zapatos

I also believe it is healthy to challenge beliefs and perspectives on a regular basis. And I know that you think belief in religion makes people more apt to make less logical decisions (possibly to the detriment of others) in other parts of their lives, which I think is a reasonable assumption. Your comparisons though make it seem as if people who choose a belief in God for themselves are on a par with those who have rather nasty personal characteristics (Such as racist, homophobic, slavers). Is that how you look at them? There are religions that do not support any of those attributes, and being a theist who is a Catholic (for example) does not necessarily mean you are homophobic.

Heh heh. Yeah, it does get confusing. I joined this site about three years ago. At the time I believed that is was probable that the universe was created by someone who then had nothing further to do with it. I wasn't confident about it but based on what I saw, it seemed quite reasonable. So, I'm an adult, college educated with a BS, and a strong layman's interest in science. It wasn't until I joined this site and had many discussions with people who have discussed this for a long time, that I became a confirmed atheist. In no way do I ever consider even the remote possibility, under any definition of the word, that I was delusional for my belief in God. My son's girlfriend is studying to be a nurse. She was raised Catholic. She recognizes that her belief in God may be wrong. She has decided that she does not want to examine it further, primarily because she knows if she does so it is possible she may conclude there is no God. From her perspective, she'd rather not take the chance that she might stop believing in God. She likes the thought of God and what that means for her. Her life will be the same whether she believes or not, so she may as well keep that security blanket. Can't say I blame her for that attitude. In no way do I consider her delusional. I know a lot of theists (I come from a very religious extended family). In no way do I consider any of them delusional. Most of them do not really understand science, and what 'evidence' really means. While they could critically examine their beliefs, it would take a lot of work. Why bother? They already 'know' that God exists. And there aren't that many people around them who would make a concerted effort to challenge them. So to answer your question "Is the scenario of an individual who is capable of critically examining their belief but doesn't possible?", I say yes, I am confident that not only is it possible, it is widespread. The people on this site discuss this all the time. They have a strong science background and are well educated. I think many of the atheists here lose touch with average Joe. Challenging one's religious beliefs is, IMO, not something that is widely done in the general population.

"I've been trying to see things from your point of view, but I cannot get my head that far up my ass."

So you are saying that God is impossible? That seems a pretty bold statement.

So one of the differences between the uninformed and the delusional is not whether you examine the belief or not, but whether or not you need special equipment to do the examination?

When the subject of 'dates' has come up with my sons (22 and 24) they laugh at me. Apparently the concept of a date does not exist the way it did when I was dating. By the time what I would call a first date occurs (two people getting together for food/drink/entertainment/talking) the two people have known each other for at least a month, met up multiple times at events with plenty of friends around, and are 'talking'. Who pays is completely flexible at this point and seems to be based on who has money. No strong feelings about it on either side. 'Talking' means both sides are showing interest in the other and view each other as potential boyfriend/girlfriend material. Sometimes when they are done 'talking' they act like, what from my perspective, seems to be a couple. Bestowing the title 'boyfriend' and 'girlfriend' may come months later, and grants the boyfriend/girlfriend the right to certain expectations regarding time together and behavior with members of the opposite sex. In practice it means the girl demands more time with just the two of them, and the guy grudgingly agrees. If they are young enough, the title of 'boyfriend' and 'girlfriend' requires an update to 'In a Relationship' on Facebook. This is an absolutely critical milestone to many of the girls. The guys seem to want to put off this step as long as possible. The commencement of sexual relations can occur anytime between 'Hello' and the Facebook update.

You might wish to actually talk to some religious people. Not many of them are "living in fear".

No, I don't agree. I don't feel you can label someone delusional if they have not examined the belief, even if they are capable of doing so. Look at how many people come to this site with a complete misconception about how the universe works. Someone comes to this site and believes that an atom has a nucleus with electrons traveling in circular orbits around it, similar to the way the solar system works. They've believed this for years. Friends have confirmed it. They learned it from a person in authority. They never bothered to question it. Now they arrive at this site and learn that is not true. Were they delusional before they got to this site? I should have stated they are not comparable from a theist's perspective. The two are comparable to you, but then you've already examined the evidence. For a theist to think they are comparable, both must have evidence believed by some.

A better mystery is why someone hid the doors that the other two keys work. I wonder what is behind those doors?!?!?

I'm going to go with a dry sauna... http://homesaunakits-since1974.com/Sauna-Building-Aids/106-sauna-building-how-to-build-a-sauna.html

No, but I am an object in the universe that cannot be observed by everyone, so we could restate your previous post to say: "the universe looks the same whoever you are" does not apply for zapatos object.

If you are using 'whoever' to also mean 'whenever', than that is correct. But then again, it is true for all objects, not just Krauss Objects. Take me for example. Someone who lived only 100 years ago will never get to know me. And somone who will live 100 years from now will also never get to know me. So it is true that if you have the chance to get to know me, then you really do live in a special time.

It is good to know we have someone on this site who is qualified to decide what degree programs are credible. I don't know where these people got their degrees, but they all have at least a PhD. They are also all creationists. (I only copied about 20% of the list) http://creation.com/creation-scientists You might wish to stop digging the hole you are in before it gets any deeper. How do you think a researcher determines what to pursue next? Does he know what will be fruitful? Of course not. He chooses what, in his opinion, is likely to be a good area of research. Every single next step in research is done because it is the opinion of the researcher that this is the route to take. Every single interpretation of data is opinion. If no one ever gives their opinion in science, there will be no debate. If no one ever gives their opinion in science we will never know what the concensus is. It is absurd to think you can take opinion out of science. I think you should reconsider whether or not you are ready for a science forum.

The relative value of their opinion to observation isn't really the point. It is not as if we only have enough room in a thread for one or the other. If I am curious about whether or not it is likely that String Theory is ever going to amount to much, I will never know unless someone with expertise gives me their opinion. If I have to figure it out from observations and tests, I will never know as I'm not an expert in that field. If I want to know whether or not a used car is likely to be a good value, I ask my mechanic friend. I don't need him to rehash all his observations and tests he's done on that car model so that I can figure it out myself. His opinion is good enough for me. I don't understand why an expert's opinion is not something you would value.

So it is your opinion that experts should not give their opinion? An opinion is usually nothing more than what a person believes is likely, based on an interpretation of the facts. It is the expert's opinion I value the most. Aren't you in the least bit interested in the opinion of a cancer researcher when it comes to the likelihood of a new drug's efficacy? The President want's the general's opinion on whether or not an operation is likely to succeed. He doesn't want a comparison of our tactics versus their command of the high ground. Note: Added this last sentence after SamBridge responded.

I didn't realize that with maturity your desire to state your opinion or show emotions diminished. If the 'experts' no longer state their opinions or show emotion here, I'll just go back to reading text books.

Well, as we think it really is, based on the data we were able to collect.

So the scriptures are false. That is a lack of evidence of god, not evidence that god does not exist. If I'm unable to address the question of 'how God can set Himself a task...', how does that make me delusional? Admitting there is a paradox would seem to make me seem more sane. I imagine 2000 years ago, the 'nutters' were those who did not believe in God.

I'm happy to look at it from the perspective of a more general use of the term delusional. Even under more common use, in order to consider someone delusional it would at least require them to have examined the foundations of their belief and evidence to the contrary, with a mind sufficiently well trained in theology, science, and critical thought. I imagine a significant portion of the theist population does not have the ability to do that examination, and a significant portion of those who do have the ability, have not bothered to do so. Therefore calling a theist delusional is an extreme generalization. Regarding comparisons of God to the tooth fairy and the like, I don't feel that is a good comparison. No one of any maturity claims the tooth fairy is real. There are no historical documents, schools, artifacts, ancient texts, or other (however tenuous) evidence supporting the existence of the tooth fairy. I feel a better comparison would be to that of the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot. Not much better, I know, but at least there are adults seriously examining the situation.

For myself, I like to argue about it because I have the desire to feel confident that my opinion is well founded. But if others wish to not examine it, I think that is completely acceptable approach, for the reason you mention. Correct. It would put the divine source of that information into serious dispute. That is, it would tell you it was probably not divinely inspired. How do you reach the conclusion then that God doesn't exist, rather than the writer's of it were gullible, or liars, or had an ulterior motive?

If I write a scientific paper on dark energy, and the paper is thoroughly debunked, is that evidence that dark energy does not exist?

If I understand correctly, a delusion is a belief despite evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence to the contrary?

Since evidence seems to be so important to you, can you provide the evidence that theists are delusional?

If you are referring to individual fruits (e.g. an apple) and vegetables, then I would say that it does not make sense to categorize them as male or female. Would you categorize an arm as a 'female' if it came from a woman? If you are referring to plants and trees, then yes, as Moontanman said some are male, some are female, some are both. Also note that a plant part that is a result of a fertilized flower (e.g. apple, pea, green bean, etc.) is a fruit.