God Delusion is Delusional

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian

Your opinion that some people become atheists ostensibly due to a lack of education in formal logic or philosophy is laughable, and I’d be interested to see your rationale for such a statement. If you can explain how such an education makes up for a total lack of evidence for theistic claims, then I’ll be amazed.

There is a total lack of evidence that abiogenesis happened by chance. That doesn’t seem to stop atheists from arguing that abiogenesis** did** happen by chance, and certainly not by intelligent design, though intelligent design seems the more probable solution.

Well, I don’t think it does seem the more probable solution, because it necessitates the arbitrary invocation of a supernatural phenomenen that can’t be detected, that can’t be described in any way, that cannot have its properties tested or interpreted. All IDC does is attempt to answer an unknown by positing a different unknown. I might just as well assert that intergalactic pixies created life on earth during an afternoon of drunken revelry and mischief-making. Such an assertion has just as much explanatory power (ie, none) as IDC. In fact, it is a form of IDC - are you happy to subscribe to it?

The problem with IDC and other god-of-the-gaps arguments, is that real science, historically, has a way of filling those gaps with good hard evidence and objective experimentation.

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian

I can’t explain the mechanism or process by which they exist, any more than you can. Yet again you appear to be presenting your staple - the argument from ignorance. "You can’t explain it, therefore my arbitrary answer, despite having no explanatory power nor supporting evidence, must be correct."

Personally, I would say could be correct. But the atheist says, without offering proof, can’t be correct. Again, non sequitur.

Your first sentence is correct. Your second is a Straw Man. The atheist does not say, “This cannot be correct,” he/she says, “there is no reason to suppose it is correct.”

 

[Spirithound]

How about the delusion that the source of all life, truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, joy and love, can be explained by arbitrarily invoking an untestable, undetectable, supernatural wraith?

No, because if that supernatural wraith does in fact exist, it’s not a delusion, just unscientific.

Your first sentence is correct. Your second is a Straw Man. The atheist does not say, “This cannot be correct,” he/she says, “there is no reason to suppose it is correct.”

So you affirm that God might exist?

 

[wanstronian]

My answer is (a) not arbitrary, (b) it has much explanatory power and (c) a great deal of supporting evidence:

(a) Since truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, joy and love are intangible it is reasonable to believe their origin is also intangible. The fact that they are interdependent supports the conclusion that they are related and converge in one Supreme Being - which is also the most economical explanation.

Believing their origin to be intangible is all well and good, but it goes no way to explaining anything, it just puts it beyond the scope of possible explanation. The “fact” they are independent is anything but - it’s just your opinion. How exactly is truth dependent on beauty and vice versa, for example? And how would you demonstrate this interdependence, such that it could be considered an independent and objective “fact?”

And I see you still haven’t understood Occam’s Razor, and continue to believe that the unnecessary invocation of a supernatural, undetectable, unexplainable, unknowable, unpredictable, unprovable entity somehow makes for a more “economical” explanation than not invoking such an entity.

(b) As Kant observed, it is reasonable to “regard all order in the world as if it had originated in the purpose of a supreme wisdom”. Such a principle enables us to connect the things of the world according to teleleological laws and thus to arrive at their greatest systematical unity".

This is just the “Appeal to Misleading Authority.” Kant, like you, is operating from the platform of his own subjective presupposition regarding the existence of God. The quotes you’ve provided don’t actually add any explanatory power at all, contrary to what you’ve said. They’re just mere assertions. What do you contend that these quotes explain?

(c) The rise of science was based on the belief that the universe is an intelligible system and not an inscrutable enigma. Its success is ample justification of the view that development has not occurred as a result of fortuitous events.

Your second sentence is a non-sequitur of the first one. Whatever the anecdotal rationale behind the start of natural philosphy, there is no aspect of modern scientific endeavour that presupposes a purpose behind the natural world. You have failed to provide the evidence you claim. Again.

So all in all, your protests (a) through (c) are all either fallacious, evasive or just plain subjective opinion.

 

[awatkins69]

Your second is a Straw Man. The atheist does not say, “This cannot be correct,” he/she says, “there is no reason to suppose it is correct.”

I think the atheist must admit that God cannot exist. For the moment, take God to be a necessary being. If you admit that God can exist, then:

1. There is one possible world where a necessary being exists. (premise)
2. Necessary beings exist in all possible worlds. (by definition)
3. This actual world is a possible world. (by definition)
4. Therefore, a necessary being exists in the actual world.

If you’re interested, we can go through and see what the attributes of a necessary being would be. If you’re not familiar with the whole possible worlds idea let me know and I can try to make it more clear. Best.

 

[wanstronian]

No, because if that supernatural wraith does in fact exist, it’s not a delusion, just unscientific.

Couple of problems with this statement:

Firstly, it’s fairly obvious that if a “supernatural wraith” does exist, it’s not a delusion. One could say the same about any wacky belief. Is David Icke delusional? What if the planet really is being run by lizards? Is he still delusional then?
The point is that there’s no evidence of this wraith existing. Therefore a belief in such a wraith is delusional, until such point as evidence for his existence turns up.

Secondly, if such a wraith does exist, the only way we could know for sure is if we were able to detect it, or its effects (such that the origin of such effects was irrefutable). At the point it becomes detectable, it becomes a candidate for scientific investigation.

So you affirm that God might exist?

I’ve never claimed otherwise. Of course God might exist. It’s just that there’s no evidence to support such a hypothesis, so I choose to apply rational thought and believe that he doesn’t. I’m open-minded to any new evidence that might show up.

 

[wanstronian]

I think the atheist must admit that God cannot exist. For the moment, take God to be a necessary being. If you admit that God can exist, then:

1. There is one possible world where a necessary being exists. (premise)
2. Necessary beings exist in all possible worlds. (by definition)
3. This actual world is a possible world. (by definition)
4. Therefore, a necessary being exists in the actual world.

If you’re interested, we can go through and see what the attributes of a necessary being would be. If you’re not familiar with the whole possible worlds idea let me know and I can try to make it more clear. Best.

Yes, I went through this poor excuse for an argument with Warpspeedpetey a few months ago, before his abrupt disappearance from the forum. Then someone else (think it was ReggieM) took over and was equally unconvincing, although he was far more civil about it than WSP.

The argument amounts to nothing more than attempting to define God into existence. Honestly, if it were that straightforward, then everyone would be convinced by it and there would be no atheists!

 

[Anthony_Labella]

A few thoughts on an earlier post by AntiTheist regarding Gospel integrity. Fragmentary discoveries of portions of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew have been dated to the period of 55-60 A.D. One very interesting book on the subject is “Eyewitness to Jesus”. Seven papyrus fragments of Matthew’s Gospel were re-discovered at Magdalen College, and their conclusion was that the Gospel pre-dated that of Mark. These Gospels were not written 3 or 4 generations after the death of Jesus. In addition, I find it very hard to believe that thousands of Christians marched happily to martyrdom for some arbitrary story akin to “bigfoot”. Something very special happened and they were willing to die for it.

 

[awatkins69]

Yes, I went through this poor excuse for an argument with Warpspeedpetey a few months ago, before his abrupt disappearance from the forum. Then someone else (think it was ReggieM) took over and was equally unconvincing, although he was far more civil about it than WSP.

The argument amounts to nothing more than attempting to define God into existence. Honestly, if it were that straightforward, then everyone would be convinced by it and there would be no atheists!

First of all, I don’t see any problem with defining God into existence. Deducing things by definition isn’t a fallacy at all. In fact, the most basic proofs you learn in logic start with definitions and prove things by inference.

Either way, that’s not what we’re doing. We actually have a premise which one could affirm or deny. You affirmed it earlier by saying God *could *exist. We can follow a couple of paths:

(1) We can prove the existence of a necessary being, deduce the attributes of it, and see why all call this God.

(2) We can take a hypothetical necessary being, deduce the attributes, see why it would be God, and use the word “God” in the syllogism in place of necessary being (since we would have found an identity).

So, how about instead of engaging in name-calling you deny one of the premises and state why you deny it? All the best.

 

[Spirithound]

Couple of problems with this statement:

Firstly, it’s fairly obvious that if a “supernatural wraith” does exist, it’s not a delusion. One could say the same about any wacky belief. Is David Icke delusional? What if the planet really is being run by lizards? Is he still delusional then?
The point is that there’s no evidence of this wraith existing. Therefore a belief in such a wraith is delusional, until such point as evidence for his existence turns up.

Can you define “delusional” please?

 

[The_Exodus]

I think the atheist must admit that God cannot exist. For the moment, take God to be a necessary being. If you admit that God can exist, then:

1. There is one possible world where a necessary being exists. (premise)
2. Necessary beings exist in all possible worlds. (by definition)
3. This actual world is a possible world. (by definition)
4. Therefore, a necessary being exists in the actual world.

If you’re interested, we can go through and see what the attributes of a necessary being would be. If you’re not familiar with the whole possible worlds idea let me know and I can try to make it more clear. Best.

This should be a good exercise. The argument from contingency is classic for showing who the Kantians are.

 

[The_Exodus]

Yes, I went through this poor excuse for an argument with Warpspeedpetey a few months ago, before his abrupt disappearance from the forum. Then someone else (think it was ReggieM) took over and was equally unconvincing, although he was far more civil about it than WSP.

The argument amounts to nothing more than attempting to define God into existence. Honestly, if it were that straightforward, then everyone would be convinced by it and there would be no atheists!

A reason or proof can be sound, even if it fails to convince you.

I would be more interested in knowing how it is you know that you exist, or know that you are a separate being from, say, the computer you are typing on. It is my position that it is just as reasonable to affirm that you exist, and that the computer exists, as it is to affirm that God exists.

In other words, do you affirm the law of identity, and if so, why do you think it unreasonable to posit the existence of a first cause?

 

[BlueShadow123]

Just to let you guy know, he does have a documentary out based on his book. Its pretty interesting.

 

[Pieman333272]

Just to let you guy know, he does have a documentary out based on his book. Its pretty interesting.

Just two quick points on this:

1. The documentary is basically a highly biased expansion of the final part of the book, where he asserts religion is dangerous, stupid, and any number of other insults.
2. It came a few months before the book, which is why he didn’t go into his argument from improbability.

 

[alongexpected]

I actually just finished The God Delusion, and Dawkins (and all atheists I’ve read and heard) are governed by logic and evidence. I didn’t agree with all of Dawkins’ reasons for atheism, but he did have several good points. One is how he said that all people are atheists in regards to all other gods but the one they believe in; atheists just go one god further. Also, how the “accident of birth” (meaning you’re a believer in whatever religion is dominant in your particular area) almost totally dictates what faith you will spend your life in.

But what gets me about religion and faith is how most religious people completely insist that they are right and all other beliefs are wrong or misguided. Doesn’t that smack of bias to you? Like Dawkins said, if you had been born in many other places in the world you would’ve been born into a Hindu or a Muslim family, and then would grow up insisting that you are correct. Doesn’t everyone see that? I really like the brilliant comedian Bill Maher, who professes he believes in the Gospel of I-Don’t-Know. And that’s correct because, let’s face it, no one knows for sure. You don’t *know *there’s a God and Catholicism is right, you just *believe *it.

I’m fine with people having their faith, just at least be open to the possibility that you are wrong, especially when there’s next to no evidence (much less proof) that you are right. (Yes, I know there’s the gospels, both canonical and non, incorruptibles, etc., but when you pile the religious evidence next to scientific reasoning and logic, the religious side is a molehill and the scientific is a mountain. Admit it, religious belief of any kind completely boils down to (nearly) blind faith.)

 

[Windfish]

^I got sad and tired just reading that.

 

[BlueShadow123]

^I got sad and tired just reading that.

I think a lot of atheists make good points to why they are not religious. I think that we should not ignore what they have to say, unless it is just mean and hurtful remarks. They just have a different perspective on life and apparently even history

 

[Windfish]

I think a lot of atheists make good points to why they are not religious. I think that we should not ignore what they have to say, unless it is just mean and hurtful remarks. They just have a different perspective on life and apparently even history

Well, you know, I just thought in my mind how long and grueling it would take to unpack all of that, and I just got a sad face.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Well, you know, I just thought in my mind how long and grueling it would take to unpack all of that, and I just got a sad face.

Thats true, I have gotten in debates with atheists before, as well as religious people. Its not that fun, especially because they always resort to telling others that they are ignorant. I can understand feeling like saying that because you are mad and think you are right, but its no way to debate people so thats why I don’t like doing that anymore.

Unfortunately usually what I say ends up turning into a debate anyways.

 

[awatkins69]

I don’t think any of the reasons that Dawkins presents are reasonable at all.

I also don’t think he’s somehow unbiased because he is an atheist.

There are some reasonable atheists though.