In thinking that people with faith or religion are deluded?

[Alouiseg]

This stems from another couple of threads i'm on but until God can be proven isn't religion just an outdated patriachal method of control?

nighbynight - actually, no. We judge it on whether there is any more evidence for its claims than there is for any of the other wacky ideas out there. The answer is no.

Maisie, true. Life (and debate) would be boring if everyone sat on the fence. But heck, I'm a scientist, aren't we supposed to be boring .

YANBU in the least: It is ridiculous to believe in gods - exactly on the same level of ridiculousness as believing in ghosts, pixies, astrology or homeopathy. However, believing crap doesn't necessarily make someone a bad person, everyone is entitled to their silly delusions - it's only worth bothering about when they start interfering in other people's lives on the basis of those silly delusions.

Yes, you have no evidence of something unless you have investigated it yourself. Fortunately we teach children about gravity in school, and they all have to investigate it themselves as part of the national curriculum.

I have never said religion is not worth following. I keep my children away from religion because I am not convinced that it is safe to mess about with the supernatural.

But unquietdad, how can you be so sure that you are examining the problem with the right tools and methods?

I agree with boiled egg that athiesm is not a rational position. There is no rational position to hold on the existence of god - it is outside the realm of rational thought. That doesn't stop the concept being interesting or important to many people.

Exactly, UQD!

But consider this: if I say that there is no evidence that God is an old man sitting on a cloud watching me, then yes, there is no evidence, and christianity is clearly worthless.

If I say that there is evidence that christianity has through a series of concepts and stories, taught me about right and wrong, made me think about how to be a better person, given me other things to think about when everything seemed bad - there is definitely evidence for that.

and yes, I know that atheists are usually firmly convinced that they know right from wrong without the help of any silly religions

MillyR, why do you feel the need to keep referring to the National Curriculum?

Do you really think I am telling you that gravity doesn't exist?

religion not deluded,is culturally/socially recognised belief system

true delusion is falsely held belief system not shared by others

so although santa claus and tooth fairy are obviously non factual and made up it is a culturally shared opinion,in public domain

What other "tools and methods" would you suggest?

Often the problem with religious types is that they love to draw atheists into an argument, when atheists would really just like to be left to get on with their lives which don't need fictional gods. They ask "entrapment" questions, designed to paint atheists into a corner so that they can crow and clap their hands in delight.

This misses the basic problem that there is simply no evidence for their claims - nor for those of Reiki, homeopathy, the existence of unicorns, a flat Earth or the moon being made of green cheese.

To take MillyR's example, if I used a geiger counter (that measures radiation) to try and prove the existence of gravity, should I conclude that gravity does not exist?

What's your methodology? I can honestly say that I would not know how to tackle it.

The meanings of the words atheist and agnostic have blurred a bit. Technically I am agnostic since I say there would be no way to know, but many people think agnostic means "err I dunno what I think really" which isn't quite the same thing

So I say atheist instead.

My position being that there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that god does exist. Not that the evidence is inconclusive, but that there is none at all.

There is exactly the same amount of evidence that god exists as there is for the notion that rabbits rule the universe. We don't go around being nice to rabbits 'just in case' do we? That would be silly.

As for atheists believing in africa or anything they haven't seen. I do NOT believe in africa at all in the way people seem to mean.

The existence of Africa (or the duck billed platypus) is a claim that currently has a high probability based on a number of bits of evidence.

If someone tells me they have a duck in their pocket then whether I accept that as likely to be true is based on things like "do they normally lie? Is their pocket big enough to hold a duck? if there was a duck shouldn't I hear it quacking? and so on. I have no 'beliefs' in the sense that religious people have at all. It's all probability based on actual experience. This also means that should I turn out to be incorrect about the duck I won't suffer a crisis of faith and take to my bed. It's also how science works and so far science is winning since your VCR really does play back films, but prayers have no effect at all.

On the other hand religion is where you go "oh perhaps that stranger has a duck in his pocket that rules the universe.... Oh it must be true!.... Respect my belief everyone!"

Nighbynight, why would anyone argue that Christianity wasn't of immense value to many individuals?

I don't think it's ridiculous. If you have something that makes you feel good, makes you feel like you can cope with the world, helps you to make sense of things that happen, makes you feel connected to others, gives you a way to live your life and a sense of peace - how is that ridiculous?

I don't even think it matters if there is a God or not. Or if there's 100. Or if we are a science experiment in a giant petrie dish.

Or if we were sneezed out of the nose of a giant mutant space goat Now you know what I read!

What matters is that whatever we believe, makes us happy and gives us a personal feeling of peace.

And who are any of us to try to take away a belief that makes someone happy? Who are any of us to laugh or sneer or ridicule someone who has something that makes their life feel better for them?

(I'm not talking about people who hurt other people, just about people who have a faith in god that someone else may not share)

I am not a 'religious type' as you put it. I believe your position is irrational, that does not make me religious.

What tools and methods have you used to arrive at your position?

nighbynight - that's fine, really, as that just shows that has given you a framework of instructive fables and parables from which to construct a personal moral framework.

I have no problem with that, as long as (a) nobody claims that is the Only Way, (b) nobody claims they are all true, and (c) nobody tries to get me to believe their fictions literally.

After all, you could get much the same from Aesop. Or Kipling's Just So Stories.

Aha - I have seen a duckbilled platypus so I can categorically state that it does exist. Lots of other people saw it too. Repeatedly.

Tethersend, I have referred to the national curriculum twice as a way of demonstrating the lack of complexity of these experiences. The way we use rational thought is easy - we do it all the time and we get our young children to do it. We can observe gravity ourselves. That is the beauty of many facts.

"The existence of Africa (or the duck billed platypus) is a claim that currently has a high probability based on a number of bits of evidence."

onagar, you have summed up in one sentence what I have been trying to say the whole thread.

You are Mozart to my Chas and Dave.

Milly, the point that I am trying to make, is that it is not adequate to dismiss religion because you can't find "evidence" for its "claims".

OF course, I only have the zoo's word for it that it IS a duckbilled platypus - am I naive or deluded for believing them?

boiledegg - this is a bit like having to explain to DS, but I shall persevere... it's called using the available evidence.

If someone tells me they are a brain surgeon, I don't just take their word for it. If they can show me their certificates and I've spoken to patients they have operated on, I have more evidence to go on.

Believing in religious claims is like accepting that person is a brain surgeon just because they tell me they are.

'Deluded' is a terribly judgemental word. I prefer 'wrong'.

But I prefer to find common ground with people so I usually overlook it.

MillyR, there's no need to. Even I know that the experience of the child in year 7 who was absent on the day the class demonstrated gravity is different to the rest of the pupils.

He believes in gravity even though he has less evidence than the rest of the class- partly due to the fact that the rest of the class (and the teacher) tells him it does.

Thumbwitch, I think that your duckbilled platypus question is further muddying the waters. The duckbilled platypus exists as both a material reality and a social construct, rather like Africa.

I am disturbed by this whole thread. I feel like I am in the sixth form and may have to unreasonably call my parents fascists and storm off upstairs.

Also, everyone keeps going on about evidence and not addressing this issue of the possible dangers of dallying with the supernatural.