Athiests are self deluded.

[DragonSkeptic]

Hi would anyone have a good response to this argument.


If belief in a God is a 'mind virus' (in the words of R. Dawkins) that we may not know we have, then the double-edged sword that cuts both ways dictates that belief in no God is also a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have.

This leaves the awful possibility that the atheist, too, may be living a life of total self-delusion without knowing it.

coupled with


So, you are not a theist...you don't believe in the one, Creator God, yet believe in other things that you cannot see. You have trust, trust requires faith; what an athiests basis for your trust in your belief that God does not exist, whilst placing trust in other beliefs?

Athiests can't explain why you don't consider that you're self-deluded despite placing trust in things you cannot see, yet do not hesitate to deride those who also place their trust in that which they cannot see.

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

If belief in a God is a 'mind virus' (in the words of R. Dawkins) that we may not know we have, then the double-edged sword that cuts both ways dictates that belief in no God is also a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have.

What do you mean by a "mind virus"? To determine if religion or atheism is a mind virus, you must first define it.

,´This leaves the awful possibility that the atheist, too, may be living a life of total self-delusion without knowing it.

The way I try to avoid wrong or delusional beliefs is to ask myself: "do I have good reasons to believe this?". When it comes to a belief in a god (theistic or deistic), the answer is no.

So, you are not a theist...you don't believe in the one, Creator God, yet believe in other things that you cannot see.

It's true that some things I can't see directly, but I can have other good reasons to believe in them. I can't look into the past and see Napoleon, but there is a lot of evidence that he did indeed exist. Can you give me any good reasons to believe in a god?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Hi would anyone have a good response to this argument.

Yep.

If belief in a God is a 'mind virus' (in the words of R. Dawkins) that we may not know we have, then the double-edged sword that cuts both ways dictates that belief in no God is also a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have.

Well, any categorical belief not based in evidence is irrational, there is at least evidence tghat god doesn't exist. Contrary to the popular saying, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It isn't proof, but it's evidence enough to support a tentative conclusion, as long as the mind is left open to new information that may falsify that conclusion.

In any event, most atheists don't actually believe that there is no god, they just don't believe that there is one. I personally have no opinion whatsoever on the existence of a deity. I do have very firm opinions on particular conceptions of god, because the logically absurd attributes described for them constitute falsicifation. Yahweh, for example, as describe in the babble, is a logically impossible entity.

This leaves the awful possibility that the atheist, too, may be living a life of total self-delusion without knowing it.

Always possible, of course, but not on the god question, because the atheist has drawn no conclusion. There are certain atheists that have concluded that there is no god, but they are a minority, and at least they are generally still open to evidence.

So, you are not a theist...you don't believe in the one, Creator God,

Which 'one creator god'? There are many thousands of 'one creator gods' invented by the mind of man, and they can't all be correct, because they contradict each other.

yet believe in other things that you cannot see.

Sight isn't the only sense. In any event, I'd like to know what this moron thinks I believe in that I can't see. It's a bit difficult to address this without specifics.

You have trust, trust requires faith; what an athiests basis for your trust in your belief that God does not exist, whilst placing trust in other beliefs?

Again, I don't have an active belief that god does not exist. I'd bet I could categorically refute this fuckwit's conception of god though, should he actually present it.

Athiests can't explain why you don't consider that you're self-deluded despite placing trust in things you cannot see, yet do not hesitate to deride those who also place their trust in that which they cannot see.

Well, I don't place trust in things I can't see. I accept things which are evidentially supported, pending the elucidation of new evidence. That which is not evidentially supported must be discarded, or we'd be going around believing in all sorts of whacky nonsense, much as this credulous idiot does.

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

Gods that people make claims about (most of the gods of religions) I can actually have good reasons to actively disbelieve, not simply lack a belief. For example, if you claim that your god created the Earth 6000 years ago, based on all the scientific evidence I can say he almost certainly does not exist.

 

[Nelson]

First of all I would not define atheism as a belief in no god. The point I'm trying to make here is the difference between:

(A) a belief in no god
(B) no belief in a god

When you state it as (A), it makes it seem as though not believing in a god requires one to make a positive claim, but I don't believe this is the case. I would say (B) more accurately describes my position on gods in general. I am, by default, an atheist with respect to all gods I have not yet heard of. Does this distinction make sense? I apologize if my point seems muddled here.

Now, this being said, I am willing to make positive claims about the non-existence of certain gods. For example:

If you claim to believe in a god that created the world and all living things as they are now 6000 years ago, then I am willing to say that there IS positive evidence that this god does not exist. There is strong evidence that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years, and the universe is even older. There is also strong evidence that life has evolved over time, and the creatures that we see today are not necessarily the same ones we would have seen one hundred million years ago.

So hopefully by this point I have made clear the distinction between a belief that a god does not exist and a lack of a belief that a god does exist (If you are a deist then I suppose I can only say the latter).

What really bothers me about your argument is this:

Athiests can't explain why you don't consider that you're self-deluded despite placing trust in things you cannot see, yet do not hesitate to deride those who also place their trust in that which they cannot see.

I think we really need to clarify what you mean by "things you cannot see". I am hoping that rather than simply referring to things you can actually perceive with your eyes, you meant something more like "things we can test for" or "things we have evidence to support". For example, my eyes can't perceive the oxygen or nitrogen molecules in the air that we breath, or the CO2 molecules that I exhale. Do you think that my "belief" in the existence of these molecules is comparable to a belief in a god/gods? Again I hope this is not the point you were trying to make, so I will go with the assumption that you mean "things we can test for."

So the question is, depending on which god you believe in, what about him/her is testable? If the answer is nothing, then my belief in molecules that I can't perceive with my eyes is obviously in an entirely different category, because we can test for the existence of these in a variety of other ways. If you think there IS something testable about your god, then I would invite you to provide this evidence, and then we can switch our discussion to why I find this evidence unconvincing (or who knows, maybe you can build a really solid case and convince me, but this is highly unlikely).

To summarize, I would mostly like you to elaborate on what you mean by "things you cannot see". This seems to be the crux of the matter. I am arguing that my inability to see oxygen molecules and my inability to see god are categorically different.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Hi would anyone have a good response to this argument.

I suspect everyone on this forum has at least one.

If belief in a God is a 'mind virus' (in the words of R. Dawkins) that we may not know we have, then the double-edged sword that cuts both ways dictates that belief in no God is also a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have.

I can only assume this is an oversimplified description of memetics. In any case what you suggest is possible, but would be a very small meme with no discernible effects outside of itself. The reason why religious memes can be described as 'virus-like' is because they are preoccupied with replication and behave destructively towards their host; you would first have to demonstrate that the belief in no god(s) likewise does damage to its host and strenuously seeks to spread itself before referring to it as such.

This leaves the awful possibility that the atheist, too, may be living a life of total self-delusion without knowing it.

It's possible that anyone may be self-deluded without knowing it. This is, however, a strawman definition of atheism - which is, in actuality, merely the position that no persuasive argument in favor of theism has ever been advanced. This encompasses, of course, belief in the lack of any sort of deity, but does not require it. This argument is a clearly misinformed attempt to square all rectangles; we must attend to reality.

coupled with


So, you are not a theist...you don't believe in the one, Creator God,

Let me stop you right there. That's not what theism is, or has it ever been. So far we've been presented with three misinformed, obviously rhetorical, definitions. Just because the existence of Ahura Mazda - the one Creator God - is clearly assumed by the author of this poor attempt at an argument, does not mean it is appropriate to dismiss all rival theisms.

yet believe in other things that you cannot see.

Perhaps, but I tend not to believe in things I cannot test or verify; a category into which god does not, alas, qualify.

You have trust, trust requires faith;

No I don't, and no it doesn't. Trust can be earned, faith is always given.

what an athiests basis for your trust in your belief that God does not exist, whilst placing trust in other beliefs?

I believe this horrid strawman has been adequately addressed?

Athiests can't explain why you don't consider that you're self-deluded despite placing trust in things you cannot see, yet do not hesitate to deride those who also place their trust in that which they cannot see.

This argument addresses a position that its opposition does not hold, using definitions that are, at best, extraordinarily dubious and misleading; again, we must attend to reality.

 

[DragonSkeptic]

First of all I would not define atheism as a belief in no god. The point I'm trying to make here is the difference between:

(A) a belief in no god
(B) no belief in a god

When you state it as (A), it makes it seem as though not believing in a god requires one to make a positive claim, but I don't believe this is the case. I would say (B) more accurately describes my position on gods in general. I am, by default, an atheist with respect to all gods I have not yet heard of. Does this distinction make sense? I apologize if my point seems muddled here.

Now, this being said, I am willing to make positive claims about the non-existence of certain gods. For example:

If you claim to believe in a god that created the world and all living things as they are now 6000 years ago, then I am willing to say that there IS positive evidence that this god does not exist. There is strong evidence that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years, and the universe is even older. There is also strong evidence that life has evolved over time, and the creatures that we see today are not necessarily the same ones we would have seen one hundred million years ago.

So hopefully by this point I have made clear the distinction between a belief that a god does not exist and a lack of a belief that a god does exist (If you are a deist then I suppose I can only say the latter).

What really bothers me about your argument is this:

Athiests can't explain why you don't consider that you're self-deluded despite placing trust in things you cannot see, yet do not hesitate to deride those who also place their trust in that which they cannot see.

I think we really need to clarify what you mean by "things you cannot see". I am hoping that rather than simply referring to things you can actually perceive with your eyes, you meant something more like "things we can test for" or "things we have evidence to support". For example, my eyes can't perceive the oxygen or nitrogen molecules in the air that we breath, or the CO2 molecules that I exhale. Do you think that my "belief" in the existence of these molecules is comparable to a belief in a god/gods? Again I hope this is not the point you were trying to make, so I will go with the assumption that you mean "things we can test for."

So the question is, depending on which god you believe in, what about him/her is testable? If the answer is nothing, then my belief in molecules that I can't perceive with my eyes is obviously in an entirely different category, because we can test for the existence of these in a variety of other ways. If you think there IS something testable about your god, then I would invite you to provide this evidence, and then we can switch our discussion to why I find this evidence unconvincing (or who knows, maybe you can build a really solid case and convince me, but this is highly unlikely).

To summarize, I would mostly like you to elaborate on what you mean by "things you cannot see". This seems to be the crux of the matter. I am arguing that my inability to see oxygen molecules and my inability to see god are categorically different.

For the first point i would reply(hopefully im going across the same thought process as the person making the argument) that as soon as a person is presented with the claim "god exists" and rejects it they now hold the belief that "god does not exist". And it can't be argued that a type of atheism(strong) does advocate that position.


For the second point i think it refers to athiests believing in scientific/religious/informational claims through a secondary source like a newspaper or online wikipedia etc. Since this is how theists believe in a god through trust in the bible it can be claimed it is hypocritical for athiests to deride theists as skeptics will hold many beliefs equivalent to the belief in god.

quote

"To say that atheists don't believe in anything is nonsensical. They have beliefs, they place trust and faith in many things without having hard and fast evidence to substantiate such belief, trust and faith.

They just raise the stakes in regards God...something that is peculiar to atheists."

 

[DragonSkeptic]

Here is a further quote just to highlight the character of the person

"How about 'gap of a God?'

Here we are confronted with something like an atheistic converse of the God of the Gaps.

This is the belief that scientific explanations oust explanations of the agency of God, which some would call Gap of a God. It is one of the most major misunderstandings about the interplay between science and religion and is frequently employed to bolster up the 'conflict thesis' about science and religion.

Gap of a God views scientific explanations as valid replacements for God."

 

[Anachronous Rex]

This person is in need of education not rebuttal.

 

[Nelson]

For the first point i would reply(hopefully im going across the same thought process as the person making the argument) that as soon as a person is presented with the claim "god exists" and rejects it they now hold the belief that "god does not exist". And it can't be argued that a type of atheism(strong) does advocate that position.

Right, this is the distinction I tried to make. But it boils down to whether or not your concept of god is testable. If it is, then I say let's test it. If it isn't then your god is unfalsifiable, and I would reject it for the same reasons I reject every other belief that is fundamentally untestable (as opposed to me simply lacking the equipment or means to perform such a test).

For the second point i think it refers to athiests believing in scientific/religious/informational claims through a secondary source like a newspaper or online wikipedia etc. Since this is how theists believe in a god through trust in the bible it can be claimed it is hypocritical for athiests to deride theists as skeptics will hold many beliefs equivalent to the belief in god.

But I don't, and scientists don't in general, simply take someones word for it. That is what is so important about an idea being testable, the test must be repeatable. You can't say, "I saw god last Thursday, but then he disappeared," and claim this as your test. This test is not repeatable, we can only take your word. I'll give an example:

I work in astronomy, and a few months ago I came across a paper that made some claims about the distribution of some different stellar populations within a star cluster. Now I just so happened to have data on this same star cluster taken with a different telescope at a different time. So, I took a bit of time and attempted to reproduce the result I saw in the paper. Now, my data wasn't quite as good and so my result wasn't as clean, but I DID see evidence for the claim they were making. And I could do a bit of statistics considering the quality of each data set to determine that the results were indeed consistent.

This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME in science. Science is about understanding the universe, and fortunately the universe stays around so we can test it multiple times.

The claims that are published in journals, or even listed on Wikipedia for that matter do not need to be taken on faith. They are always open to reevaluation. In almost all cases I think you will find that the sorts of things that become widely accepted in the scientific community have been tested again and again. Now, for practical reasons I understand that most people can't go around retesting all of their beliefs. In the interest of saving time, one has to trust that the scientific community is working honestly and there isn't some global conspiracy to promote a false world view. If you believe that there is, then you must certainly believe that I am a part of it as well. If that is the case, then I'm afraid I don't think I have any hope of convincing you otherwise.

"To say that atheists don't believe in anything is nonsensical. They have beliefs, they place trust and faith in many things without having hard and fast evidence to substantiate such belief, trust and faith.

They just raise the stakes in regards God...something that is peculiar to atheists."

If you could name some of these things I place my trust and faith in "without having hard and fast evidence", then perhaps we could get to the bottom of this. I would argue that I hold no such beliefs. Evidence is the foundation of my methodology. It would also be helpful if you (or whoever is advancing this argument) could explain whether or not you believe your god to be falsifiable.

 

[Jotto999]

This person is in need of education not rebuttal.

I thought this was true for all theists, it's simply that many cannot be educated.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

This person is in need of education not rebuttal.

I thought this was true for all theists, it's simply that many cannot be educated.

No, I do not think I would take it so far. I have full confidence that, for instance, Kenneth Miller has been educated to an appropriate standard. Even Michael Behe is not substantially lacking in knowledge; he may be deceptive, true, but he is well educated.

 

[DragonSkeptic]

For the first point i would reply(hopefully im going across the same thought process as the person making the argument) that as soon as a person is presented with the claim "god exists" and rejects it they now hold the belief that "god does not exist". And it can't be argued that a type of atheism(strong) does advocate that position.

Right, this is the distinction I tried to make. But it boils down to whether or not your concept of god is testable. If it is, then I say let's test it. If it isn't then your god is unfalsifiable, and I would reject it for the same reasons I reject every other belief that is fundamentally untestable (as opposed to me simply lacking the equipment or means to perform such a test).

For the second point i think it refers to athiests believing in scientific/religious/informational claims through a secondary source like a newspaper or online wikipedia etc. Since this is how theists believe in a god through trust in the bible it can be claimed it is hypocritical for athiests to deride theists as skeptics will hold many beliefs equivalent to the belief in god.

But I don't, and scientists don't in general, simply take someones word for it. That is what is so important about an idea being testable, the test must be repeatable. You can't say, "I saw god last Thursday, but then he disappeared," and claim this as your test. This test is not repeatable, we can only take your word. I'll give an example:

I work in astronomy, and a few months ago I came across a paper that made some claims about the distribution of some different stellar populations within a star cluster. Now I just so happened to have data on this same star cluster taken with a different telescope at a different time. So, I took a bit of time and attempted to reproduce the result I saw in the paper. Now, my data wasn't quite as good and so my result wasn't as clean, but I DID see evidence for the claim they were making. And I could do a bit of statistics considering the quality of each data set to determine that the results were indeed consistent.

This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME in science. Science is about understanding the universe, and fortunately the universe stays around so we can test it multiple times.

The claims that are published in journals, or even listed on Wikipedia for that matter do not need to be taken on faith. They are always open to reevaluation. In almost all cases I think you will find that the sorts of things that become widely accepted in the scientific community have been tested again and again. Now, for practical reasons I understand that most people can't go around retesting all of their beliefs. In the interest of saving time, one has to trust that the scientific community is working honestly and there isn't some global conspiracy to promote a false world view. If you believe that there is, then you must certainly believe that I am a part of it as well. If that is the case, then I'm afraid I don't think I have any hope of convincing you otherwise.

"To say that atheists don't believe in anything is nonsensical. They have beliefs, they place trust and faith in many things without having hard and fast evidence to substantiate such belief, trust and faith.

They just raise the stakes in regards God...something that is peculiar to atheists."

If you could name some of these things I place my trust and faith in "without having hard and fast evidence", then perhaps we could get to the bottom of this. I would argue that I hold no such beliefs. Evidence is the foundation of my methodology. It would also be helpful if you (or whoever is advancing this argument) could explain whether or not you believe your god to be falsifiable.

I think the distinction he is trying to make is this by example.

1. Evolutionary theory does not require belief since its based on weight of evidence accurate predictions and an explanatory model that holds despite criticism

2. Evolutionary theory to a person who holds the belief through secondary sources such as newspaper articles and journals requires trust that these sources are valid.

The purpose is to equivocate definition 2 with belief in theistic god through trust in the bible

replacing evolutionary theory with the weather, angelina jolies relationship with brad pitt and etc

 

[Nelson]

I think the distinction he is trying to make is this by example.

1. Evolutionary theory does not require belief since its based on weight of evidence accurate predictions and an explanatory model that holds despite criticism

2. Evolutionary theory to a person who holds the belief through secondary sources such as newspaper articles and journals requires trust that these sources are valid.

The purpose is to equivocate definition 2 with belief in theistic god through trust in the bible

replacing evolutionary theory with the weather, angelina jolies relationship with brad pitt and etc

I would expand on number 2 to make it (underline added by me):

2. Evolutionary theory to a person who holds the belief through secondary sources such as newspaper articles and journals requires trust that these sources are valid, and the knowledge that these tests can and have been repeated, and I could even repeat them myself if necessary.

Now, I will concede that there are people out there who don't think about their beliefs in this way, and perhaps they are perfectly content to just take someones word for it, and some of them take the word of scientists over priests without giving much thought as to why. In that case then I would concede that their "faith" is similar to that of a religious person. But, I am not one of those individuals, and I think most of the users in this forum would echo that view.

So, for those of us who feel that the underlined part of that description is an essential component to what we put our "trust" in, then our belief is in a different category from religion, as the underlined part cannot be applied to holy texts, or claims of personally experiencing god.

At this point the argument seems to be something like:

People who believe X without giving it much thought are similar to people who believe Y without giving it much thought.

I'm not going to dispute this.

 

[Kaliren]

I think that whoever is asking the questions the OP poses does not understand how many atheists think. On a very basic level, I think differently than theists.

I accept nothing on faith. Concepts I accept as conditionally true have been tested, and examined, and argued about, and tested again and again and again in the scientific community. I think scientific theories are very extremely likely to be true facts, but I am open to those theories being disproved by new evidence that makes it through the conceptual meat-grinder of the scientific process.

My minds is open to new ideas, but I sift those through a filter of skepticism. If I encounter a new concept that interests me, I'll think 'This is neat! but is there proof?', and I'll find out more about it before I accept or reject it.

Theists are trained to accept whatever a religious authority tells them, without question. They are taught to reject evidence that contradicts the tenets of their faith. Their religious gatherings are exercises designed to reinforce belief and discourage questioning thought.
( http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627574.200-brain-shuts-off-in-response-to-healers-prayer.html )

My mind is free, much freer than it ever was when I was a theist. The universe is filled with wonders that delight and excite me when I discover them for myself. Only yesterday, I found out about chlorine trifluoride, a substance that will set asbestos on fire - http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time.php

Being a theist seems so restricted to me, and I refuse to keep my mind in a tiny little box, controlled by other small-minded people.

 

[mirandansa]

If belief in a God is a 'mind virus' (in the words of R. Dawkins) that we may not know we have, then the double-edged sword that cuts both ways dictates that belief in no God is also a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have.

Atheism is not necessarily "belief in no God"; it's more likely "no belief in God". And, according to your (or Dawkins') postulation above, it would mean "having no mind virus (concerning dogmatic religion)".

This leaves the awful possibility that the atheist, too, may be living a life of total self-delusion without knowing it.

Some atheists hold anti-theism (the position to suppress theism), which may be a kind of "mind virus" in itself. Self-delusion? Perhaps. But more serious forms of self-delusion come from dogmatic monotheistic religions. Its believers are generally more physically and socially harmful than "deluded" atheists.

So, you are not a theist...you don't believe in the one, Creator God,

Theism is not only about "the one, Creator God". I'm an ignostic (not agnostic) atheist/theist. I'm an atheist in that i don't believe in a "Creator". I'm a theist in that i perceive reality as divine.

yet believe in other things that you cannot see. You have trust, trust requires faith; what an athiests basis for your trust in your belief that God does not exist, whilst placing trust in other beliefs?

This shows your ignorance of what atheism actually is. One doesn't need faith to lack a belief in e.g. Yahweh.

Athiests can't explain why you don't consider that you're self-deluded despite placing trust in things you cannot see, yet do not hesitate to deride those who also place their trust in that which they cannot see.

Materialist atheists typically hold an unfortunate disregard for the significance of subjective experiences/qualities. You could criticise that. But here you are accusing for something else, erroneously. And you have quite misrepresented atheism.

 

[borrofburi]

For the second point i think it refers to athiests believing in scientific/religious/informational claims through a secondary source like a newspaper or online wikipedia etc. Since this is how theists believe in a god through trust in the bible it can be claimed it is hypocritical for athiests to deride theists as skeptics will hold many beliefs equivalent to the belief in god.

Well now there's a big difference between believing the queen of england wore a blue dress to the ball (with only eye-witness evidence) and believing the extraordinary claim that an omnipotent omnibenevolent being who convicts me of thought crimes loves me dearly but just might have to torture me for eternity if I won't love him. The former is a rather unimportant and ordinary claim (and one that is fairly easy to gather actual evidence for, should you want to (other eye witnesses, pictures, movies)) that has very little direct effect on life, and as such I tend to be quite willing to believe it off no more evidence than someone said so (unless I also run across contradictory evidence); the latter is a very important and extraordinary claim that has failed and has continued to fail to present evidence other than second-hand claims all of which are contradictory to someone else's similar claims.

Unless he's not talking about that, unless he's so foolish as to use the "you believe in wind, god is like the wind" argument. In which case he's a foolish prick: eyesight is not the only evidence in existence. I have a sense of touch, I can use windmills and see that wind has kinetic energy, I can die the air and see it move, I can build machines that harness wind to cool down my room, I can build machines that harness wind to blow my friend's papers off his desk; I can perform experiment after experiment that result in mathematical models and direct "if X then Y" causaul relationships (of varying accuracy and precision) that describe wind and how it works, ALL of which adds up to quite a lot of evidence for wind. That I can not SEE it does not change that there is direct physical evidence for it; the important bit is, there is physical evidence for it (this is NOT just "I feel like wind exists, because it moves my emotions"), there is none for god.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

This is a good example of what I like to call "false symmetry," and I'm getting tired of it...

Maybe I should bring attention to this fairly common theistic tactic. I think Dawkins refers to this as unwarranted fairness: there are two sides to every story even when there isn't.

Whenever there is any sort of commonality between two opinions, often the person losing the debate will resort to reversing an argument around this commonality in an attempt to make their position seem as strong as their opponent's while ignoring everything that makes their opinions different.

We've seen this many times, even on these forums. Atheists and theists believe in something so they're both articles of faith... Evolution and creationism both make claims about things they weren't a witness to so they're both religions... Atheism is a religion too... and now atheists are self deluded and atheism is a meme...

Hell, we've now even seen "Naturalism of the gaps" as some kind of rebuttal to the God of the gaps.

You can't simply reverse an argument and expect it to still be true. It's cargo cult science... again...

 

[lrkun]

Hi would anyone have a good response to this argument.


If belief in a God is a 'mind virus' (in the words of R. Dawkins) that we may not know we have, then the double-edged sword that cuts both ways dictates that belief in no God is also a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have.

This leaves the awful possibility that the atheist, too, may be living a life of total self-delusion without knowing it.

coupled with


So, you are not a theist...you don't believe in the one, Creator God, yet believe in other things that you cannot see. You have trust, trust requires faith; what an athiests basis for your trust in your belief that God does not exist, whilst placing trust in other beliefs?

Athiests can't explain why you don't consider that you're self-deluded despite placing trust in things you cannot see, yet do not hesitate to deride those who also place their trust in that which they cannot see.

Belief in God/Supernatural is a virus. It is a VIRUS, because it makes man ignorant due to the fact that man should believe in God without question. Consequently, this makes man trust unproven concepts, ideas, or analogous things without proof. It circumvents man's natural curiousity and reason. Ex. I believe in homeopathy vs. Tested and applicable scientific knowledge and vaccines.

Denial of God or the suppernatural until evidence is presented is the cure. It is a CURE, because it gives man an opportunity to test the reliability of his or her beliefs. A simple test like trial and error could be used in this situation. Consequently, man's pool of knowledge must be increased in this manner, accepting only tested ideas and concepts, thus deleting that which never worked. Ex. Vaccines vs. Homeopathy.

The two are NOT the same, because atheism DELETES the BELIEF factor in the equation. Therefore atheism on the other hand makes man test the reliability of claims <(^o^)> atheism the CURE.

And now I just explained why atheists like me are not self-deluded.

-oOo-

 

[Nautyskin]

For example, if you claim that your god created the Earth 6000 years ago, based on all the scientific evidence I can say he almost certainly does not exist.

No, you really can't.

I can say any number of things about my friend, Mark, even that he can bench-press 6000 pounds!

Does that mean Mark 'almost certainly does not exist'?