Hi from Logikos

[Minimalist]

The point is, is it the nature of theistic belief that causes theists to cause harm, or is it the nature of the person

What difference does it make, Logikos?

Understand that I do not give a rats ass what you or anyone else believes. You can maintain that the moon is made of green cheese and it matters not a whit to me. Where I draw the line is when ignorant shits use worthless ancient texts to want to teach that the world is 6,000 years old in science classes. Students have enough trouble without that shit.

The problem comes up when a bunch of believers get together to oppress others in the name of their god because their own slavish devotion to lunacy tells them that god wants them to. This has happened far too often and it continues to this very day. As Stephen Weinberg noted: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

Now, as far as being a "skeptical christian" one thought instantly crossed my mind. To be a xtian requires believing that a dead jew came back to life because he was 'god.' Without this particular delusion there is no xtianity. So, if you are skeptical about that how can you call yourself a "christian?"

And, if you are not skeptical about that, how can you call yourself a "skeptic?"

[lukec]

Agreed. There is not really verifiable evidence that Jesus was A) a real person, and B) that he was God. Is Jesus' existence/godhood beyond or exempt from skepticism, and if so, why?

[Edwardo Piet]

So are you saying that all people who believe in god(s) suffer from delusions?

Well a delusion being a false belief and God being a false belief=God being a delusion so yes.

So theistic belief is:
[*]idiosyncratic?

Yes in the sense that other beliefs tend to require a certain standard of evidence before they are believed. Theistic belief is an unwarranted exception (in the sense that I am yet to know of why it should be an exception and if you can explain why then please go ahead). So it is idiosyncratic in that sense.

[*]always firmly maintained?

Well I don't quite get what this part means... but I do believe that having "Faith" is a very circular type of thing because it lacks evidence, it lacks basis, and yet it is used as a basis... it's hollow. And the fact that that can persist shows a kind of firm ignorance that tends to be maintained by theists.... but I would argue 'tends to' I wouldn't argue always. Theists do sometimes lose their 'faith' of course.

[*]contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or "rational argument"?
[/list]

Well I'd say yes... as I said above - theistic belief is treated as an exception and that exception is unwarranted. Whilst with any other belief a rational, certain standard of evidence is required - for theistic belief it is treated as different even though I am yet to know of why this should be treated as such.

I see, so you take "irrational" and "delusional" to be synonymous (they are clearly not). All theists are irrational and so all theists have delusions. Non sequitur.

If their beliefs are irrational then that means they are not rationally based on reality. If they are not rationally based on reality then they should be treated as false in the same sense that belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is treated as both not based on reality and false. And a false belief=a delusion.

EvF