Hi from Logikos

[Logikos]

I suppose that is true, but I'll be damned if I can think of any of those rare exceptions.

Why do you think that's true?

---

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

Yes. If not delusions, then magical thinking at least.

On what grounds do you make this generalisation?

[Violet]

Theistic belief is also bad. You can draw the same connections between people suffering delusions and people believing in gods.

Ever read 'The God Delusion'? I think that explains this quite well.

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

Yes.

Using "delusion" as:

delusion |diˈloō zh ən|
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

[Paul the Human]

I suppose that is true, but I'll be damned if I can think of any of those rare exceptions.

Why do you think that's true?

I think it is true that there exists the possibility that there may be quests for truth in which the belief in god(s) is not detrimental.

"Is there mustard on that ham sandwhich" *checks* "Yep."

See... a quest for truth in which theistic belief played no part.

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

Yes. If not delusions, then magical thinking at least.

On what grounds do you make this generalisation?

On the grounds that there is no rational reason to hold such a belief.

[Logikos]

I suppose that is true, but I'll be damned if I can think of any of those rare exceptions.

Why do you think that's true?

I think it is true that there exists the possibility that there may be quests for truth in which the belief in god(s) is not detrimental.

"Is there mustard on that ham sandwhich" *checks* "Yep."

See... a quest for truth in which theistic belief played no part.

I agree with the obvious statement in bold, but my question was about this statement:

Theistic belief is in almost every case (those cases where this is not true are very rare) detrimental to the quest for truth.

So perhaps you could give an example of a truth which I would be unable to arrive at because of my theistic belief (that does not presuppose that theistic belief is false).

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

Yes. If not delusions, then magical thinking at least.

On what grounds do you make this generalisation?

On the grounds that there is no rational reason to hold such a belief.

So how exactly does the generalisation follow?

[Paul the Human]

So perhaps you could give an example of a truth which I would be unable to arrive at because of my theistic belief (that does not presuppose that theistic belief is false).

The truth that the belief in god(s) is delusional. It is not a matter of presupposing that theistic belief is false. It is a matter of seeking the truth. That quest for 'truth' has discovered absolutely no evidence (to my knowledge) that any claims of the existence of deities are true. It has, however, uncovered a lot of evidence that the existence of god(s) is not necessarily the answer and, indeed, is not necessary at all. The God contention has not been (cannot be) disproved, but there has never been a satisfactory reason to believe presented (again, to my knowledge). Therefore, belief is irrational at best.

So how exactly does the generalisation follow?

It follows, because that is what a generalization is. The generalization is this: There is no rational reason to believe in god(s), therefore holding that belief is irrational, delusional, wishful thinking, etc.

[Logikos]

So perhaps you could give an example of a truth which I would be unable to arrive at because of my theistic belief (that does not presuppose that theistic belief is false).

The truth that the belief in god(s) is delusional. It is not a matter of presupposing that theistic belief is false. It is a matter of seeking the truth. That quest for 'truth' has discovered absolutely no evidence (to my knowledge) that any claims of the existence of deities are true. It has, however, uncovered a lot of evidence that the existence of god(s) is not necessarily the answer and, indeed, is not necessary at all. The God contention has not (cannot be) disproved, but there has never been a satisfactory reason to believe presented (again, to my knowledge). Therefore, belief is irrational at best.

So how exactly does the generalisation follow?

It follows, because that is what a generalization is. The generalization is this: There is no rational reason to believe in god(s), therefore holding that belief is irrational, delusional, wishful thinking, etc.

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.

You state that you are not aware of any evidence for the existence of God. Does it therefore follow that all theists are irrational? No. For one, the criterion that a person is rational only if there is evidence for all their beliefs is self-refuting: there is no evidence for believing that "a person is rational only if there is evidence for all their beliefs". But even if we accept the criterion, the fact that you are not aware of any evidence does not mean that no evidence exists, or that theists are not aware of any evidence.

Logikos

P.S. You keep talking about "rational beliefs", but rationality is a property of people not beliefs or arguments. Beliefs are either true or false, not rational or irrational. Someone can be rational and still hold to false beliefs, and vice versa. You've also said that some beliefs are "delusional" which again is something only people can be. I know this sounds a bit pedantic, but if you're going to make a convincing argument that "all theists are delusional" it is not enough to show that there are no good reasons for theistic belief - you need to show that all theists have delusions.

---

Yes.

Using "delusion" as:

delusion |diˈloō zh ən|
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

So theistic belief is:

• idiosyncratic?
  
• always firmly maintained?
  
• contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or "rational argument"?
  

[Shinylight]

Oh that is nice to know, why do you accept Christianity over Islam, Judaism, Humanism etc..?

That's a rather large question and would take a fair bit of time to answer... It is the combined force of a number of reasons together with the overall coherence of Christianity as a worldview that has led me to accept it. My reasons for rejecting other worldviews are pretty diverse. Basically, we'll have to look at some more specific questions about worldviews (and some important epistemological questions - see the thread I started in the Philosophy forum for the most fundamental one) before I can give you a sufficiently satisfying answer.

I'll check it out

I am an Antitheist because I oppose belief in God, I see it as detrimental to the world therefore I am 'Against Theism'

What do you mean by "detrimental"?

Causing harm

[Paul the Human]

(In reference to Logikos' response to me.): Semantics. You know what I mean.

There is no legitimate reason to believe the claim that god(s) exist. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason to believe the claim that god(s) exist. It's not a complicated thing.

Furthermore, I contend that belief (actual belief) in anything without a legitimate reason for that belief is irrational and deluded and that it is indicative of either willful ignorance or mental illness or both.

[Logikos]

Causing harm

OK, so are you saying that all theists cause harm to the world? That's a strong claim.

Logikos

[Paul the Human]

He didn't say "to the world". He was defining 'detrimental' as meaning 'to cause harm'. Semantics games to cloud the issue are not an effective way to make a point or to counter one.