With celeb backing like this how can you doubt creationism?

[General Zod]

You should be the one to explain the relevance thereof, taking care to explain how the (fallacious) argument from popularity against imaginary friends is an effective analogy to a deity, given that you can't even use the (fallacious) argument from popularity against a deity.

It's really simple actually. Even an idiot like you should be able to understand it. Belief in imaginary beings is considered delusional behavior by most reputable psychiatric organizations. God is not real, therefore imaginary. Ergo, belief in God is delusional. Simple enough or do I need to use crayon?

If there's some type of magical difference I'm not seeing here, then feel free to point it out. Otherwise concession accepted hatfucker.

[Terralthra]

You should be the one to explain the relevance thereof, taking care to explain how the (fallacious) argument from popularity against imaginary friends is an effective analogy to a deity, given that you can't even use the (fallacious) argument from popularity against a deity.

It's really simple actually. Even an idiot like you should be able to understand it. Belief in imaginary beings is considered delusional behavior by most reputable psychiatric organizations. God is not real, therefore imaginary. Ergo, belief in God is delusional. Simple enough or do I need to use crayon?

If there's some type of magical difference I'm not seeing here, then feel free to point it out. Otherwise concession accepted hatfucker.

Sorry this response took so long, I had to stop laughing at you.

First, we've gone from "most people" to "most reputable psychiatric oranizations." Shifting goalposts, much?

Second, an unproven and essentially unprovable assertion that God is not real as an assumption of your argument.

Thirdly, if you can easily extend "delusional beings" to include God, and therefore reputable psychiatric organizations would condemn belief in God, why do we find reality to be much different? You know, what with the APA having a division that studies religion and spirituality. And a survey found that 83% of Psychiatrists reported themselves as spiritual or religious.

In short, your argument doesn't even begin to match up with reality.

[General Zod]

Second, an unproven and essentially unprovable assertion that God is not real as an assumption of your argument.

Then prove that he's real. Oh wait, there is no proof imaginary beings exist, is there?

Thirdly, if you can easily extend "delusional beings" to include God, and therefore reputable psychiatric organizations would condemn belief in God, why do we find reality to be much different?

Because it would be political suicide to classify belief in God as a mental disorder. That doesn't mean it's any less delusional to believe in imaginary beings. Just for emphasis.

Main Entry:
de·lu·sion Listen to the pronunciation of delusion
Pronunciation:
\di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
Date:
15th century

1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

[Terralthra]

Don't worry, everyone saw your concession that you shifted the goalposts. It's ok though, your revised argument is still easy to knock down as bullshit.

Second, an unproven and essentially unprovable assertion that God is not real as an assumption of your argument.

Then prove that he's real. Oh wait, there is no proof imaginary beings exist, is there?

There's the assertion again. Doesn't make it right, and an argument predicated on an imaginary God, proving an imaginary God, is what we at the grown-ups table call circular reasoning.

Thirdly, if you can easily extend "delusional beings" to include God, and therefore reputable psychiatric organizations would condemn belief in God, why do we find reality to be much different?

Because it would be political suicide to classify belief in God as a mental disorder. That doesn't mean it's any less delusional to believe in imaginary beings. Just for emphasis.

So, the individual psychiatrists making up the APA all profess to religion because it'd be political suicide to profess to atheism? Makes you wonder about that 17% of psychiatrists that do profess to atheism. Oh, wait, that's because your argument is bullshit.

Need the link again?

Main Entry:
de·lu·sion Listen to the pronunciation of delusion
Pronunciation:
\di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\
Function:
noun
Etymolog[y:
Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
Date:
15th century

1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

Hm.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Terralthra, do you believe that there is a Chinese tea cup orbiting the sun right now?

[General Zod]

There's the assertion again. Doesn't make it right, and an argument predicated on an imaginary God, proving an imaginary God, is what we at the grown-ups table call circular reasoning.

Clearly your grasp on the English language is lacking. Since when stating that something is not real equivocable to demonstrating something's existence? I'm still waiting on that proof that God is anything more than a figment of people's imagination.

Main Entry:
as·sert Listen to the pronunciation of assert
Pronunciation:
\ə-ˈsərt, a-\
Function:
transitive verb
Etymology:
Latin assertus, past participle of asserere, from ad- + serere to join — more at series
Date:
circa 1604

1: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively2 a: to demonstrate the existence of <assert his manhood — James Joyce> b: posit, postulate

[Terralthra]

There's the assertion again. Doesn't make it right, and an argument predicated on an imaginary God, proving an imaginary God, is what we at the grown-ups table call circular reasoning.

Clearly your grasp on the English language is lacking. Since when stating that something is not real equivocable to demonstrating something's existence? I'm still waiting on that proof that God is anything more than a figment of people's imagination.

My grasp on English is quite good. Your argument assumed that God was an imaginary entity, ie, "an imaginary God." Your argument for that was something akin to:

I: God is imaginary
II: If you think he isn't, prove it.
III: There is no proof for an imaginary being
ergo
God is imaginary.

That's circular reasoning, to back up the statement "God is not real" (and later) "God is an imaginary being."

Both of which are:

1: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively

I see you've abandoned your argument about psychiatrists and most people think this is delusional. Is your conviction that God is imaginary all you really have?

Terralthra, do you believe that there is a Chinese tea cup orbiting the sun right now?

No, I do not. I also do not believe in God. However, as I previously noted, if someone does believe there is a Chinese tea cup orbiting the sun right now, and that has no harmful effects on either themselves or others, then I don't see the problem.

[Superman]

Second, an unproven and essentially unprovable assertion that God is not real as an assumption of your argument.

You really don't understand that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim?

Thirdly, if you can easily extend "delusional beings" to include God, and therefore reputable psychiatric organizations would condemn belief in God, why do we find reality to be much different? You know, what with the APA having a division that studies religion and spirituality. And a survey found that 83% of Psychiatrists reported themselves as spiritual or religious.

This has been my area of study for the past couple of years, so I'll try to add my two cents. Psychology is a vast discipline that sets out to study every aspect of human behavior; so yes, of course there is an academic branch that studies religion. This is not the same as clinical psychology, in which clinicians are trained to diagnose and treat mental disorders.

In terms of religion, the theoretical framework sort of goes like this: Religion, including these fundamentalist idiots, is common and accepted by society, so it's not included in the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM IV). Culture is a huge factor in the mental health sciences, and very few mental disorders are fixed.

Now, if one of these fundamentalist retards somehow ended up in China, and started doing his fundie bullshit, it's very possible that Chinese psychiatrists would see his behavior, hear what he has to say, and label him with a mental disorder. In other words, in Chinese society, he's fucking nuts.

In terms of fundies in the US, he or she very well could be acting out a mental disorder. This is sort of gray area, and you're going to find professionals on both sides of the fence on it. If a man is brought into an ER screaming about god and totally amped up (if he's not on speed), a doctor will probably diagnose him as being in a state of mania. The religious fixations are all too common in people with mood disorders.

The average fundie is probably the way that he is because of maladapted anxiety management mechanisms, maybe even deeper psychological issues, but mental health organizations aren't going to declare them as crazy. Even Freud compared religious behavior to rituals that people with obsessive compulsive disorder perform, and I happen to think he might have been somewhat correct, but few psychiatrists or psychologists will make this declaration.

[General Zod]

My grasp on English is quite good. Your argument assumed that God was an imaginary entity, ie, "an imaginary God." Your argument for that was something akin to:

If there's no evidence that it's real then why treat it as anything more than imaginary? Frankly God has about as much evidence for existing as Mickey Mouse or Leprechauns.

Both of which are:

1: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively

Claiming something is false is not declaring a positive dumbass. Feel free to cherry pick more though.

I see you've abandoned your argument about psychiatrists and most people think this is delusional. Is your conviction that God is imaginary all you really have?

If he's not imaginary, and thus not a delusion, there should be evidence to the contrary, shouldn't there?

No, I do not. I also do not believe in God. However, as I previously noted, if someone does believe there is a Chinese tea cup orbiting the sun right now, and that has no harmful effects on either themselves or others, then I don't see the problem.

The problem is when you start adding superfluous terms to scientific theories and wind up with a bunch of convoluted crap that makes them not so useful. "A + A = X" is a useful statement. "A + A = X, therefore Y did it" is not so useful. It doesn't follow at all. I suggest reading up on this thing called Occam's Razor sometime.

[Superman]

And ter, you fucking lied. Your study doesn't say that 83% of psychiatrists say that they're religious or whatever. It says this:

Moreover, while 10 percent of all doctors reported having no religious affiliation, 17 percent of psychiatrists listed their religion as "none." Psychiatrists were more likely to consider themselves spiritual but not religious (33 percent) compared to other doctors (19 percent).

"Religious patients who prefer to see like-minded psychiatrists may have difficulty finding a match because their religious group is under-represented among psychiatrists," stated the researchers in the study.

Psychiatrists were less likely to attend services frequently, believe in God or the afterlife, or cope by looking to God "for strength, support and guidance," according to the survey.

I've worked with more than a few psychiatrists, and I have yet to meet ONE who is a Christian, and all but a few are atheists.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Terralthra, do you believe that there is a Chinese tea cup orbiting the sun right now?

No, I do not. I also do not believe in God. However, as I previously noted, if someone does believe there is a Chinese tea cup orbiting the sun right now, and that has no harmful effects on either themselves or others, then I don't see the problem.

Red herring. Whether a belief is harmful or not has nothing to do with whether it is rational or not. Do you think that the idea that there is a Chinese tea cup orbiting the sun is a rational belief?

[Zixinus]

No, I do not. I also do not believe in God. However, as I previously noted, if someone does believe there is a Chinese tea cup orbiting the sun right now, and that has no harmful effects on either themselves or others, then I don't see the problem.

Being delusional is not harmful? Because last I checked, being delusional or holding a delusional belief can crippled proper judgement, thus possibly harming others and themselves.

[Terralthra]

And ter, you fucking lied. Your study doesn't say that 83% of psychiatrists say that they're religious or whatever. It says this:

Moreover, while 10 percent of all doctors reported having no religious affiliation, 17 percent of psychiatrists listed their religion as "none." Psychiatrists were more likely to consider themselves spiritual but not religious (33 percent) compared to other doctors (19 percent).

"Religious patients who prefer to see like-minded psychiatrists may have difficulty finding a match because their religious group is under-represented among psychiatrists," stated the researchers in the study.

Psychiatrists were less likely to attend services frequently, believe in God or the afterlife, or cope by looking to God "for strength, support and guidance," according to the survey.

I've worked with more than a few psychiatrists, and I have yet to meet ONE who is a Christian, and all but a few are atheists.

Hm, it says 17 percent listed their religion as "none". 100% minus 18 percent atheist = 83% non-atheist. Where's the lie, again?

Terralthra, do you believe that there is a Chinese tea cup orbiting the sun right now?

No, I do not. I also do not believe in God. However, as I previously noted, if someone does believe there is a Chinese tea cup orbiting the sun right now, and that has no harmful effects on either themselves or others, then I don't see the problem.

Red herring. Whether a belief is harmful or not has nothing to do with whether it is rational or not. Do you think that the idea that there is a Chinese tea cup orbiting the sun is a rational belief?

It's not outside the realm of possibility, but it's fairly unlikely, so I'd say no. Given that a chinese tea cup by definition comes from China, and there are no known examples of a tea cup being brought into space from Earth and then released in such a way as to put it into Solar orbit, it's fairly irrational to believe that one was.

Just as an aside, this entire question is a red herring. We're not talking about tea cups orbiting the sun, we're talking about one person's belief that an omnipotent being caused the universe to come into being.

Being delusional is not harmful? Because last I checked, being delusional or holding a delusional belief can crippled proper judgement, thus possibly harming others and themselves.

I'm having trouble imagining a psychiatrist diagnosing a belief in God, especially such an abstract belief as "God started the universe umpteen billion years ago," as delusional. Perhaps you can point me to some psychiatrists who have done so?

If there's no evidence that it's real then why treat it as anything more than imaginary? Frankly God has about as much evidence for existing as Mickey Mouse or Leprechauns.

Less, actually, in the case of Mickey Mouse.

Claiming something is false is not declaring a positive dumbass. Feel free to cherry pick more though.

Now I know you're still in high school. "Declaring positively" means to state something "with certainty; absolutely: The statement is positively true." link That's not the same as "declaring a positive." Such idiotic quibbling over definitions is typical of a losing debator.

The problem is when you start adding superfluous terms to scientific theories and wind up with a bunch of convoluted crap that makes them not so useful. "A + A = X" is a useful statement. "A + A = X, therefore Y did it" is not so useful. It doesn't follow at all. I suggest reading up on this thing called Occam's Razor sometime.

"And then you start sliding down this slippery strawman slope!" Ryan Thunder posited no such thing, and made no such statements. He simply said he personally said God caused the universe to be created, and implied that God had no hand in it thereafter.

[Superman]

I'm having trouble imagining a psychiatrist diagnosing a belief in God, especially such an abstract belief as "God started the universe umpteen billion years ago," as delusional. Perhaps you can point me to some psychiatrists who have done so?

I can show you a few. Although they're not diagnosing anyone, they're explaining religious belief and behavior as a response to a maladapted mind.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It's not outside the realm of possibility, but it's fairly unlikely, so I'd say no. Given that a chinese tea cup by definition comes from China, and there are no known examples of a tea cup being brought into space from Earth and then released in such a way as to put it into Solar orbit, it's fairly irrational to believe that one was.

No. A magical being outside our universe placed an object that exactly resembles a tea cup from China and set it orbiting around the sun. You cannot prove that such a tea cup does not exist, right?

Just as an aside, this entire question is a red herring. We're not talking about tea cups orbiting the sun, we're talking about one person's belief that an omnipotent being caused the universe to come into being.

Wrong. The tea cup was an example used to demonstrate the same logic used in your example. The fact that my example utilized different objects means very little.

[General Zod]

Less, actually, in the case of Mickey Mouse.

So if someone very sincerely said that they believed Mickey Mouse created the universe umpteen billion years ago, you wouldn't think they were delusional?

[Terralthra]

It's not outside the realm of possibility, but it's fairly unlikely, so I'd say no. Given that a chinese tea cup by definition comes from China, and there are no known examples of a tea cup being brought into space from Earth and then released in such a way as to put it into Solar orbit, it's fairly irrational to believe that one was.

No. A magical being outside our universe placed an object that exactly resembles a tea cup from China and set it orbiting around the sun. You cannot prove that such a tea cup does not exist, right?

Just as an aside, this entire question is a red herring. We're not talking about tea cups orbiting the sun, we're talking about one person's belief that an omnipotent being caused the universe to come into being.

Wrong. The tea cup was an example used to demonstrate the same logic used in your example. The fact that my example utilized different objects means very little.

The fact that you think this is identical logic scares me. Are you serious? Hm, wait, that's not quite what I mean. Are you retarded? A tea cup is not the universe, the time before the universe existed is unknown, unknowable, and unobservable, while an object that perfectly resembles a chinese teacup (while being neither chinese, nor a tea cup) orbiting our sun, supernaturally created in our life times, is none of those. Stop bringing up red herrings and address the actual point, or GTFO.

Less, actually, in the case of Mickey Mouse.

So if someone very sincerely said that they believed Mickey Mouse created the universe umpteen billion years ago, you wouldn't think they were delusional?

Given that all evidence points to Mickey Mouse coming into existence some 80 years ago, and not having any supernatural or omnipotent powers, yes. The evidence in favor of Mickey Mouse's existence makes his being an omnipotent creator God much less likely. I'm really surprised you couldn't surmise that yourself.

[General Zod]

Given that all evidence points to Mickey Mouse coming into existence some 80 years ago, and not having any supernatural or omnipotent powers, yes. The evidence in favor of Mickey Mouse's existence makes his being an omnipotent creator God much less likely. I'm really surprised you couldn't surmise that yourself.

You're missing the point, but that's hardly shocking. You've already admitted there's more evidence for Mickey Mouse being real than God. So why does God get the pass of not being a delusion when there's less evidence that he exists at all?

[NetKnight]

The fact that you think this is identical logic scares me. Are you serious? Hm, wait, that's not quite what I mean. Are you retarded? A tea cup is not the universe, the time before the universe existed is unknown, unknowable, and unobservable, while an object that perfectly resembles a chinese teacup (while being neither chinese, nor a tea cup) orbiting our sun, supernaturally created in our life times, is none of those. Stop bringing up red herrings and address the actual point, or GTFO.

A strictly "extracosmic" being is an utterly usless propisition, as it could not, by definition, interact with the universe in any way. Besides, the type of deity under discussion is the Deistic type, which is postulated to have set the universe in motion, in short, interacting with it.

Thus, the analogy between the teacup and deity is an entirely valid one, both discribing a term that suposidely interacts with the universe, but is an unnecessary complication in our understanding of it, meriting a shave with Ocham's Razor. If one wishes to postulate it, the strictly 'extracosmic' (an absurd term) deity is by definition irrelevent to our understanding of the universe, and equally basicly rediculous to postulate the existance of, given the absurdity of speaking of anything extra-universal/cosmic existing.

[Terralthra]

A strictly "extracosmic" being is an utterly usless propisition, as it could not, by definition, interact with the universe in any way. Besides, the type of deity under discussion is the Deistic type, which is postulated to have set the universe in motion, in short, interacting with it.

Thus, the analogy between the teacup and deity is an entirely valid one, both discribing a term that suposidely interacts with the universe, but is an unnecessary complication in our understanding of it, meriting a shave with Ocham's Razor. If one wishes to postulate it, the strictly 'extracosmic' (an absurd term) deity is by definition irrelevent to our understanding of the universe, and equally basicly rediculous to postulate the existance of, given the absurdity of speaking of anything extra-universal/cosmic existing.

When you learn to spell, and read the rest of the thread, I'll respond to you. Until then, back to middle school with you.

You're missing the point, but that's hardly shocking. You've already admitted there's more evidence for Mickey Mouse being real than God. So why does God get the pass of not being a delusion when there's less evidence that he exists at all?

Because belief in a higher power doesn't come across as delusional or irrational to an average person in basically every culture on the planet, through the entirety of recorded history.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Wrong. The tea cup was an example used to demonstrate the same logic used in your example. The fact that my example utilized different objects means very little.

The fact that you think this is identical logic scares me. Are you serious? Hm, wait, that's not quite what I mean. Are you retarded? A tea cup is not the universe, the time before the universe existed is unknown, unknowable, and unobservable, while an object that perfectly resembles a chinese teacup (while being neither chinese, nor a tea cup) orbiting our sun, supernaturally created in our life times, is none of those.

Actually, you're the fucking retard that misunderstood the analogy. The tea cup is not supposed to represent the universe or time. It's supposed to represent an unfalsifiable claim for which your stupid-ass logic dictates that it is entirely reasonable to believe since it is impossible to disprove it. As such, your reasoning also concludes that it is not irrational to believe in virtually an infinite number of possible, unfalsifiable beliefs and assertions. Is that clear enough for you, dumbass?

Stop bringing up red herrings and address the actual point, or GTFO.

[General Zod]

Because belief in a higher power doesn't come across as delusional or irrational to an average person in basically every culture on the planet, through the entirety of recorded history.

Y hallo thar appeal to popularity!

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Because belief in a higher power doesn't come across as delusional or irrational to an average person in basically every culture on the planet, through the entirety of recorded history.

This has no bearing on whether said belief is actually delusional or irrational, which it is. Most people are delusional or irrational. Within a group that shares the same absurd belief, it is not considered a sign of mental defect because it does not hinder social functioning when everyone believes the same thing. However, not all groups believe the same things, and when groups collide that have different unsupported beliefs, friction inevitably results, sometimes violently so.

While one person holding an unsupported belief may not be damaging it itself, lending that idea any unwonted legitimacy creates a climate in which bullshit can thrive, and dangerous memes can spawn and grow into legitimate threats.

[Terralthra]

Because belief in a higher power doesn't come across as delusional or irrational to an average person in basically every culture on the planet, through the entirety of recorded history.

Y hallo thar appeal to popularity!

What is delusional and what is irrational are defined by consensus, it's not an appeal to authority to state that.

Actually, you're the fucking retard that misunderstood the analogy. The tea cup is not supposed to represent the universe or time. It's supposed to represent an unfalsifiable claim for which your stupid-ass logic dictates that it is entirely reasonable to believe since it is impossible to disprove it. As such, your reasoning also concludes that it is not irrational to believe in virtually an infinite number of possible, unfalsifiable beliefs and assertions. Is that clear enough for you, dumbass?

Then it was a pretty poorly constructed analogy, given that a Chinese Tea Cup - oops, sorry, a magical-not-chinese-not-teacup-that-nevertheless-shares-all-properties-thereof - orbiting the sun has defined properties, is observable, and is therefore falsifiable. It may take quite some time to falsify, given the large volume of space in which it could be orbiting, but it is nonetheless not falsifiable.

My reasoning actually states that it is not unreasonable to believe in a finite number of unfalsifiable beliefs that are shared by the vast majority of people inhabiting the Earth currently and that have inhabited the Earth in the past. A vast number of reasonable people have believed in a deity of some stripe, and doubtless will continue to, despite your rather retarded teacup argument.

Since you're a jackass, I can understand why you distorted my reasoning to be something more easy to knock down, and since you're an idiot, I can understand how you failed at even rebutting a straw man argument which even Darkstar would be able to rebut. What I can't understand is how you manage to type and breathe at the same time.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

You make a good point, Zod. This was part of what I was trying to address in the other thread. They seem to have an absurd standard for "certainty" wherein something can be ridiculous, implausible, and completely unsupported by the evidence, yet because there's still some "chance" it could be there, they go "well, you cannot say there isn't!" as if you need some absolute knowledge that it is not there in order to reject it.

The teapot makes sense, especially if you say it's a metaphysical teapot that is so far beyond our understanding, yet you know is there by revelation. It can never be disproven any more than a God-concept, because you can simply invent anything and put it outside the realm of evidence.

To me, it's delusional to have a belief in something for which there's no evidence. It's like asserting there's an invisible man in your closet that you know is there simply by revelation. You could say the magic space banana made the universe or that metaphysical gremlins are really responsible for your appliances working, despite what we know. If someone believed magic gremlins were responsible for their toaster's operation, despite the lack of evidence, we would likely call that delusional, but only because it's not popular society has no problem in general with things we don't support; its a cultural blinder. It's only absurd when it's something unusual.

It seems they want to believe so badly they will call it unreasonable to reject such a belief because there is some unreasonable chance it could be true.