(January 18, 2017 at 5:35 pm)Pulse Wrote: Atheism is a belief system of despair and makes no sense in view of the Evidence for Intelligent Design (The creation of the Universe, DNA molecule information pointing to Intelligent Programmer). Thus people will Never lose the sense of the Divine no

matter how hard you try, and Atheism will one day die out, for the simple fact that atheists tend to be less generous and have fewer children. Due to rules I cannot yet post links , just Google;  Why people with no religion are projected to decline as a share

of the world’s population.

There is zero "evidence" for intelligent design.  Even early ID pushers didn't use the word "evidence", but instead chose the term "logical inferences".

As for atheists being "less generous", there is plenty of evidence (I can post links) that just the opposite is true.  It's just less visible because atheists don't stand up in front of the world and say, "Look at me!  I'm an atheist and I'm helping someone!" like organized religion tends to.

And I don't know where you're getting your projection that the "nones" are projected to decline, but again, just the opposite of that has been true for decades with all categories of nones increasing at an accelerated pace.

Now back to this "evidence" for intelligent design, please, to share.  But before you do, "When I look at that, I see this" IS NOT evidence for anything, it's an opinion.  And "evolution is wrong because..." IS NOT evidence for anything, it's evidence AGAINST something, or claimed to be, anyway.  If you could present A SINGLE PIECE of "evidence for" intelligent design you would shock not only me but, indeed, the scientific community, even the entire world.  But that's not going to happen.  My "evidence for" that is that many have claimed this before, none have done it yet.

(January 18, 2017 at 6:55 pm)Asmodee Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 5:35 pm)Pulse Wrote: Atheism is a belief system of despair and makes no sense in view of the Evidence for Intelligent Design (The creation of the Universe, DNA molecule information pointing to Intelligent Programmer). Thus people will Never lose the sense of the Divine no

matter how hard you try, and Atheism will one day die out, for the simple fact that atheists tend to be less generous and have fewer children. Due to rules I cannot yet post links , just Google;  Why people with no religion are projected to decline as a share

of the world’s population.

There is zero "evidence" for intelligent design.  Even early ID pushers didn't use the word "evidence", but instead chose the term "logical inferences".

As for atheists being "less generous", there is plenty of evidence (I can post links) that just the opposite is true.  It's just less visible because atheists don't stand up in front of the world and say, "Look at me!  I'm an atheist and I'm helping someone!" like organized religion tends to.

And I don't know where you're getting your projection that the "nones" are projected to decline, but again, just the opposite of that has been true for decades with all categories of nones increasing at an accelerated pace.

Now back to this "evidence" for intelligent design, please, to share.  But before you do, "When I look at that, I see this" IS NOT evidence for anything, it's an opinion.  And "evolution is wrong because..." IS NOT evidence for anything, it's evidence AGAINST something, or claimed to be, anyway.  If you could present A SINGLE PIECE of "evidence for" intelligent design you would shock not only me but, indeed, the scientific community, even the entire world.  But that's not going to happen.  My "evidence for" that is that many have claimed this before, none have done it yet.

I have many times, the DNA molecule and the nano-machines it codes for (These are far more advanced than our technology has ever achieved) and how the DNA molecule needs products of its translation by RNA to replicate itself, which creates a vicious circle for Materialistic Atheists trying to work out its origin.

Quote:I hope atheism does eventually die out, because that will mean theism is no longer a thing.

There was a similar comment made by some Atheist on a recent YouTube video that I had watched where the guy said that there shouldn't even be a word for someone who doesn't believe in god(s).  There no such word describing someone who doesn't believe in Leprechauns, unicorns or the Tooth Fairy so why do we need to have a specific word for the religious non-believer???

I used to be a Christian and things hit home when all the people on the Church I used to go to were constantly making pro-orange haired buffoon posts on social media during the election. I don't know if they were faking the enthusiasm a little or not. They couldn't vote for Hillary. Murdered zygotes and such.

(January 18, 2017 at 5:08 pm)Autolite Wrote:

Quote:The only reason I can think of for making such a formal change would be to try and shame people into not being religious anymore. Personally, I think that's not going to work.

Well I'm not necessarily suggesting that we shame Theists.  We don't shame people who are mentally ill.  But it might be a start if the medical community collectively agreed that religious belief is a delusion.  Once that acknowledgement is made, we can then work towards a cure.

Although I must agree that it's not likely to be completely successful.  Delusional people quite often refuse to admit, at least initially, that they're delusional.  Here's a good book that talks a lot about how we should deal with this...

https://www.amazon.ca/Not-Sick-Dont-Need...+need+help

Bold mine. A cure for theism? I'm scared to ask. Would you expect this to be forced upon people? A theist is not going to submit themselves for "treatment". There is nothing particular about theism here, any kind of delusion can be broken with regular talking therapies, but it requires cooperation and motivation from the deluded person.

If you're suggesting optional clinics are offered where you can get "cured of theism", do you really expect a single person to attend?

Quote:Bold mine. A cure for theism? I'm scared to ask. Would you expect this to be forced upon people? A theist is not going to submit themselves for "treatment". There is nothing particular about theism here, any kind of delusion can be broken with regular talking therapies, but it requires cooperation and motivation from the deluded person.

If you're suggesting optional clinics are offered where you can get "cured of theism", do you really expect a single person to attend?

This is why I was saying the first step being is to have the medical profession recognise that Theism is a delusion. That's the start. Once that is done, then we work towards changing society's attitude in the same direction. Reference getting each individual to acknowledge their Theism as being delusional, that's covered in the "I'm Not Sick" book from the previous link I posted.

This is most definitely not something that's going to happen over night. I suspect that it would take several generations for such a change to occur...

(January 18, 2017 at 3:47 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 1:15 pm)Autolite Wrote: Well it's like I've already said, as Atheists we need to stop affording Theism any respect or credibility.  We should collectively encourage the attitude that Theism is no different than any delusional belief. Instead of calling it merely a 'difference of opinion' we should all be regarding it for what it really is and that is bat-shit crazy nonsense. 

Remember when we discussed the medical definition of 'delusion' and that that definition excludes religious belief?  We should challenge that definition instead of accepting it.   Dr Peter Boghossian of PSU is doing just this.  He wants to see the medical definition for delusion in the DSM revised so that it does not exclude religious belief...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIaPXtZpzBw

Sure, informally, it is a delusion. I'm totally with you there. But medically, it has different causes, manifests in different ways and doesn't respond to the same treatments as delusions caused by mental illness. Religious people are not, on the whole, mentally ill. The only reason I can think of for making such a formal change would be to try and shame people into not being religious anymore. Personally, I think that's not going to work.

I'll check out that video soon though and see what he has had to say about it.

I'm up to 18:27 in the video. I agree with everything he says so far.

I'll be interested to see how this all applies to medical definitions. Going to keep watching.

---

Ok, I'm up to 40:00 now. He's now basically echoing what I said about trying to encourage people to think rationally, and having open and honest discourse. Of course, I agree. This can sometimes get through to people, or plant seeds for later. I'm confused as to why you disliked my ideas when your own guy is supporting them.

---

Now I've watched his whole speech up to 44:00.

I agree, religious beliefs are a delusion. But he has barely touched upon the benefits of medically treating it the same way as a delusion brought on by mental illness. He hasn't addressed the practical issues here. This doesn't seem to be a medical issue at all, but rather one of language. And I still see several very real differences between faith and mental illness related delusions. Do you have any more material which goes into this?

I mean sure, you could medically call it a delusion. But it's still not the same; there are different kinds of delusions. And the medical field is concerned with diagnosis and treatment. So maybe it needs a way of distinguishing the two. I agree that denying religious beliefs are delusions is bizarre, but it's not accurate to lump all delusions together either. "Reinforced/programmed delusion", maybe.

There is the larger issue of whether the world is ready for this categorization. I'd say that probably, it is not. At least in some countries. Would doing it too soon be counter-productive? Or would it speed things up? My instincts tell me it would do more harm than good, until religion has naturally died down a bit more. But that's an interesting discussion.

Is it pragmatic to call 70% of your own countries' population delusional? This would be the case in the USA. In England, the man on the street would generally probably be fine with it, but there would be severe pockets of resistance also. The queen...

But remember, I agree with you. Religious people are deluded. But that's not what is at stake in this video.

---

Okay, so... I wouldn't at all be opposed to religion being classes as a delusion alongside other delusions which are not the result of mental illness.

Delusions of belief are very different from vivid, realistic hallucination type delusions. Maybe that's the issue here. If the medical definition of delusion does not imply hallucinations, then I'd agree it would be accurate.

But whether it would be pragmatic, is still in question.

If I'm correct about the above proviso, then I hope he succeeds, because it would be fucking hilarious. I'd love to see what the knock-on effect will be. But it's an extremely bold move, and I don't know if the world is brave enough yet.

There are a few problems with the definition as well.

Firstly, it's debatable whether just being a generic theist (deist) is being deluded. It's just a couple of bad assumptions. It's religion where the delusions kicks in. Even atheists can be religious and talk shite.

Secondly, not all religious people profess certainty and an unwillingness to ever change their mind. Certainly some do both these things right here on this forum, but some don't.

Thirdly, what counts as "bizarre" is subjective. Theists probably find the idea of not believing in God to be just as bizarre.

There are some religious people who exhibit enough self-awareness to admit it's a belief rather than knowledge, so it's not cut and dry whether "deluded" applies to those people.

Quote:I'm confused as to why you disliked my ideas when your own guy is supporting them.

You advocate countering Theism with logic and rationality.  It's not that I dislike your idea but rather that this approach should be compounded with the medical community's acknowledgement that Theism is a delusion.  Theists by definition reject rationality so logic simply bounces off of them like bullets off of Superman.  This of course is also a common issue with people diagnosed as delusional.  Rational argument alone simply does not work if the individual refuses or is unable to accept that they are delusional.

TBH though, I must admit that it is extremely unlikely that the medical definition for delusion is going to be changed any time soon.  I honestly don't see that happening in my lifetime and it's really mostly just wishful thinking on my part.   But just knowing that there are others who feel the same as I do is at least somewhat encouraging... 

(January 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Pulse Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 6:55 pm)Asmodee Wrote: There is zero "evidence" for intelligent design.  Even early ID pushers didn't use the word "evidence", but instead chose the term "logical inferences".

As for atheists being "less generous", there is plenty of evidence (I can post links) that just the opposite is true.  It's just less visible because atheists don't stand up in front of the world and say, "Look at me!  I'm an atheist and I'm helping someone!" like organized religion tends to.

And I don't know where you're getting your projection that the "nones" are projected to decline, but again, just the opposite of that has been true for decades with all categories of nones increasing at an accelerated pace.

Now back to this "evidence" for intelligent design, please, to share.  But before you do, "When I look at that, I see this" IS NOT evidence for anything, it's an opinion.  And "evolution is wrong because..." IS NOT evidence for anything, it's evidence AGAINST something, or claimed to be, anyway.  If you could present A SINGLE PIECE of "evidence for" intelligent design you would shock not only me but, indeed, the scientific community, even the entire world.  But that's not going to happen.  My "evidence for" that is that many have claimed this before, none have done it yet.

I have many times, the DNA molecule and the nano-machines it codes for (These are far more advanced than our technology has ever achieved) and how the DNA molecule needs products of its translation by RNA to replicate itself, which creates a vicious circle for Materialistic Atheists trying to work out its origin.

So your "evidence" is "we don't know, therefore God".  Because that's what you just said.  Your "evidence" for design is that it's complex?  You're not telling me what you do know here, you're telling me what you don't know.  You're telling me what materialists and atheists don't know.  I'm an atheist.  But I have never tried to work out the origin of anything in biology because I am not a biologist or geneticist or chemist or paleontologist or anything which would give me the duties of "working out" anything about this.  What does being an atheist have to do with figuring out anything in biology?

Yes, DNA is complex.  So what?  If you want to prove that DNA cannot be random and could not have formed naturally without help then you would have to prove that no complex system could be random or form naturally without help.  You have no idea how frustrating it is when people like you use the argument "We don't understand it" to say "We understand it perfectly".  Your argument and your conclusion are at odds with one another.  Either we DO understand it and it is design (from your perspective) or we DON'T understand it and we cannot draw any conclusions.  But you are claiming BOTH!

So let's try again.  Do you have any "EVIDENCE" of design.  Don't tell me what we don't know.  Don't tell me what we don't understand.  Don't tell me what's not happening.  Don't tell me how stupid atheists are as if "atheist" and "scientist" are the same thing.  Tell me what you DO know and what you can PROVE.  I'll give you a hint.  That conversation sounds like crickets chirping.