(November 20, 2013 at 1:28 am)Ryantology Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 1:02 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Atheism is completely false if ANY deity exists.
Every single version of theism must be disproven.
Better get cracking. You got a lot of work ahead of you.

Every single version of theism, except for one, is false if any is proven true.

How does that follow? Can you see the people feeling different parts of the same elephant meme?
I am making an argument based on multiple types of theism being partly true not entirely true.

(November 20, 2013 at 1:28 am)Ryantology Wrote: ...A Christian is wrong unless the God of their bible is proven to exist and if the Jesus story is actually true.

NO! At best you could argue that the Christian might be partly wrong, if their understanding of one version of God - the one they mistakenly hold to - is unmistakenly proven to be something objectively different to the universally agreed concept of what the bible says.

You of all people know that biblical theists, while agreeing on much/most of the theological distinctives and yet can still disagree on various points. (Courtier's Reply)

Demanding unanimity as a benchmark is a bit too cute considering the category is atheism versus theism, not atheism versus catholicism or atheism versus protestantism.

(November 20, 2013 at 1:28 am)Ryantology Wrote: ...By your logic, you have to accept every competing theist claim since you have disproven none of those.

Nope. Even if I WAS mistaken, my view would still be partly entailed in theism more broadly.

If the polytheist one day discovers that what they previously thought was multiple different entities, was in fact different manifestations of the same single Being,
just mistakenly interpreted, you could hardly say they are 100% wrong about the existence of God(s).

Being mistaken about the nature of God is not the same as being mistaken about the existence of God.

(November 20, 2013 at 1:28 am)Ryantology Wrote: ...That means you have to accept that Islam is equally true to Christianity according to your own rules. Do you?

Islam is equally true to Judaism and Christianity on a huge number of matters. Ten of which I can name off by heart.

(November 20, 2013 at 1:02 am)Lion IRC Wrote:

This looks like the answer to the age old question of "how many mahoots does it takes to rub one out for an elephant". (The fact that none of them quite seems to understand where to find the needed equipment accounts for the large number.) The correct answer is one, but the mahoot needs to know his way around and the elephant both has to want to have one rubbed out and be a male.

(November 20, 2013 at 2:10 am)Lion IRC Wrote: How does that follow? Can you see the people feeling different parts of the same elephant meme?
I am making an argument based on multiple types of theism being partly true not entirely true.

No, you're just getting on the bandwagon of trying to assert that your belief in your specific religion is justifiable if any sort of God is shown to exist. Forgetting the fact that no god has ever been shown to exist, you don't believe in just any god. You believe, exclusively, in a very specific God, whose first commandment is that you shall have no other Gods. It's not enough for you to prove theism right. You have to prove your specific interpretation of Christianity right. Otherwise, all you're attempting to do is prove both of us wrong.

Quote:NO! At best you could argue that the Christian might be partly wrong, if their understanding of one version of God - the one they mistakenly hold to - is unmistakenly proven to be something objectively different to the universally agreed concept of what the bible says.

I'm sorry, but if Brahma comes down to earth tomorrow, everything in the Bible is automatically invalidated. If Allah comes down to earth, the idea of Christian salvation is invalidated. You don't get to call it a victory unless Jesus Christ himself comes down to earth.

Quote:You of all people know that biblical theists, while agreeing on much/most of the theological distinctives and yet can still disagree on various points. (Courtier's Reply)

That just makes me think you're all full of shit, since many of you ca't even agree on such basics as whether Jesus was human or not.

Quote:Demanding unanimity as a benchmark is a bit too cute considering the category is atheism versus theism, not atheism versus catholicism or atheism versus protestantism.

It's not too cute, because you're not simply a theist. Your beliefs make you just as atheistic as I am regarding every god but the one you've made a special exception for. You don't get to say that you believe in the One True God out of one side of your mouth and then, out of the other side, call it a victory if a competing God is revealed to exist.

Quote:Nope. Even if I WAS mistaken, my view would still be partly entailed in theism more broadly.

Doesn't matter.

Quote:Being mistaken about the nature of God is not the same as being mistaken about the existence of God.

Again, it is your burden to not only prove that gods exist, but that the specific God you believe in exists. It is not our burden to prove that they don't.

Quote:Islam is equally true to Judaism and Christianity on a huge number of matters. Ten of which I can name off by heart.

And absolutely contradictory on some extremely basic matters, to the point where if one is right, the others are very wrong in some vital ways.

(November 18, 2013 at 4:48 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: In recent conversations with a few of our resident Theists, I've been asking them a question that has yet to be answered.

How do you know you are not delusional?

Can you define delusional for me?

And, also, could you explain how you exclude yourself from the category?

(November 19, 2013 at 10:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(November 19, 2013 at 6:22 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: ...if we were limited to the exact words in the definition, would you be willing to adopt this view...A belief that cannot be proven false couldn't possibly be a delusion....perhaps "delusion" is the wrong word. Your thoughts?

Many forum members use the term 'delusion' as a hyperbolic description of people they believe are deceiving themselves about something. Usually because the alternative is, to their mind, unthinkable. So, I would distinguish between delusion and self-deception. A person who is delusional cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. As such, that defect would play out in multiple areas of their life. On the other hand, a self-deceived person can distinguish fantasy from reality, but chooses to not do so.

I will concede that delusion is an improper term. Self deception a bit more accurate. Thanks for hanging around. I've got more thoughts on this, but I gotta get out the door! See ya round a bit later.

(November 20, 2013 at 5:45 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Can you define delusional for me?

And, also, could you explain how you exclude yourself from the category?

The latter question is deceptively easy: merely always allow for the possibility that you may be wrong, which atheists do by not hitching themselves to any specific god from the outset, and waiting for the evidence to fall where it may.

If you're open to correction, you aren't delusional, merely potentially, temporarily, incorrect.

(November 20, 2013 at 5:45 am)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(November 18, 2013 at 4:48 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: In recent conversations with a few of our resident Theists, I've been asking them a question that has yet to be answered.

How do you know you are not delusional?

Can you define delusional for me?

And, also, could you explain how you exclude yourself from the category?

I've been using the wrong word. I concede that self deception is more accurate. Does your question remain?

I've answered it a page or so back, I would recommend reading through to catch up just in case somebody has already raised the same point you we're thinking of raising.

I'm on my phone trying to get out the door, if your question isn't answered by the time I get to my desk, I'd be happy to clarify!

---

(November 20, 2013 at 7:59 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 5:45 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Can you define delusional for me?

And, also, could you explain how you exclude yourself from the category?

The latter question is deceptively easy: merely always allow for the possibility that you may be wrong, which atheists do by not hitching themselves to any specific god from the outset, and waiting for the evidence to fall where it may.

If you're open to correction, you aren't delusional, merely potentially, temporarily, incorrect.

Self deception, I believe is what they'd prefer we use

---

(November 20, 2013 at 2:16 am)whateverist Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 1:02 am)Lion IRC Wrote:

This looks like the answer to the age old question of "how many mahoots does it takes to rub one out for an elephant". (The fact that none of them quite seems to understand where to find the needed equipment accounts for the large number.) The correct answer is one, but the mahoot needs to know his way around and the elephant both has to want to have one rubbed out and be a male.

I was in tears reading this. My girlfriend was looking at me like I was crazy. Thanks!

(November 20, 2013 at 1:02 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Whereas theists, on the other hand, only need to be partly right on even the tiniest detail about the God Conclusion in order to refute atheism.

I'm sorry, but I didn't catch your point here. Can you explain what you're talking about?..and then also, how you can show that you have any of these tiniest details that prove your specific God? (keeping in mind, as you pointed out, that your God is incompatible with every other one) If you have the tiniest bit of evidence that proves your God is right, I'll change my position to match yours.

Given that you aren't convinced due to the lack of evidence for any of those other Gods, surely you won't have a problem with me recognizing your inability to show otherwise, and then grouping you in with the followers of every other God on that list. It's no different than the way you percieve their Gods, and how they percieve yours.

You don't think it's a bit hypocritical of you to maintain that you are right without having any evidence for your claim, and then discounting others on the same grounds?

You seem to be more bothered by people that don't believe in any Gods, and not so much the people that you think are believing in the wrong God. What difference could that make to you? Isn't believing in a God that doesn't exist the same thing as believing a God doesn't exist? At least, from your perspective? Shouldn't you be just as focused on converting them as you are about selling yours to us?

This strikes me as a bit obtuse on your part. Would you like to clarify, or have I pretty much covered it?

This may be picking nits, but there is only one version each of theism and atheism. The various theistic relgions aren't versions of theism, they are religions with theism as a feature. If one theistic religion were proved true, the premise of theism that some sort of God or gods exist would be proven true and atheism would be falsified, and all religions incompatible with the god/God demonstrated to exist would be falsified.

Of course, atheists need do no work to falsify all the gods that have been conceived or can be conceived. We'll just continue to note the null hypothesis is preserved until it is overcome.

(November 20, 2013 at 12:34 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: This may be picking nits, but there is only one version each of theism and atheism. The various theistic relgions aren't versions of theism, they are religions with theism as a feature. If one theistic religion were proved true, the premise of theism that some sort of God or gods exist would be proven true and atheism would be falsified, and all religions incompatible with the god/God demonstrated to exist would be falsified.

Of course, atheists need do no work to falsify all the gods that have been conceived or can be conceived. We'll just continue to note the null hypothesis is preserved until it is overcome.

This is true. Theism is painted with a pretty broad brush. Christianity, however, is not quite as vague. If Hunahpu Gutch, one of the 13 Gods that created humans on accident ends up being the right version of Theism, both Christians, and Atheists are wrong about God. Of course, this would be much easier for the Atheist to swallow. Afterall, they hadn't spent their entire life worshipping an imaginary friend. In the face of whatever evidence that proves 'ole Hunahpu, I'll gladly give in. There's no shame in that if it's proven. Something tells me that even if a different God gets proven, the Christian will see it as a test, and will go on being wrong even in the face of whatever evidence proves a different God.

---

(November 20, 2013 at 3:40 am)Ryantology Wrote:

---

(November 20, 2013 at 2:10 am)Lion IRC Wrote: How does that follow? Can you see the people feeling different parts of the same elephant meme?
I am making an argument based on multiple types of theism being partly true not entirely true.

No, you're just getting on the bandwagon of trying to assert that your belief in your specific religion is justifiable if any sort of God is shown to exist. Forgetting the fact that no god has ever been shown to exist, you don't believe in just any god. You believe, exclusively, in a very specific God, whose first commandment is that you shall have no other Gods. It's not enough for you to prove theism right. You have to prove your specific interpretation of Christianity right. Otherwise, all you're attempting to do is prove both of us wrong.

Quote:NO! At best you could argue that the Christian might be partly wrong, if their understanding of one version of God - the one they mistakenly hold to - is unmistakenly proven to be something objectively different to the universally agreed concept of what the bible says.

I'm sorry, but if Brahma comes down to earth tomorrow, everything in the Bible is automatically invalidated. If Allah comes down to earth, the idea of Christian salvation is invalidated. You don't get to call it a victory unless Jesus Christ himself comes down to earth.

Quote:You of all people know that biblical theists, while agreeing on much/most of the theological distinctives and yet can still disagree on various points. (Courtier's Reply)

That just makes me think you're all full of shit, since many of you ca't even agree on such basics as whether Jesus was human or not.

Quote:Demanding unanimity as a benchmark is a bit too cute considering the category is atheism versus theism, not atheism versus catholicism or atheism versus protestantism.

It's not too cute, because you're not simply a theist. Your beliefs make you just as atheistic as I am regarding every god but the one you've made a special exception for. You don't get to say that you believe in the One True God out of one side of your mouth and then, out of the other side, call it a victory if a competing God is revealed to exist.

Quote:Nope. Even if I WAS mistaken, my view would still be partly entailed in theism more broadly.

Doesn't matter.

Quote:Being mistaken about the nature of God is not the same as being mistaken about the existence of God.

Again, it is your burden to not only prove that gods exist, but that the specific God you believe in exists. It is not our burden to prove that they don't.

Quote:Islam is equally true to Judaism and Christianity on a huge number of matters. Ten of which I can name off by heart.

And absolutely contradictory on some extremely basic matters, to the point where if one is right, the others are very wrong in some vital ways.

---