BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 07:03 AM

The Nazis did that thing with evolution theory that lots of other ignorant people do - they applied it, improperly, to fields of human discourse way beyond what Darwin applied it to. Natural selection operates within species, not between species. It doesn't operate in the market place or commerce for example, "survival of the fittest companies in this dog-eat-dog world." Acceptance of this woolly thinking helped to allow the Nazis to make their obscene justification for the Holocaust. It also allows ignorant people like Pete, who admits to not even have read Darwin, to make vile assertions such as "as far as i can see it has been a green light for untold atrocities.the jews among others were victims of the evolution embracing nazi." It wasn't evolution the Nazis embraced, not by a long chalk, but a deliberate perversion of it. It is also a lie that eugenics is the "bastard son of evolution." That is a quite unjustified slur on the theory. It implies that Darwinism is capable of spawning that horrid perversion. It is inherently not capable of that. It is only possible in the minds of people who want to pervert the theory and turn it on its head.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 02:46 AM

Was that WW2 Mrrzy? I'm so sorry.
Excellent post.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 12:29 AM

Mom's family was wiped out for being jews *based on christian dogma* and not in some idealistic vacuum, sorry. Much as you'd like to believe that Hitler wasn't christian, he was. Yes, he tried to appeal to all; much of his rhetoric lacks direct reference to deity. But he was still christian, not atheist.

And no, you can't equate people being killed ONLY for their belief in a different deity with people being killed for behaving against "the state" just because that state is atheist. It *does* matter whether you're killed in the name of atheism or not. Otherwise you have to add all non-deity motivated crime to atheism. Son of Sam on one side, Ted Bundy on the other. Not fair at all.

And it occurred to me later that it IS rational to point and laugh at grownups who spout fairy tales as if they were history or biology. Maybe not polite, but rational.

Well, certainly not polite. Grant you that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 12:14 AM

"'in the name of atheism'.   Wonderful sophism.   Are you by some chance a lawyer?"

Not a phrase you'd ever use then, Ron?

"By the way, people don't have to be tortured on killed in the name of atheism in order for their deaths to be chalked up to atheism."

Er no.. obviously not..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:53 PM

Change the record, Ron..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:47 PM

Ron's on his hobby horse again. Ride away now, you're boring. We've all heard what you have to say about 90 times now.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:33 PM

"selective breeding". So you see no connection between evolution theory and eugenics? Many people writing at the time disagree with you--they found a strong connection. No surprise you want to deny it,

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:28 PM

'"in the name of atheism".   Wonderful sophism.   Are you by some chance a lawyer?   Try again.

No, just in the name of a religion-free ----i.e.--atheist--state.


And anybody who thinks Wiki is the last word on this needs to read a bit more--to say the least.

If you don't think Hitler and the Nazis launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken Christianity--and gave short shrift to any who opposed them-- you need to read at least one book on the period--sounds like you have never read one.

Have you never heard of the Nietzschean-- (that's right, the 'God is Dead' man) -- superman? If you don't think the Nazi ideology was a secular one which deified race over creed, your education is lacking. But that of course never stops Mudcatters, it seems.


Still waiting for the name of any atheist state which has been successful and treated its people well.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:26 PM

"one of evolution's bastard children, eugenics"

Selective breeding was used with plants and livestock way before evolutionary theory was thought of.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:59 PM

None of them actually committed their various atrocities in the name of atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:39 PM

I don't think Hitler was atheist

On the surface at least, he sucked up to the Church. There seems to be little evidence that he used atheism as a weapon of influence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:24 PM

And after all, the link between Hitler and atheism is far stronger than the absurd theory just discussed.

After all, as I noted earlier, the 3rd Reich made every attempt to supersede religion--- to substitute Nazi "saints" for Catholic saints, Nazi leaders for Protestant leaders, and Hitler for God--especially when dealing with the young.

And of course Stalin and Mao sought, in theory, to fashion utopian societies free from the curse of religion.

For all three, the ideal was a religion-free state.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:06 PM

"...these people...".    And who are "these people", pray tell?.   I'll tell you, virtually every non-atheist--Christian or agnostic on Mudcat--and huge numbers outside Mudcat--who reads that crackpot theory of a connection between evolution theory and the Holocaust--will see it for the dangerous tripe it is.   No educated person will make any link between the Holocaust and Darwin.

The fact remains that one of evolution's bastard children, eugenics, was used for revolting purposes--and not just by Hitler in Germany.

That is, evolution was abused, not used.   Interesting that the idea causes such outrage in some of our stalwart atheists. Who are only too willing to see any abuse of Christianity, for instance, as an unavoidable and integral part of religion.   An attitude-- fondly held by some of our cherished atheist Mudcatters-- which is just as much dangerous tripe as the Darwin-Holocaust theory.

Not that the dear atheists in question can ever be expected to see this--much less admit it.

But maybe it will do you good to have the shoe on the other foot for once.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:04 PM

I believe that if one were to encounter such a Christian, the best approach would be not to feed their complex.

Interesting observation and fair comment, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 09:56 PM

On a totally unrelated note. I think some "Christians", On-line ones anyway, believe that the best Christians are persecuted so they make outrageous statements to bring ridicule on themselves.

I believe that if one were to encounter such a Christian, the best approach would be not to feed their complex. The worst situation of course being the confrontation and a sarcastic, bullying anti-theist. There is a creepy psycho-sexual vibe to such encounters.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 09:40 PM

we don't blame Beethoven for Hitler, do we?

We'd better not, not unless we want to see Smokey really go berserk :-)

Seriously though, these people are stuffing their children with that sort of shit - it's abuse, pure and simple. To use an event like the holocaust to further their agenda like that is beneath contempt. I can dismiss the odd 'caused by atheism' claim as relatively harmless twattery, but not this. This is dangerous, and it's the same sort of unreasonable twisting of reality that actually did play a part in it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 08:56 PM

"As you may have gathered, he is not one to take a hint or to cheerfully swallow his own medicine."

You didn't make a hint. You're not anywhere near subtle enough to do a subtle thing like making a hint in any case.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 08:51 PM

Chaps and chapesses, I remind you that Pete has not read anything about evolution. He doesn't know what the term means. Smokey, you are one hundred percent right to condemn this ignorant man for that disgraceful post. Evolution theory was deliberately misinterpreted and usurped by the Nazis in their persecution of the Jews. To blame Darwin, or the theory itself, for the harm that the misinterpretation caused is just wicked. Hitler also used the Ode To Joy theme from Beethoven's ninth at various times during his regime, but we don't blame Beethoven for Hitler, do we? Pete, evaporate please.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 07:21 PM

Smokey, I congratulate you for having read that far without punctuation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 07:16 PM

as far as i can see it has been a green light for untold atrocities.the jews among others were victims of the evolution embracing nazi.

Pete, are you saying 'evolutionism' had a hand in the holocaust? If you are, I'm obliged to express my utter disgust, and request that you take your offensive drivel elsewhere. If that theory is seriously being touted by creationists as an argument against evolution, then it's time you were stopped. I don't care how intolerant that might sound, the world would be a better place without such poisonous filth.

If I have misunderstood you about that, then I offer my sincerest apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 06:52 PM

mirrzy-i hope no one falls for your tactics,equating creationists with suicide pilots etc.
seems like your other line of attack,continuing on this thread is assertion.no other attempt as far as i can see to present logical argument for evolution.
while on the subject can you present any benefit accruing from evolutionism.as far as i can see it has been a green light for untold atrocities.the jews among others were victims of the evolution embracing nazi.
still waiting for answer to previous post-but then no one will blame you intelligent materialists for ignoring a fundamental believers point,will they?!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 06:16 PM

"Just watch me. Belief in the teachings of authority is not data-based, and thus is not rational in the narrow sense that I mean, as in, a logical conclusion based on data. Very little about manners is rational, not the hand you hold the fork in, nor the choice of using chopsticks. It's just manners"

My only response to that one is HUH?

I suspect we are on a parallel discussion on that topic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 05:49 PM

Mrrzy, From what I can gather, from what you have said, I am one of the people you call silly people but I don't think that my beliefs are doing any harm.

I thought Bush was one of the dangerous religious people. I campaigned and supported Obama who I think is one of the NOT-dangerous religious people. I think that the right wing in Israel are dangerous religious people. I have written to politicians asking that my tax dollars not support them.

I support teaching Evolution in science class and religion class.

There are other things, but I do what I can when I can. I don't oppose anyone having any particular belief. I oppose them forcing their beliefs on others.

Smokey's point about the Sunday closings is interesting. I agree that anyone should have ability right to do what they want on Sunday, including work and shop, especially the Jews, Atheists and Seventh Day Adventists, but if a community decides they want everybody to have a single day of rest during the week, if the majority wants it, it is hard to argue with that.

I think that tolerance is important and that laws and rights should be enforced equally for all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 05:36 PM

Oh, buggers, the bold was supposed to stop after that one word. So much for my html proofreading...

And I've tried reasoning with the unreasonable, it doesn't work, so pointing and laughing actually is a thought-out logical next step.

What would YOU do to stop the silliness that kills people?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 04:58 PM

>>Nonsense. There is no law against laughing and pointing<<

You think laughing and pointing helps while claiming to be the "rational" one, enough said.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 04:54 PM

Of course there is a "rational reason" for beliefs that are mostly passed down from parents. For example, there are many many traditions and cultural beliefs that are passed down from generation to generation. Would one say that these are not rational? Of course not!
Just watch me. Belief in the teachings of authority is not data-based, and thus is not rational in the narrow sense that I mean, as in, a logical conclusion based on data. Very little about manners is rational, not the hand you hold the fork in, nor the choice of using chopsticks. It's just manners.

... Toleration of religious belief is one of the great foundations of this country. Intolerance of the beliefs of others is the major motivations of pretty much every major crime committed in the name of religion. Exactly. Intolerance of others' beliefs ities is the problem. But nobody is killing atheists for not believing in any deity; instead, believers of one are slaughtering believers in another, wholesale. Time to stop putting up with that nonsense as "freedom of religion." Where is freedom FROM religion?

If you think intolerance with [I assume the poster meant "will"] avert major harm, you will have to do it outside the laws of this country. Nonsense. There is no law against laughing and pointing when someone says something ridiculous. Only the *government* is supposed to stay out of people's religions, not the other people.

Also keep in mind that the people whose views you are planning not to tolerate are much better at dealing with the intolerance game than you. Most have played it from both sides. I am certain that we need more tolerance. not less. Well, I guess nobody *you* know was actually slaughtered by the above-mentioned religious people whom you think should be tolerated. Don't you know any jews?

If we *all* start the point-and-laugh thing with all silly beliefs (again, NOT just faith in deity, but denial of evolution, belief that women should be sewn shut till marriage, etc etc etc) then we will all be better off, and they will be better educated.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 03:46 PM

As you may have gathered, he is not one to take a hint or to cheerfully swallow his own medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 03:40 PM

Ha. You call that tirade "shining a light?" Lovely bit of self-justification there, Jacko! Tee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 02:35 PM

"The God Delusion" as a title pre-insulating Dawkins from criticism

And the translator's note is...?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 02:31 PM

Of course I did make some frank points to Shaw in an effort to shine a light on his logical rudeness.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 02:20 PM

I find it amusing that a chap who worries about a word in the title of a book being "derogatory" can also refer to someone who disagrees with him thus:

"an anti-theist as nasty as you"

"I'll not be wasting any more time reading your nonsense."

"I will not feed your apparent addiction to bulling [sic] behaviour"

"I am so proud to share a forum with the self-appointed pope of the Atheist Church."

"You really are loony"

"If you care about him, get him some help."

"Before you defend the sanity of his behavior read what he has said."

"He is acting crazy and I am saying so. That is not childish. It is the truth. I seriously hope that he goes and gets himself some counseling."

"Isn't that loony on the face of it?"

"But please note that he plans to bait insult and rant until you tell him to shut up."

"You see? I told you he was insane."

"His behavior is classic insane definition #3…"

"Steve is a troll. A troll who seems to limit his trolling to a specific topic but a troll nevertheless."

"you have allied yourself here with someone who is clearly only here to mock and who travels the Internet to mock as a bit of a hobby"

"What you have been saying seems like a cry for help. Or maybe like a young male trying to get the attention of a young woman by dipping her pigtails in an inkwell."

"You are not an atheist. You are a loon."

"Shaw,
You need counseling. You really do. There are plenty of places to get it besides church. Go get some."

"Smarty Shaw"


As for this gem from Jacko:

"Yes Dawkins knew what he was doing when he chose that word. He was being deliberately insulting and picking a fight. He was saying that that to be a follower of a theist religion is to be mentally ill and that is as far as I can see is the theme of the book."

I have the book and that is not in the remotest sense the "theme" of it. You should also know, Jacko, that "delusion" does not refer to mental illness unless it refers to a specific person in a specific medical context. It is perfectly clear, though it may not suit you, that its use in the title of the book has nothing to do with mental illness. I suggest you get a copy and try reading it. Nowhere in The God Delusion does Dawkins accuse believers of being mentally ill.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 02:09 PM

Very interesting. Thank you. Ed T.

I think that "Logical Rudeness" is what brought me into this conversation in the first place. "The God Delusion" as a title pre-insulating Dawkins from criticism and seeing comments in the threads such as "Your God didn't teach you how to spell."

I didn't have a name for what was angering me before I read your link. Now I do.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 01:43 PM

Somedthing here for all to consider:

Logical Rudeness versus logical etiquette

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 01:17 PM

"But there is *no* *rational* reason for their faith"

Of course there is a "rational reason" for beliefs that are mostly passed down from parents. For example, there are many many traditions and cultural beliefs that are passed down from generation to generation. Would one say that these are not rational? Of course not!

Asians use chop sticks, because their parents did. That's the rational reason they do it. I this use more "rational" than using forks and knives to eat? I suspect not.

Claiming that there is no "rational reason" to believe in something is a much different case than claiming that there is little evidence to support the belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:53 AM

>>toleration of many of these beliefs leads to irreparable harm.<<

Mrrzy,

That's as far as I am willing to read. Toleration of religious belief is one of the great foundations of this country. Intolerance of the beliefs of others is the major motivations of pretty much every major crime committed in the name of religion.

If you think intolerance with avert major harm, you will have to do it outside the laws of this country. Also keep in mind that the people whose views you are planning not to tolerate are much better at dealing with the intolerance game than you. Most have played it from both sides. I am certain that we need more tolerance. not less.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:33 AM

Rudeness is excusable; toleration of many of these beliefs leads to irreparable harm. Rudeness is not irreparable.

It is *necessary* now to be rude to believers in the many things that really, truly ARE known not to be. I refer of course to evolution-deniers, people who keep their children out of science classes, and people who believe that if they fly planes into these particular buildings they will get more virgins to deflower in heaven.

If more people would point and laugh when these people spout their idiocies, fewer of them (the believers) would be taken seriously.

Dawkins may be rude, but he isn't wrong.

People who believe that the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah/Talmud (I *still* can't tell those 2 apart) is 100% literally true, are. Wrong, that is.

People who simply believe in deity without buying into all the dogma of the major monotheisms are not the problem, here, although they are still irrational. They may be right, they may be wrong, there is no proof either way, indeed.

But there is *no* *rational* reason for their faith. There *are* *rational* reasons to disount the possibility of deity. As in, I have no need of that hypothesis, to quote LaPlace to Napoleon, again.

Which is fine, it's faith, after all. Again, if they were rational, you wouldn't NEED faith for those beliefs.

And raising children right is everybody's responsibility. If I see a parent whacking (not one whack for attention, but really hitting) a child, I say something. It may be rude, but it would be a crime to ignore the abuse, and besides, the parent likely needs some support.

I may say Wow, I remember when I wanted to do that with my kid, or something, but I will not stand by just because speaking up would be Rude. And I always try to get the parent to laugh. In fact, I do that when I see a parent *about to* lose their temper with a kid.

And I chastise children misbehaving in public. If their parent minds, too bad; I'd rather be thought Rude than allow my child to be mishandled.

I particularly enjoy letting children know that there are people who don't believe in their parents' deity. Many here in the US haven't even heard of the possiblity of nondesim.

He he he.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:19 AM

>>>Isn't it a fantastic claim to say of all the people who lived in the history and believed in a deity that they are and were delusional?

Pedant alert: If they are dead they aren't anything, you have to use the past tense.<<<

Try reading til the end of the sentence, the second last word is "were."

>>they are and were delusional<<

Those that are alive are delusional (supposedly);
those that are dead were delusional (supposedly).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:14 AM

>>
Can you think of a non-inflammatory way of saying religious belief is without foundation? Concise enough for a book title, of course. <<

Less inflammatory..
Less insulting..

The God Mistake
The old Paradigm
Belief in God, No longer needed?
Rethinking God.
Questioning the Belief in God
The Origin of the Species?

Note that these are all from a point of view of intellectual debate rather than immediately going to the insults.

My point is that it is a fantastic claim to say that hundreds of millions of people of faith are and were delusional. It is perhaps slightly less fantastic to claim that they are/were mistaken. But nevertheless even that is a a pretty fantastic claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary "evidence" do they not?

And my only reason for bringing this up is that some Atheists (Anti-theists) on this thread seem to have the delusion that the great metaphysical questions of the ages can be boiled down to..

"Write down complete "evidence" here on the Mudcat, that I will accept because I am "rational" and you are not. (Definitions of the words in quotes are subject to review by the questioner.)

As I said before and as Dawkins says, albeit reluctantly, in his book, there is no proof one way or the other.

As I have said before, the benefits of religion which I derive do not accrue without faith, in this case, overt proof would undermine faith.

Religion is a lot more than a big "Monty Python" style God up in the clouds smiting people, it is a profound inner experience. I know this from personal experience. If you think the question hinges on whether this or that miracle happened or exactly what happened before the big bang, then you are really missing out.

Most Japanese will say that they don't believe in a god. Yet they carry on their rituals and continue to refine them. It seems rather mistaken to me to put many hours of study into how to pour tea. But it seems to work for them so I am not going to call them delusional.

I think that calling ordinary people, going about their lives, delusional is bad manners.
I think that saying that calling the child of Muslims a Muslim child or calling the child of Christians and Christian Child is "evil" as Dawkins says in the book in question is rude.

Dawkins may not like how people raise their kids but he has no business telling them how.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:30 AM

Isn't it a fantastic claim to say of all the people who lived in the history and believed in a deity that they are and were delusional?

Pedant alert: If they are dead they aren't anything, you have to use the past tense.

And Delusion is Dawkins' word. I said they were wrong. The original question was, they can't all have been wrong, could they, and my answer is sure they could.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 02:57 AM

At least he didn't call it "God's Bollocks".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 12:56 AM

Can you think of a non-inflammatory way of saying religious belief is without foundation? Concise enough for a book title, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 12:51 AM

We're not all Dumptyists.

Aint it the truth..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 12:46 AM

"To say a particular belief is a delusion..."

Not so, as Ed has calmly explained.    As I also noted about 300 posts ago, ""delusion" is a loaded term.    In fact since it entails "false" belief, the speaker is setting himself up as authority on the subject, and denigrating somebody else's belief.   In this case, with no grounds to do so.


Anybody who speaks English should easily be able to recognize this.    I'm sure Mr. Dawkins did--and besides it helps him sell books.

But anybody who did not want to be inflammatory would, as Ed notes, choose a different formulation to describe religious belief.

So the question is whether the speaker wants to be inflammatory or not. And the reader can easily tell the intent of the speaker by the words chosen. As I noted earlier, words mean something.   We're not all Dumptyists.

And that is the origin of the dispute--which of course started with the first post, several eons ago.   You might call it "original sin", but it's possible that term is already spoken for.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:42 PM

Jack, with the best will in the world, I have no control whatsoever over what meaning you ascribe to other people's use of words.

To say a particular belief is a delusion is not the same as one person telling another that they are 'delusional'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:28 PM

A delusion can have a few meanings. For example, it can mean holding a false belief, or refer to a symptom of a mental illness.

Giving Mudcat posters the benefit of the doubt, I suspect the first meaning is intended.I suspect "entertainers" focused on selling books, would want to sensationalize the issue by using this word, to get more attention.

But, it clearly has negative overtones in many English speaking societies today. So,IMO, it would be best to avoid the term, as it can quite easily be seen as an insult.

Why not choose a more accurate word to refer to those suspected (or accused) of holding a false belief, as it can be perceived as an insult?

If one wishes to skirt with a potential insult to others,I suspect they run that risk, as seen here.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 10:54 PM

Smokey,

Give me an example of one person telling another that they are delusional where it is not derogatory?

Surely no one thought that I was saying that Shaw should be locked up for being loony or insane. Yet, in a thread where Christians as a group were being called delusional, a few of you complained that I was going too far.

Yes Dawkins knew what he was doing when he chose that word. He was being deliberately insulting and picking a fight. He was saying that that to be a follower of a theist religion is to be mentally ill and that is as far as I can see is the theme of the book.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:36 PM

Nah. That would be cloudy thinking, disingenuousness and unfocused accusations. I'd have thought you, of all people, would have known that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:27 PM

"Persistency is a fool's best asset"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:06 PM

He don't take the bait. No wonder. That bloody pedestal is so high that even the longest fishing rod can't reach up.

nor do I waste any effort trying to convince anyone otherwise, unless it is asked

I normally just tune them out.

I normally speak up when I see it happening

All in one short post. Pomposity personified!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:01 PM

Good of you to say so, Ed.