BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:50 PM

"My grandfather smoked and drank until he died at 86. That is NOT evidence that smoking and drinking are healthy. The other factors that allowed him to live that long could be viewed as coincidence."

You don't appear to know what "coincidence" means.

"Well I think the question is 'If it works, if it requires faith, if it is a benefit that people have enjoyed for thousands of year, if it is a net mental health benefit, how can it be a delusion?'"

Simple. If it's wrong, factually incorrect, utterly misleading, false, a downright lie, it's a delusion. The benefits you claim for religious belief are available without that belief. No faith required. Lots of us have tried it and it works. Rudders, not crutches. Religious belief often comes with an awful lot of strings, some of which are used very effectively (and deliberately) to strangle the intellect. As this thread shows in abundance.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:59 PM

"'People who pray for enlightenment, for guidance, for patience, for forgiveness, even from others, often receive it.'

Yes, but the question is, where from? They will assume from God, whereas I would be inclined to think that the mental discipline of praying has focussed their mind and they have done it themselves."

Absolutely right. What we should be talking about is whether God answers prayers for people who badly need enlightenment, guidance, patience and forgiveness, but who don't ask for it themselves but who, unconsciously, rely on others to ask on their behalf. Y'know, third-party stuff. I doubt that the results would be very impressive.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 08:20 PM

Delusion = belief in the demonstrably untrue, no?

Who put the Demon in Demonstration, anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 08:44 PM

So you think that people who pray are wrong because coincidence exists?

Jack, you said:

"If you can prove that people are claiming that their prayers are answered are wrong and show how they are wrong that would be nice."

And that's what I did, even allowing for the existence of God. Coincidences are a fact of life, and unless you are claiming that they stop happening when people pray, at least some of those apparently answered prayers are coincidences. I don't see how my opinion is relevant. You asked for proof, and you got it.

Well I think the question is "If it works, if it requires faith, if it is a benefit that people have enjoyed for thousands of year, if it is a net mental health benefit, how can it be a delusion?"

If it really is a mental health benefit, it doesn't really matter. To me though, it seems to be the placebo effect.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:11 PM

"Who put the Demon in Demonstration, anyway?"

Dunno, but the devil's in the detail...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:15 PM

I don't understand this ill-worded post, I'm afraid. I can probably glean from it, just about mind, that you wouldn't understand "logical discourse" even if it reared up and bit you on the cock. Now, what were you saying...?

Sorry Steve, Good try. But it does not work.

Does not work. Attempts to "recover" and bring grudges from other posts...where clear anti-christian prejudices, elitism and illogical reasoning were held to account.

Try content on the topic, rather than name calling and childish posts....if you actually want someone to take you seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:18 PM

"Yes, but the question is, where from? They will assume from God, whereas I would be inclined to think that the "mental discipline of praying has focussed their mind and they have done it themselves."


Now that makes no sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:20 PM

"talking like a bigot.... You are a bigot"

Indeed?   May we please have direct quotes from my postings to support this?   Otherwise it bears all the hallmarks of another fine whine by a Mudcat atheist.   Atheists seem to be expert vintners of this libation.

And "atheism is the new black". Spare us.   Or perhaps you'd like to tell us about how you were refused employment because of your atheism, forced to live in a certain part of town, prevented from voting, etc. because of your atheism..

Sounds like it's time to start a thread titled "The Atheist Paranoid Delusion"

And Elvis--what a pleasant surprise to see you back here. Ebbie was afraid you had left the building but I had faith--hope it doesn't pain you to hear the word--that you were still on the premises.   And here you are, back again--like a moth to the flame.

Perhaps you're ready to tell us about which has traumatized you more deeply:   religious "iconography" or religious broadcasts. And please don't forget to tell us about the heinous crimes perpetrated against you by the House of Lords recently.   I'm sure you recall your litany which "proved" that religious people did not believe in live and let live.    It was in fact quite instructive in your standards for proof.   

To be continued

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:28 PM

Look, Jack has it exactly right. Religious people don't have "proof" there is a God, nor do atheists have "proof" there is no God.   

So it's time to get on to another topic.


It is however clear that on Mudcat religious people refrain from trying to convert unbelievers, while some atheists continually attack and ridicule religion and the religious.

That is to say:   the religious on Mudcat believe in civil conduct and live and let live.   Some atheists clearly do not.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:30 PM

Ed, you wouldn't recognise "on-topic" if it hit you between the eyes. You have a jaundiced, preconceived, ill-conceived, anti-intellect, anti-atheist agenda. It ain't my fault that you write dense, cloudy "English" as in that quoted sentence. As for content and name-calling, my recent posts (and most of my others, when I managed to avoid the temptation of having a good time at your and your mates' expense) are full of tightly-argued content (not saying for one minute that I was ever right), and it's painfully clear from your totally content-free efforts (as above) that you have nothing but brainlessly-snide remarks to offer in return. I'm very disappointed, Ed. It's like talking to a child. Actually, no it isn't. Most children are honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:37 PM

Ah, "brainlessly snide"---the previous poster must be looking in the mirror.   To define this term, he might want to peruse some of his own postings. Wonderful illustrations there.

But of course the poster, being rigorously logical and strictly scientific, never stoops to personal attacks. Perish the thought.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:43 PM

"And "atheism is the new black". Spare us.   Or perhaps you'd like to tell us about how you were refused employment because of your atheism, forced to live in a certain part of town, prevented from voting, etc. because of your atheism.."

Christ on a bike. This "witty" guy doesn't even know what the expression "the new black" means. Back to the drawing board! Tee hee!

"Perhaps you're ready to tell us about which has traumatized you more deeply:   religious "iconography" or religious broadcasts. And please don't forget to tell us about the heinous crimes perpetrated against you by the House of Lords recently.   I'm sure you recall your litany which "proved" that religious people did not believe in live and let live.    It was in fact quite instructive in your standards for proof."

You forgot to quote the bit where I said I don't give a monkey's bloody mickey for that stuff, and I'd like to finish with your dreary, witless post by asking you why you put "proved" in quotes above. That is actually a serious question (though you don't deserve seriousness), as it asks why you choose to misrepresent people in that way in order to to make your lost case. I think you should answer, or forever be ridiculed. You're on the brink, old chap! Tee bloody hee!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:47 PM

"Look, Jack has it exactly right. Religious people don't have "proof" there is a God, nor do atheists have "proof" there is no God."

I said that, you big muppet. Jack hasn't got exactly anything. I know how inconvenient all this must seem. Try reading posts. Lift up the veil.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:52 PM

"But of course the poster, being rigorously logical and strictly scientific, never stoops to personal attacks."

Cast out the beam, Ron, cast out the beam. I'd love to say tee hee, but why defile the tragic element...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:56 PM

Prayer may be pointless, but, why should one care? The value of prayer will likely never be settled.

It's natural for friends and family to hope for the best for sick family and friends. If praying is an expression of hope, is it worth proving that it works or not?

Doctors encourage patients and families maintain hope while being realistic about the situation. Just because prayer defies logic or known scientific principle, why discredit a source of hope? Its unlikely to settle anything.

When a person is ill, it may be comforting for them to know that others are praying for them. People praying also may feel that they are doing something to help, and at a minimum cost.

Many religious people feel that prayer has a positive influence on health and recovery. But, IMO few actually believe it has an effect on the "hard" medical endpoints. At a minimum, prayer may help sick people cope and maintain a positive outlook.

Is the value of prayer a myth? Maybe so. But, its unlikely there will ever be a universally accepted answer that question. Is that a big problem? No.

So, in most cases, there's little risk associated with prayer. And, it offers a measure of comfort to the people praying and the people they are praying for. Why not?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 10:10 PM

"it's painfully clear from your totally content-free efforts (as above) that you have nothing but brainlessly-snide remarks to offer in return. I'm very disappointed"

bla...bla bla...That what that sounds like to me, Steve.

So, Steve, if you actually feel your intellect and reasoning are so superior, and mostly it seems to those who disageee with your theories, (and you are so uneffected by such), why do you take every effort to respond to those confronting your logic (or lack of)? Why run running off in a mane calling tantrum-rants when the cards are stacked against your (IMO   hardly well written or logically tight) posts? Why do you make every attempt to sneak biased anti christian rants into the logical discussions of others?

Why not just ignore it...or ran away from other posts when firmly confronted by such antics?

In frustration?

Maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 10:50 PM

"Yes, but the question is, where from? They will assume from God, whereas I would be inclined to think that the mental discipline of praying has focussed their mind and they have done it themselves."

Now that makes no sense.

I wrote that, Ed, in response to:

"People who pray for enlightenment, for guidance, for patience, for forgiveness, even from others, often receive it." (Jack)

Tell me what part/s you don't understand and I'd be happy to clarify it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:25 AM

"Prayer may be pointless, but, why should one care? The value of prayer will likely never be settled.

It's natural for friends and family to hope for the best for sick family and friends. If praying is an expression of hope, is it worth proving that it works or not?

Doctors encourage patients and families maintain hope while being realistic about the situation. Just because prayer defies logic or known scientific principle, why discredit a source of hope? Its unlikely to settle anything.

When a person is ill, it may be comforting for them to know that others are praying for them. People praying also may feel that they are doing something to help, and at a minimum cost.

Many religious people feel that prayer has a positive influence on health and recovery. But, IMO few actually believe it has an effect on the "hard" medical endpoints. At a minimum, prayer may help sick people cope and maintain a positive outlook.

Is the value of prayer a myth? Maybe so. But, its unlikely there will ever be a universally accepted answer that question. Is that a big problem? No.

So, in most cases, there's little risk associated with prayer. And, it offers a measure of comfort to the people praying and the people they are praying for. Why not?"

I can actually go along with most of this. It sort of fits with my bottom-line sentiment that your personal religion is your business and that's great as long as you don't try to pass it on as truth to other people (or annoy atheists by publicly telling them you're praying for them - yuk!). I only recoil from the bit that says there's little risk. There's a big risk, actually. Prayer is not action and the risk is that it will replace action. You can pray 'til you're blue in the face that, for example, famine in Africa will end, but your prayer won't make the slightest difference to the famine, nor will it particularly give comfort to people thousands of miles away who neither know nor care that you're praying for them. Your prayer gives you a far greater feel-good factor than it does them. Getting off your fat arse, campaigning, money-raising, getting involved in the politics, even going over there and helping out in person, dammit (which I've never done) are what'll make a difference to the famine. Of course, all that can go alongside the prayer or not according to your predilections, and it'll do just as much good in either case. As long as actually you do it and don't merely bask in the comfortable glow generated by the feeling that your prayer has done your bit for you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:43 AM

you actually do it

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 07:09 AM

"So, Steve, if you actually feel your intellect and reasoning are so superior"

I don't, I never did and I never even hinted that they were. I can't help it if you choose to hide yours under a bushel and thereby cast me in a good light.

"and mostly it seems to those who disageee with your theories, (and you are so uneffected by such), why do you take every effort to respond to those confronting your logic (or lack of)?"

How many times do I have to say it. I don't have "theories." If anything I say appears to you to lack logic, please address it as a specific point. Anyone can make lazy accusations of that kind. Examples with your corrections, please, or just knock it off, I suggest.

'UnEffected??'

"Why run running off in a mane calling tantrum-rants when the cards are stacked against your (IMO   hardly well written or logically tight) posts?"

And the translator's note is...

What was that bit about "hardly well written [sic]"? Tee hee!


"Why do you make every attempt to sneak biased anti christian rants into the logical discussions of others?"

In order to add even more logic. Why else? And of course I'm biased. I'm a bloody atheist for Christ's sake!

"Why not just ignore it...or ran away from other posts when firmly confronted by such antics?"

Because I know how much I annoy you and it's quite good fun.

"In frustration?"

Well, it can be frustrating trying to discuss things when a few permanently-blinkered people keep wading in with their inanities, I'll admit that. I can run but I can't hide.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:00 AM

Ron, on whether or not he's bigoted against atheists:
Otherwise it bears all the hallmarks of another fine whine by a Mudcat atheist.

You do get the tragic irony there, don't you Ron? Lumping a bunch of individuals together into a group and then making decisions about them based solely on their membership in the group . . .

PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS AS IF THEY WERE ALL THE SAME!!!

PLEASE STOP GIVING YOURSELF PERMISSION TO BELITTLE PEOPLE AND IGNORE WHAT THEY SAY BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF A GROUP YOU DON'T LIKE!!!

PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND INSTEAD OF RUNNING YOUR PET PEEVE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Religious people don't have "proof" there is a God, nor do atheists have "proof" there is no God.

Ron, you seem to be continually missing the point. Atheists don't need to prove anything; we're not the ones making the fantastic claims. The complete lack of evidence is enough proof that god doesn't exist. Also, most of us have said over and over: we don't care if you believe. Just don't tell us it's a rational belief unless you can offer some evidence.

So here it is again. I've asked you many times and you've never answered. You just go away for a couple of days and then come back with more of your anti-atheist polemics. If you think belief or agnosticism are more rational than atheism, show us your evidence that there is any possibility that god(s) exist. Just do it now. Or please, please please shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:34 AM

perhaps you'd like to tell us about how you were refused employment

I was once refused employment because I didn't profess my faith during the job interview. Yes, it really happens. Again, that's not what this discussion is about.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 10:29 AM

Haven't been on this thread since the summer. Takes a bit of time loading now, which is time I should be spending on my new religion!!

I have just found out about Frankism. Presently compiling a list of taboos and then check them off as I taboo my way to enlightenment.

Good fun this religion lark!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 10:50 AM

Hi, Steve, Thanks for the tips on typos. I suggest you try and focus on the doughnut, not the hole.

I doubt that it is news to anyone that you admit to being biased against Christians. But, it is nice to see you come out of the closet at this point in life, while there is still time to deal with it. I suspect it is some of the reason that your logic credibility is on the lower side of the scale.

I limit my respect to atheists who have the wisdom to posts views on Mudcat with a truly logical open mind.
Why not join that group of fine contributors?

Anyway, John P said it better than I can. So< I repeat his advice, this time for you:

PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS AS IF THEY WERE ALL THE SAME!!!

PLEASE STOP GIVING YOURSELF PERMISSION TO BELITTLE PEOPLE AND IGNORE WHAT THEY SAY BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF A GROUP YOU DON'T LIKE!!!

PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND INSTEAD OF RUNNING YOUR PET PEEVE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 10:56 AM

I was once refused employment because I didn't profess my faith during the job interview. Yes, it really happens.

Same here. I was being interviewed for a job teaching biology in a Catholic secondary school in 1980. Up to that point I was still a Catholic of sorts but was definitely losing it by then. The interview had gone very well right up to to the point when the priest who was chairman of the Governors asked me, out of the blue, whether I would be prepared to study for the Catholic Teaching Certificate. My "no" answer was the most catastrophic conversation-stopper in the history of the universe. Yep, it happens all right! I'm humble enough to think that I might not have been the best candidate anyway, but at least I hadn't looked too bad on paper next to the others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:08 AM

Ed, Ed, Ed, Ed. I respond to people's individual posts and I tend to respond point-by-point. I hardly think that I treat everyone the same (for example by talking about Mudcat Christians). I note you didn't read the bit of my last one to you that asked you to stop making lazy, unfocused accusations about illogicality (so easy to make). Pick me up on specific points of logic where you think I'm falling short and we'll chew it over. You won't because you can't, I know that. You're not up to it. As for typos, your post was riddled with all manner of errors, not just typos. At least two lines of it were virtually incomprehensible, thus:

Why run running off in a mane calling tantrum-rants when the cards are stacked against your (IMO   hardly well written or logically tight) posts?

and:

Why not just ignore it...or ran away from other posts when firmly confronted by such antics?

Perhaps you were tired and a little emotional when you typed it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:15 AM

And note that I've just learned how to do italics. I started a thread on it, and even on that totally-uncontroversial topic I came in for a coshing from some muppet. They must have known I was an atheist. Heheh.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:36 AM

Hmmmmm

I think that there are certain reasonable requirements for teachers in religious institutions. Likewise for priests and preachers and for science teachers at other professionals at secular institutions.

A your woman was recently threatened with expulsion from a North Carolina University. I don't recall exactly which University. I believe it was UNC Chapel Hill. That detail is not important to the case. She threatened to sue the University for religious discrimination because she was saying Homosexuality was a sin and wrong and Gays should be told that. The University replied with, (I am paraphrasing from memory.) "If you want to get a degree in psychological counseling, you need to follow the standard practices of the psychological counseling community and you will tell them no such thing. Furthermore you will have to take sensitivity training and prove to us in your behavior that you have learned the lessons therein.

I believe that when a person's expressed beliefs violates the core values of an institution, then that institution should be allowed to refuse entry to that person because of those beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:48 AM

Well that didn't apply in my case. In 1980 I was still a Catholic, though on the drift. Four years earlier I'd got married in a Catholic church and I was already teaching in a Catholic school in east London when I applied. In 1973-74 I'd even taught a few lessons in religious education. I didn't see why a science teacher needed to do the Catholic Teaching Certificate. It wasn't a condition of employment. I was fully qualified and experienced for the job I was applying for.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 12:02 PM

>>>Ron, you seem to be continually missing the point. Atheists don't need to prove anything; we're not the ones making the fantastic claims. The complete lack of evidence is enough proof that god doesn't exist. Also, most of us have said over and over: we don't care if you believe. Just don't tell us it's a rational belief unless you can offer some evidence.<<<

John P.......

Look at the title of the tread. You atheists still arguing on this thread are defending the proposition that 90% (and I am being generous to your side with that estimate) 90% of all the people who lived in the history of the world are delusional.

Really?   90%. Really?

Who is making the fantastic claim?

I have said that it is a rational belief because it is beneficial to the individual. I have said that I know this from personal experience because I have experienced it. The fact that I experience this benefit is evidence.

Apparently you have this strange personal definition of the word "rational" which perhaps you share with other people on this thread who have stooped to (CAPSLOCK) shouting and mockery. Perhaps you should share that definition and try to rationally discuss it. Otherwise the thread is going to keep coming back to the nonsense of yours that I just quoted. If it does come back to that, you are not going to convince anyone because your argument is half baked. If your goal is simply to irritate people because they are Christian, perhaps you should have a strategy session with Shaw to coordinate your efforts toward that common goal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 12:05 PM

>>I didn't see why a science teacher needed to do the Catholic Teaching Certificate.<<

Obviously, if you have related the story accurately, the interviewer saw it as necessary. He was making the decision.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM

Ron, Ed T,

I think it is pretty obvious that Shaw has a chip on his shoulder that extends way beyond the current topic of discussion. He also has made it clear that he doesn't want to talk about it. It is clear that he is trying to wind people up and get them to post angrily. He actually said that to me. I am not telling you what to do. But you might deny him some satisfaction by taking down the rhetoric a notch or two.

By the way Ron. There are some very reasonable and intelligent "Mudcat Atheists" who have expressed their views calmly and long left this conversation. When making blanket statements about a group, one needs to keep in mind the reasonable, rational, folks who are not in the heat of the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 01:04 PM

You atheists still arguing on this thread are defending the proposition that 90% (and I am being generous to your side with that estimate) 90% of all the people who lived in the history of the world are delusional.

90% eh? Where does that come from? It was three billion yesterday! In any case, where did they get their belief from exactly? They were told it by parents and men of the cloth. Told what to believe. The only variations were those brought about by accident of place of birth.

I have said that it is a rational belief because it is beneficial to the individual. I have said that I know this from personal experience because I have experienced it. The fact that I experience this benefit is evidence

We've already been here. It wasn't rational because you had to have the belief already in place before you knew what benefits might accrue. You had to guess and hope. Irrational.

Obviously, if you have related the story accurately, the interviewer saw it as necessary. He was making the decision.

Well, I was there and you weren't. There's nowhere else to go on this one.

He also has made it clear that he doesn't want to talk about it.

Talk about what? I'll talk about anything. You start...

It is clear that he is trying to wind people up and get them to post angrily. He actually said that to me.

Of course I didn't. Stooping to untruths in unworthy of you, Jacko.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 01:07 PM

is

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 01:32 PM

Steve, I wasn't talking to you. don't feel obligated to put on a defense.

3 billion are just the nominal Christians and Muslims on the Earth today. There are and always have been other religions, other gods, other "delusions".

>>We've already been here. It wasn't rational because you had to have the belief already in place before you knew what benefits might accrue. You had to guess and hope. Irrational. <<

I also said that I was and Atheist, actually and Anti-theist like you before hand so.. No. It was not a belief already in place. It was not something I had learned as a child. A lot of Christians try your way before making the rational, adult, decision to choose Christianity.

>>It is clear that he is trying to wind people up and get them to post angrily. He actually said that to me.

Of course I didn't. Stooping to untruths in unworthy of you, Jacko. <<

It is there to read for anyone who takes the trouble. You also bragged about winding people up on other forums throughout the Internet. You also started to say "Tee Hee." soon after you said that. It might have been in the same post. Your pattern of behavior and lack of logic, is very clear throughout these threads.

Like implying that you lost a job for your atheism then describing how you lost it for refusing to get a qualification as a Catholic Teacher. No I wasn't there. That's why I said "if you have related the story accurately," But at the time I could read what you said. I still can. It is still there in your post.

>>>Well, I was there and you weren't. There's nowhere else to go on this one. <<<

This is your main method of argument. You say something that you have clearly NOT backed up with reason or logic. When someone questions that you call them stupid for not understanding.

Keep in mind that the title of this thread sets the parameters of the
conversation. As far as I am concerned, I am arguing against the position that believing in God is delusional. The burden of proof for that position is on those who argue the other side. I wouldn't be bothered arguing that the existence of God cannot be proved with evidence that bitter fallen Catholics will accept. So please stop arguing that position and please show some dignity and end the mocking.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:10 PM

Jack the Sailor,
Your point is well taken. Good advice.

I shall take your advice, for the benefit of others, who are not interested in such foolish stuff that some posters try and stimulate.

I do notice that most of the religion threads do get sidelined by a few of the same posters who "try hard" to stimulate off topic emotion rather than content..for whatever their personal reasons. Most of these threads wind up to be name calling by less than a half dozen folks. Pay particular attention to the Moral Atheist one that was quite interesting until those folks began to get involved.

Thanks for the wise suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:22 PM

Err... don't wish to be pedantic, but can you revise that 3 billion to a figure a wee bit lower?

You see, The Church of England says in their annual report last year, (a relative works for his diocese and sent me a copy out of devilment...) that 92% of the English population are Christian.

Don't want to shit on their iced cake here, but I assume they include everybody who is christened? Everybody who doesn't state any other religion? You see, I have the sneaking feeling that the vast majority of the population, who are not anti religion, but never give religion a second thought, are included in their delusional figures. I had my two sons baptised but that is because a christening is a family affair, a tradition. It doesn't mean parents buy into non rational nonsense.

Not ranting against them, just pointing out that whilst I don't know how many English citizens are religious, even Church of England, I do know that less than 1% attend a church so howsabout either side in this stop claiming indifferent people as their own?

I am not an atheist for the simple reason that atheism seems to considered a stance and I would prefer to be classed as indifferent to cults I am not a member of. So irreligious is a far better stance than atheist.

(That said, when something affects me, such as shops having limited hours on a Sunday or Bishops being able to vote in our upper house for the reason of being a Bishop alone, then I feel entitled to question the logic of society allowing superstition to dictate things.)

Oh, and before anybody points out my hypocrisy here, YES I signed up to The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, mainly to wind people up, but secretly because I am a Pastafarian!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:27 PM

No Willie, I am not willing to revise down. The percentage with some sort of "God Delusion" of people, all the people who have ever lived, is very high. Your version of Atheism is a fairly recent idea, going back only a few hundred years.

And I am not claiming indifferent people as my own. I am saying that well more than 90% of people who have ever lived have lived in such a way as to disprove the argument that believing in what he thinks is not rational is delusional.

But lets, not dwell on that, saying that each one of 300 million protestants, 1.2 billion Catholics, or 1.5 Billion Muslims is DELUSIONAL is still a "fantastic claim" it seems that way to me.

I'm with you on the Sunday and Bishops things. I believe in separating Church and government and I don't believe in forcing my religious values on others. If someone want to work on Sunday or shop or dine out on Sunday, I think they should have that right.

So if you are not saying that religious belief is delusional, then you and I have reached an accord.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:33 PM

Of course people throughout prehistory had to believe in deity, we hadn't invented enough science yet to debunk the idea.

Now we have, and there is no reason to assume that just because the ignorant throughout history have believed in something doesn't make it reasonable to believe in that something now that we know how the world actually works.

You don't need thunder gods. We know how thunder works.

You don't need fertility gods. We know where babies come from, and crops.

Why do you think you need any deity at all? What possible hitherto unanswered question does it answer?

Whenever anyone says But people have always believed in deity, they can't all be wrong, I am reminded of the parent who asks If your friends all jumped off a cliff, would you go too? when their teenager is saying But all my friends dooooooooooooooo...

Not to mention that adherents to any single faith tend to believe that adherents to any OTHER faith must be wrong - all of them.
Atheists just go one belief further.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

Given that any of what you just said is true, Mrrzy, and no doubt there is some grain of truth in it. 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?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 04:22 PM

"Of course people throughout prehistory had to believe in deity, we hadn't invented enough science yet to debunk the idea.
You don't need thunder gods. We know how thunder works."


Yes, people believed in some pretty strange stuff in the far past, whether it be related to a God, or some pretty strange stuff in science.

I suspect in 2000 years, or so, people will reflect in amusement at what science, tells us today.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:51 PM

steve-i can see where some of your earlier anti catholic rants come from now.thats not a judgement on my part-we do get some knocks in life that colour our outlook.if not for my faith system i would have some bitterness too.[not claiming all atheists are bitter]
once again you give challenges,which you decline yourself.if i read greatest show in history-would you read the greatest hoax in history?.being so scientific,it would be easier for you than me.

john talking of fantastic claims-how about all came from nought with out any proof,or even much idea how?God of the gaps?-would that be mine or the great theory of evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:21 PM

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?

No. Nor do we really have the faintest idea what they actually believe/d, only what some of them said they believe/d. All belief in the supernatural is delusional - if it is genuine belief. Belief in the 'little people' was just as widespread, (even without the use of torture or the threat of hell) but it doesn't make fairies real. If and when empirical evidence to the contrary comes along I'll be happy to eat my words, but until then I strongly recommend that people do not take offence at my disbelief, it's a waste of effort.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:34 PM

part 2
steve-i actually think you make some good points about prayer on your post yesterday,[just above mine].in doing so you inadvertantly explain why comparing statistics on whether prayers are answered is a fruitless exercise
likewise you have a point about involvement in our needy world.the fact is-christians have a pretty good record of doing just that.even the atheist roy hattersly interviewed about the salvation army confessed that it was their convictions that was the cause of their continuing good works.do you want to deny the many benefits of such religious practice?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM

Well you sure seem to have quite a handle on what is sane, rational and logical or not.

Yes of course, nearly everyone else is mentally ill but fortunately you, and your small minority are the only ones who are sane. But don't forget those in the past the undocumented "sane" who did not share the delusion but did not speak out. "Logically" they must have existed even though there is little or no evidence that they did.

Of course it is not a fantastic claim to set the norms of sanity to include only the the enlightened few. How nice of you to be so favored to uniquely hold this wisdom.

How uncivil and really stupid of us not to think of ourselves as having a delusion.

Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions[1] in the absence of any other significant psychopathology. Non-bizarre delusions are fixed beliefs that are certainly and definitely false, but that could possibly be plausible, for example, someone who thinks he or she is under police surveillance. In order for the diagnosis to be made auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, although olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM

Yes of course, nearly everyone else is mentally ill but fortunately you, and your small minority are the only ones who are sane.

I didn't say that, I haven't mentioned sanity or mental illness. When I use the word 'delusion' here, I mean no more than 'mistaken belief', and not necessarily in a derogatory sense. Lay off the fantasising and we might manage to have a sensible conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 07:16 PM

What on earth made you look up 'delusional disorder' in Wiki, Jack? I don't think psychiatric diagnosis is particularly appropriate here, though I do recall you calling Steve a 'loony'.. Could we perhaps maintain at least a token assumption of sanity all round, if only for the sake of a constructive discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 07:21 PM

Me: Of course I didn't. Stooping to untruths in unworthy of you, Jacko.

Wacko Jacko: It is there to read for anyone who takes the trouble. You also bragged about winding people up on other forums throughout the Internet.

It is not there to read at all. Stop being so bloody lazy - quote the passage, please, otherwise stop slandering. And, while you're at it, quote the bit where I bragged about winding people up. You make things up as you go along. Now I am expecting you to produce two specific quotes from my posts to support what you say. If you can't, or won't, I suggest you shut your filthy, slandering mouth once and for all. Come on, Jack - piss or get off the bloody pot. It won't surprise you to know that I'm not holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 07:25 PM

The last bit wasn't intended to be in italics. I'm still a learner in that department. Apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 07:44 PM

There are a lot of more appropriate and less loaded and derogatory ways to say mistaken beliefs.

The choice of the word "delusion" by Dawkins is not accidental.