With celeb backing like this how can you doubt creationism?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

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

So something is irrational, not based on principles of logic, but what the majority says? According to that logic, I can say: "Bob is gay because milk tastes funny." As long as the "consensus" is that follows, it's not irrational! Right? Surely you must jest.

[Terralthra]

I'll concede that, although there are are counter-arguments.Strike out "irrational" and have the sentence just read Delusional.

[General Zod]

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

Suggesting that reality is defined by consensus is a textbook definition of appeal to popularity. At least get the names of the fallacies you're abusing right for fuck's sake.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

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

Only in the sense that ultimately all words are defined by consensus. Rationality has more to do with sound logical inference from available evidence than with popularity. When it comes to empirical data, consensus plays an important role, since it is less likely that many people are experiencing simultaneous concurring sensory hallucinations than that they are observing some sort of objective phenomenon. But how that data gets interpreted does depend on more objective logic or lack thereof. Additional background information topic-specific training help improve interpretation of data. Quite simply, introducing unnecessary unobservables is not rational; it is wish fulfilment.

[Terralthra]

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

Suggesting that reality is defined by consensus is a textbook definition of appeal to popularity. At least get the names of the fallacies you're abusing right for fuck's sake.

If I were suggesting that because a lot of people believe in God, that means he exists, then yes. I'm not saying that.

Since what is delusional and what is not IS interpreted by the cultural norms of the surrounding society, saying that what is delusional and what is not is defined by what everyone else thinks is not fallacious. If you learned to read, you'd find that's what Superman said earlier in the thread.

[NetKnight]

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.

For the misspellings I apologize, and plead the lateness of the hour. Needless to say, I had already read the thread when I posted. Would you care to respond to my point now?

To rephrase my point, so that this post is not entirely worthless, the logic employed in regarding a teacup that supposedly interacts with the universe, is an unnecessary proposition under Occam’s Razor, and has not been detected in any way is precisely the same logic used in regarding a sky-pixie with the same characteristics.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Should not a delusion be a persistent belief in something in the absence of evidence and, in some cases, despite evidence to the contrary? Why would it really matter how many people believe something regarding it's status as a delusion?

I think you are conflating mental disorder with delusion. I can have a delusion that's not caused by any mental problem, more so caused by emotional want+acculturation. I might believe, despite evidence or lacking it because I want to and I am simply shutting my critical faculties off to maintain the state.

There are many intelligent, normal people who hold delusional beliefs as defined as such.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

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.

Holy fuck, your head would make a great observation tower to watch all the actual points fly past. For someone who's accusing me of evading the point, you sure do an awesome job evading this one. What else shall I substitute for that? An invisible pink unicorn? A scheming leprechaun from another dimension?

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.

So let me get this straight... it's not unreasonable to believe in an unfalsifiable belief only it is shared by everyone? How the fuck does that even follow?

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.

Please provide evidence that I'm distorting your argument, jackass. DR6

[General Zod]

Since what is delusional and what is not IS interpreted by the cultural norms of the surrounding society, saying that what is delusional and what is not is defined by what everyone else thinks is not fallacious. If you learned to read, you'd find that's what Superman said earlier in the thread.

Too bad for you cultural norms have nothing to do with objective reality.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Ah, I see. This retard thinks that rationality is defined solely by the general consensus of the population. Hence, if everyone believes it, it must be rational. That and rationality has nothing to do with objectivity and logic! No, sirree!

[NetKnight]

Since what is delusional and what is not IS interpreted by the cultural norms of the surrounding society, saying that what is delusional and what is not is defined by what everyone else thinks is not fallacious. If you learned to read, you'd find that's what Superman said earlier in the thread.

A point Superman made in reference to the professional practices of physiologists in our society. He was not advocating this notion as a principle of logic.

A perfectly reasonable extension of this principle of ‘cultural sophism’, when applied as a principle of logic, is to argue that 1984’s ideologically based geocentricism is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs, because it is commonly accepted in Oceanian society. This is basic logic: appeal to authority = bad regardless of how popular that authority happens to be.

[Terralthra]

@Pint0 XTreme: Quoting a point that I already ceded as wrongly stated and badly phrased is really pointless. As for the points flying by and evading them, well, if you made good points, I'd respond to them. So long as you kept making retarded points, I continued to mock you for them. I thought that's what this forum was about?

You distorted my argument by saying:

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.

If you can point out to me a post in which I state that it is rational to believe in something strictly because it is unfalsifiable, go for it. I said that it is not delusional to believe in a deity, regardless of the provability thereof, mostly due to the fact that the rest of society also believes in deities, and delusion is largely, if not entirely, based on cultural norms.

@Boyish-Tigerlilly: If you define delusion as believing something in the absence of evidence, and say that even intelligent, normal people hold delusional beliefs, you open the way to the conclusion that the past and the existence of minds beside your own are quite possibly delusional, and to believe in them does not hold up to determined skepticism. We accept that the past is not an illusion and that other minds exist because of practical reasonability, that is, to act only upon possibilities that are productive.

This has gotten pretty far away from General Zod's original argument that the belief in a deity is insane because it's like an imaginary friend. That was a terrible argument, and I got involved here because I was under the impression that terrible arguments shouldn't be allowed to slip by around here just because they are in favor of the local consensus.

I'm not really interested in defending the belief in a deity for its own sake, since I don't actually believe in any. Accordingly, I'm done here.

[Superman]

A point Superman made in reference to the professional practices of physiologists in our society. He was not advocating this notion as a principle of logic.

Exactly. Psychiatrists usually have at least 8 years of post graduate education. Their clinical training is highly specialized.

[General Zod]

I'm not really interested in defending the belief in a deity for its own sake, since I don't actually believe in any. Accordingly, I'm done here.

Concession accepted hatfucker.

[Terralthra]

I'm not really interested in defending the belief in a deity for its own sake, since I don't actually believe in any. Accordingly, I'm done here.

Concession accepted hatfucker.

In return, I accept the numerous points you conceded earlier in the thread. G'night!

[Pint0 Xtreme]

@Pint0 XTreme: Quoting a point that I already ceded as wrongly stated and badly phrased is really pointless.

Really... last I checked, you still don't think there's anything wrong with believing in unfalsifiable, unsupported beliefs.

As for the points flying by and evading them, well, if you made good points, I'd respond to them. So long as you kept making retarded points, I continued to mock you for them. I thought that's what this forum was about?

Mock me to your heart's content. It matters little since you're the one that's making a fool out of yourself.

You distorted my argument by saying:

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.

If you can point out to me a post in which I state that it is rational to believe in something strictly because it is unfalsifiable, go for it.

Are you fucking illiterate? I said your reasoning concludes that it is not irrational to believe in unfalsifiable assertions and the fact that you think an unfalsifiable belief is rational based on its popularity only demonstrates my precise point.

I said that it is not delusional to believe in a deity, regardless of the provability thereof, mostly due to the fact that the rest of society also believes in deities, and delusion is largely, if not entirely, based on cultural norms.

Right. Of course, delusion is entirely based on cultural norms and has nothing to do with objectivity and logic. By your logic, atheists are deluded.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I said that it is not delusional to believe in a deity, regardless of the provability thereof, mostly due to the fact that the rest of society also believes in deities, and delusion is largely, if not entirely, based on cultural norms.

So rural Africans aren't deluded by believing that condoms distributed by the WHO are laced with STDs and that having sex with a virgin will rid you of them if you get one somehow?

[Flagg]

I said that it is not delusional to believe in a deity, regardless of the provability thereof, mostly due to the fact that the rest of society also believes in deities, and delusion is largely, if not entirely, based on cultural norms.

So it's not delusional as long as enough other people share the same delusion? Hello, my name is Jim Jones, please drink this tasty fruit beverage!

[DavidEC]

That's pretty much a textbook example of the difference of 'profound and spiritual religion' and 'dangerous and irrational cult'; its popularity.

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.

When people say this, or words to the effect that religion is ingrained in human nature, people will always do this or that, what is their logic? Does the mere existence of a belief justify it?

[Darth Wong]

This has gotten pretty far away from General Zod's original argument that the belief in a deity is insane because it's like an imaginary friend. That was a terrible argument, and I got involved here because I was under the impression that terrible arguments shouldn't be allowed to slip by around here just because they are in favor of the local consensus.

How the fuck is it a terrible argument, moron? There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of this deity, therefore it is exactly like an imaginary friend. Especially when people speak of having a "personal relationship" with it.

I'm not really interested in defending the belief in a deity for its own sake, since I don't actually believe in any. Accordingly, I'm done here.

Oh yes, the classic tactic of the dishonest twat: declare victory and then walk away, like Tony Snow closing a press conference.

[Terralthra]

How the fuck is it a terrible argument, moron?

Because it appealed to popularity, same as that about which people attacked my last argument.

I'm not really interested in defending the belief in a deity for its own sake, since I don't actually believe in any. Accordingly, I'm done here.

Oh yes, the classic tactic of the dishonest twat: declare victory and then walk away, like Tony Snow closing a press conference.

Errrno. I walked away because it's not an argument that I have any belief in, and therefore no wish to continue, there was no declaration of victory on that point.

I can concede that there is no proof for God's existence and therefore no rational or scientific reason to believe in him if you'd like. All of my arguments on that point are hereby conceded. By any scientific or purely rational mindset, belief in God is delusional.

Now can I stop debating this shit?

[SilverWingedSeraph]

I think I might understand what Terralthra was trying to say, or maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but sometimes it seems to me, that calling religion a delusion, while technically true, doesn't really go to the heart of the matter.

The problem is that people are frequently raised from birth, for the entirity of their young adult lives, to believe in this magical sky pixie. I know I was, and I still sometimes have trouble with this. I mean, I know logically, that there is no evidence for the existence of God. I never claim there is. But sometimes I still find it nice to consider those things that were beaten into my psyche for the first eighteen years of my life.

So while yes, it can be considered like having an imaginary friend, consider how difficult it would be to think rationally about your imaginary friend's existence, when a large percentage of everyone you know, your parents included -- who most children consider infallible -- are telling you that your imaginary friend IS real, and that if you don't believe in him, you'll be punished.

When you've been raised in that environment, it's hard to break free of it, sadly.

[Darth Wong]

How the fuck is it a terrible argument, moron?

Because it appealed to popularity, same as that about which people attacked my last argument.

Holy fuck, are you ever a stupid asshole. His original line was "Most people tend to give up imaginary friends after childhood and would consider an adult who still had one to be delusional. I'm not seeing much of a difference between having an imaginary friend as an adult and believing in a magic sky pixie who makes the world turn."

The argument is not an appeal to popularity because the key part of the argument is the part I bolded, you goddamned idiot. He's not saying that it's delusional because most people think it is (quite the opposite; he is pointing out the hypocrisy of most people, who would think differently of religion). He is saying it's delusional because you can't identify a serious difference between the two concepts in terms of logic and objectivity, and you can't.

I can concede that there is no proof for God's existence and therefore no rational or scientific reason to believe in him if you'd like. All of my arguments on that point are hereby conceded. By any scientific or purely rational mindset, belief in God is delusional.

Not only is there no proof, there is not a shred of evidence at all. Not only that, but the concept of God is not even defined in any meaningful way.

Now can I stop debating this shit?

Not as long as you're being a dishonest little fuck.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Ghetto Edit: I meant "the entirity of their young lives". I don't know why the fuck I put that 'adult' part in their.

[Darth Wong]

I think I might understand what Terralthra was trying to say, or maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but sometimes it seems to me, that calling religion a delusion, while technically true, doesn't really go to the heart of the matter.

The problem is that people are frequently raised from birth, for the entirity of their young adult lives, to believe in this magical sky pixie. I know I was, and I still sometimes have trouble with this. I mean, I know logically, that there is no evidence for the existence of God. I never claim there is. But sometimes I still find it nice to consider those things that were beaten into my psyche for the first eighteen years of my life.

So while yes, it can be considered like having an imaginary friend, consider how difficult it would be to think rationally about your imaginary friend's existence, when a large percentage of everyone you know, your parents included -- who most children consider infallible -- are telling you that your imaginary friend IS real, and that if you don't believe in him, you'll be punished.

When you've been raised in that environment, it's hard to break free of it, sadly.

The effects of brainwashing and herd mentality are hard to break, but I see no reason why that should mean people should refrain from openly mocking the brainwashing structure in question. Now that we've finally achieved a level of social development where it is possible to do so without being imprisoned or killed, I say we should go full bore on it. People are surrounded by an environment of ubiquitous religious apologism, where literally everyone they meet tends to make excuses for religion, and if they criticize it, the only do so in the most beneficial terms.

People need the occasional cold splash of water; they need to occasionally run into someone who doesn't humour their bullshit at all, and calls a spade a spade. It's not as if they don't already get enough coddling from 99% of the people in their lives; why should the last 1% hold their tongues? To make the immersion complete?