Thus, yes. You could define it as "false belief."

However, when it comes to religions, it is actually better defined as "a controlled, systematic, totalitarian indoctrination process which utilizes mental rape, emotional molestation, and psychological terrorism when a child’s mind, especially in the ages of 4 to 14 years, is at its most susceptible and most vulnerable to cultural conditioning."

Furthermore, this delusion is backed by "training to react to contradictory ideas, and to reject them no matter what they are told, presented, and/or taught. They are taught to never question their beliefs. Militantly trained to maintain and preserve the faith. And, due to this designed abusive mental training and indoctrination process, they shall do so with apologetics, beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiny-ass pleas, and sometimes divinely-inspired violence. Worst of all, their conditioning is so ingrained that most never question why they need to defend their belief at all."

And, hoping Algebe does not mind me quoting him (he puts it so well I did not even want to try restating what he said):

While nobody can conclusively disprove the existence of a god, religion is delusional for three reasons.

First, all religions assign very specific and detailed attributes and actions to their god figure without any evidence other than continuously elaborated myths.

Second, all religions claim that their beliefs are true and all others are false, and the psychological foundation for that assumption is so fragile that they must resort to various forms of violence to shore it up.

Third, while claiming that their beliefs are sustained by a vague transcendental notion that they call "faith", many religious leaders hypocritically resort to spurious "proofs" based on pseudo-science masquerading under names like "intelligent design" or "irreducible complexity".

Conclusive proof of god's non-existence isn't necessary to establish that all three of these behaviors are delusional.

============================================================

Apollo: "If it is truely a false belief, then what is believed is impossible."

Not necessarily. It may only be improbable. You really need to go back to school.

============================================================

Apollo: "Otherwise, one would have the definition as 'a false belief that could be true'; so we haven't really shown it is false."

Tautology.

============================================================

Apollo: "In this case, the meaning of delusion becomes convoluted."

Not if it is defined correctly. There is no Religious Absolutist upon this Earth that has been, is, or shall be ever capable of providing a correct definition of any word. Just to prove it, define "religion."

============================================================

Apollo: "If one believes in something that's possible, then it isn't a delusion."

Yes. It can be. If I were to believe that Star Wars® was possible and a true story of "reality," then that would be believing in a delusion. Now prove "Star Wars is impossible."

============================================================

Apollo: "So in order to show a belief is a delusion, one has to show it is necessarily false, not just possibly false."

Actually, "possibly false" can work since it can be used in place of "improbable."

============================================================

Apollo: "Ergo, The title of Dawkins book promises that the book will show the existance of God is impossible, and therefore belief in God is a delusion."

Not "impossible." Dawkins NEVER, EVER, says "God is impossible." Just so "improbable" that you may as well say god does not exist. Boy, you need to start over and go back to First Grade. This time, actually listen and think about what you are being taught.

Dawkins himself say he is 6, leaning towards a 7 in the scale he lists in his book The God Delusion. Have a gander at this Wikipedia page.

For me, my ranking would be around 6.999999846748184676694051. ;-P

============================================================

Apollo: "However, it could be that dissenters prefer the convoluted definition of delusion, in which case their definition is irrational."

By definition, I am a dissenter; however, my definition of "delusion" is NOT convoluted. Here it is again:

Delusion (religious): a controlled, systematic, totalitarian indoctrination process which utilizes mental rape, emotional molestation, and psychological terrorism when a child’s mind, especially in the ages of 4 to 14 years, is at its most susceptible and most vulnerable to cultural conditioning. Furthermore, this form of delusion is backed by training to react to contradictory ideas, and to reject them no matter what they are told, presented, and/or taught. They are taught to never question their beliefs. Militantly trained to maintain and preserve the faith. And, due to this designed abusive mental training and indoctrination process, they shall do so with apologetics, beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiny-ass pleas, and sometimes divinely-inspired violence. Worst of all, their conditioning is so ingrained that most never question why they need to defend their belief at all."

See? Not convoluted. EXACT.

Additionally, it is YOU that is convoluting the definition of "delusion" just as ALL Religious Absolutist retards do. Since you Religious Absolutists cannot prove anything about your religion to even be "true," you convolute everything else in order to give the impression your bullshit does smell sweet. However, as David Killens once said (I paraphrase): "Shoveling more bullshit ain't gonna make the pile of bullshit smell any sweeter."

rmfr

Edit: fixed a strong tag (why is it always the strong ones I screw up on LOLOL)

Apollo's picture
Apollo: "If it is truely a

arakish,

Apollo: "If it is truely a false belief, then what is believed is impossible."
Not necessarily. It may only be improbable.

--------------
Reply:

Nope. If it is improbable, then it is possible. if it is possible, it hasn't been proven to be false. If it isn't proven false, it isn't a false belief. If it isn't a false belief, it isn't a delusion.

Besides, "improbable" is a value judgement.

I can't stop you from using the convoluted definition of delusion, where alegedly 'a false belief could be true', but I don't accept you trying to impose your convoluted beliefs on me.

arakish's picture
Nor I from your convoluted

Nor I from your convoluted delusions.

Furthermore, nothing is truly impossible. Just so improbable, we may as well say it is impossible.

rmfr

Apollo's picture
arakish,

arakish,

Nope.

2 apples + 2 apples = 5 apples is false. You may stick to your convolueted idea that the 5 apples conclusion is "improbable" but "possible", but I don't. You are trying to reduce everything to probablities, and it doesn't work.

arakish's picture
And if I cut one in half, I

And if I cut one in half, I can say I have 5 apples...

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"Apollo: "If it is truely a

"Apollo: "If it is truely a false belief, then what is believed is impossible."
Not necessarily. It may only be improbable."

You think a false belief might be probable? Again I think I am starting to see the problem, bless. It;s staring to feel a little like kicking a naughty, but not too bright puppy now.

Apollo's picture
I believe that Dawkins is a

I believe that Dawkins is a fine, competent biologist. But his other stuff on God and related topics is weak.
I believe in evolution, so the jaded argument isn't against evolution. Dawkins has argued that the theory of evolution proves God doesn't exist. Science isn't about if God exists or not, science is about how the universe works. Ergo, Dawkins' jaded arguement is flawed. Additionally, Belief in God and belief in evolution are not at all contradictory. I believe God created the universe and all the processes in it. I believe evolution is a process God created.
It seems I should illustrate a belief: -

I believe Randomhero1982 exists.

is that belief justified? If so how? Well we have Randomhero1982's creations to look at, namely, Randomhero1982's posts in this forum. So how do I know Randomhero1982? By his creations.

A skeptic might retort that Randomhero1982's posts, his creations, could be written by an automaton, such as IBM's computer Watson. So how do I retain my belief that Randomhero1982 is a person? I could be mistaken. A skeptic might say my belief in the existance of Randomhero1982 is emperically unverified, and to believe in his existance, I need emperical facts. Despite the fact I could be mistaken, I still believe Randomhero1982 is a person.

So how do I know God? I know God by God's creation, the universe. Just as I see Randomhero1982's work, his creations, his posts, I see God's work, namely the universe. If my belief in the creator Randomhero1982 is justified, so is my belief in the creator God.

Sapporo's picture
@Apollo you are unable to

@Apollo you are unable to prove that something can be created from nothing.

Sheldon's picture
Wow, you really don't know

Wow, you really don't know the difference between a belief, and a fact, I thought you were being facetious.

*I believe that Dawkins is a fine, competent biologist.
This is an objective fact, rendering the word belief redundant.

*his other stuff on God and related topics is weak.
Subjective belief, and since you offer no evidence dismissed in the same fashion - Hitchens's razor.

*I believe in evolution,
It is an objective scientific fact, and again this renders the word belief superfluous.

*Dawkins has argued that the theory of evolution proves God doesn't exist.
Another subjective belief, and demonstrably false to anyone who has read his book (s), but please offer a chapter and page as evidence for your claim.

*science is about how the universe works
Science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world & universe, through observation and experiment.

*Dawkins' jaded arguement (sic) is flawed.
Subjective belief, and ffs get a spellchecker.

*Additionally, Belief in God and belief in evolution are not at all contradictory.
Subjective belief, and demonstrably false as well, since evolution contradicts the biblical and koranic creation myths. Oh and ffs why do you keep capitalising words in the middle of sentences?

*I believe God created the universe and all the processes in it. I believe evolution is a process God created.
Both subjective beliefs, and both dismissed, Hitchens's razor applied.

*A skeptic might retort that Randomhero1982's posts, his creations, could be written by an automaton, such as IBM's computer Watson. So how do I retain my belief that Randomhero1982 is a person? I could be mistaken. A skeptic might say my belief in the existance of Randomhero1982 is emperically unverified, and to believe in his existance, I need emperical facts. Despite the fact I could be mistaken, I still believe Randomhero1982 is a person.

Existence ffs, there is no such word as existance (sic).

People exist as an objective fact, and they post in internet forums as an objective fact, thus your assertion that it is possible for this username to be a person is based on objective facts. What objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity exists? That's the point you seem to be missing completely, we can say objectively that Randomhero1982 might be a human being posting on the internet, no one however can demonstrate any objective evidence that the existence of any deity is possible.

"So how do I know God? I know God by God's creation, the universe."

Calling the universe a "creation" is a common logical fallacy called begging the question. I urge you to look it up. What evidence can you demonstrate that the universe is created? What evidence can you demonstrate that any deity exists? All you've done it point to something you believe is created, call it creation, and claim the deity you believe in created it, not very compelling, and obviously fallacious to anyone who has even the most basic understanding of informal logic. Even I spotted it, that says it all.

Apollo's picture
I'm highly skeptical that, as

I'm highly skeptical that, as Dawkins subjectivly claims, "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."

Some people, even some atheists on this site, like Popper's criteria: Is a hypothesis or proposition falsifiable? If it isn't falsifiable, according to Popper, it doesn't belong in science. But despite the fact that some athiests here cite Popper's criteria, Dawkins, in one of his other books, rejects Popper.

Many atheists like the method of doubt, otherwise known as skepticism, so I assume you don't mind me being skeptical.

Sapporo's picture
Apollo: I'm highly skeptical

Apollo: I'm highly skeptical that, as Dawkins subjectivly claims, "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."

Some people, even some atheists on this site, like Popper's criteria: Is a hypothesis or proposition falsifiable? If it isn't falsifiable, according to Popper, it doesn't belong in science. But despite the fact that some athiests here cite Popper's criteria, Dawkins, in one of his other books, rejects Popper.

Many atheists like the method of doubt, otherwise known as skepticism, so I assume you don't mind me being skeptical.

First you need to mention which god you mean, and what attributes it has.

Sheldon's picture
Dawkins was referring to the

Dawkins was referring to the belief some theists hold that a deity intervenes in the physical universe. This by definition would be falsifiable, and thus subject to the scientific method. However I have a copy of Professor Dawkins's book on the table in front of me, please cite the page he claimed science could investigate anything that is unfalsifiable?

Doubt isn't a method, it's simply a state of mind donating a lack of conviction, scepticism can be methodical, and would necessarily involve doubt. Your scepticism is predicated on a false straw man claim that Professor Dawkins did not make, as you inaccurately described the claim, and omitted the fact he was talking about the belief in a deity that intervened in the physical natural world and universe. I suggest you actually read his book, instead of reading apologists who object to it.

Apollo's picture
1. Go to his book, The Blind

1. Go to his book, The Blind Watchmaker. Look up Popper in the index. you should find him claiming that he rejects Popper's views. If you ever get around to reading Popper, you won't like him either.
2. some people of intellect much higher than you call it the method of doubt. You want me to drink your kool aid. That's funny.
3. Objectivity: aparently you have faith in that illusion. You are either a fraud or uneducated on objectivity. There was an empericist movement a long time ago with the goal of devising an epistomology to achieve objectivity. They failed and abandoned the project some 70 years ago. If you know about that failure and still claim to be objective, you're a fraud. If you don't know about it, you are uneducated on the subject.

Besides if you are objective, then how could you be mistaken about anything? And if you are not mistken about anything, then all your claims are correct. The adjectives you used on the guy who referred me here could apply to you.

In the meantime, your claims to objectivity is faith in an illusion. There is no way to seperate facts and values, and no way to seperate facts and belief.

Sheldon's picture
" Go to his book, The Blind

" Go to his book, The Blind Watchmaker. Look up Popper in the index. you should find him claiming that he rejects Popper's views."

I've already read TBW, and I don't believe Professor Dawkins ever claimed that science can examine unfalsifiable claims. Indeed I've not read him claim this, ever, and I have read a great many of his books. So again cite a chapter and page where he does this, as I think you are lying.

"2. some people of intellect much higher than you call it the method of doubt. You want me to drink your kool aid. That's funny."

Well I imagine Descartes also had an intellect capable of basic punctuation and grammar? Seriously my ego is unlikely to be dented by insults to my intellect, but when they come from an arrogant illiterate retard I generally just feel pity. Nothing about this is funny, and again I now have the uneasy feeling I am kicking a puppy. If you have read Descartes, then I will eat my laptop. Correction, if you have read and understood anything by Descartes I will eat my laptop.

" Objectivity: aparently (sic) you have faith in that illusion. "

I do hope this was meant to be ironic, but judging from your posts I'm guessing you actually haven't the smarts to see the contradiction in the suggestion objectivity requires faith, but given that you apparently can't even spell apparently, nothing would surprise me at this point.

" You are either a fraud or uneducated on objectivity. There was an empericist (sic) movement a long time ago with the goal of devising an epistomology (sic) to achieve objectivity. They failed and abandoned the project some 70 years ago. If you know about that failure and still claim to be objective, you're a fraud. If you don't know about it, you are uneducated on the subject."

I am indeed uneducated, and happy to admit to my intellectual shortcomings, but at least I am not an illiterate moron with delusions of grandeur, and at least I can fucking spell empiricist, and epistemology. Jesus wept....oh the humanity. Again I can only hope for your sake this is all an elaborate ruse.

"Besides if you are objective, then how could you be mistaken about anything?"

I never claimed to *be* objective, are you really this stupid, seriously? Do you even grasp the difference between recognising the value of objective evidence, and claiming to *be* objective?

"And if you are not mistken (sic) about anything, then all your claims are correct. "

Another pointless tedious and dishonest straw man, you're consistent I'll give you that. That aside you've produced a particularly stupid tautology.
-----------------------------------------------
"In the meantime, your claims to objectivity is faith in an illusion. There is no way to seperate facts and values, and no way to seperate (sic) facts and belief."

Objective evidence *IS* what separates facts from beliefs, only a moron wouldn't know this, and it tales a special level of stupidity to not understand it after it's been explained. However if objective evidence is as you claim meaningless, a subjective claim by the way as it can't be otherwise, then any opinion is as valid as any other opinion. So I claim you are wrong, and I win because at least I can spell seperate.

Sweet whistling Geronimo, that was painful to read.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.