Why do atheists think that religious people are delusional?

I'm trying to get my head around this and trying to understand what you really mean. I have a sneaking suspicion that you believe Atheism and Christianity are polar opposites. By 'built on Atheism' do you mean civilisations that never worshipped gods of any kind or do you mean civilisations that worshipped gods other than the Christian god? If the latter is the case there are many civilisation throughout history that were great but didn't worship the Christian god.

 

Most likely he's a convert from some fundamental or Baptist church - I think most of the "militant" atheists are younger people, formerly members of the "fire and brimestone" type churches who base their entire view of "religion" on stuff that some holly roller like Jerry Falwel or Jack Chick says.

 

I mean civilizations that worship something higher then themselves. So I'm not talking about just the one true God. I believe we are created and designed to worship. And that should be obvious from the evidence of the history of mankind. The civilizations that thrive and flourish to the point that we actually remember them are ones built on the belief of a higher power.

We must worship something. Worshiping ourselves whether through the veil of science or seeing ourselves as the "enlightened" ones---doesn't sustain a person or a society well. Think of it as a spiritual void that must be filled by something.

 

People always bring this stuff up when talking to Atheists, here are some phrases we are 100% fine using:
Phrase 1: We don't know, we might never know but that's fine.
Phrase 2: We don't know but that doesn't mean one has a right to plug in any kind of Deity or Deities as an explanation.

There answered you we don't know but don't plug in your god and say there god* did it, gap in our understanding is filled, lets move on.
(* insert any supernatural source god, satan, the great old ones, harry potter ... its the same use magic to explain a gap)

 

Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with any of that.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you under the impression that straight men don't talk about being straight or the women they (*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

Phrase 1 is a lame cop-out used by those who don't to admit God having a hand in it.

 

I'd venture to guess people would have a lot less problem with religious types if they didn't constantly try to legislate their beliefs, or pretend to exclusively occupy some imaginary moral high ground.

 

this guy has tons of video on the subject, here is one

[video=youtube;HVuw1wEuaAQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ#t=14[/video]

 

A major problem with the video (aside from it being opinion) is this: In the video the speaker gives a definition of delusional in which the terms 'actual fact' is used. The two terms individually speak of two potentially differing realms. One:'actual' is that which is 'real' and (two) the other which is 'belief'. Remember a definition of fact which shows this difference is this "fact = something BELIEVED to be true or real". Belief does not require evidence. So much for the quality of the video.

 

Perhaps you can provide us with a solitary, logical explanation wherein God is not involved.

 

Perhaps you missed the point that you are now declaring that you are leaning on feelings rather than knowledge or even scientific evidence.

 

All Atheists if rational are Agnostic Atheists as in we deny the existence of a supernatural theistic force due to lack of evidence (knowledge) but open to proof to allow us to reconsider our position.

Agnostic Theists believe in a supernatural force but lack knowledge to define said force.

Pure Agnosticism makes no sense to me you can't be that uncommitted to a side of the fence but that's my opinion.

 

Has science offered any proof to the contrary regarding the existence of a "supernatural theistic force"? Uh oh. No proof according to the standards established by the scientific method? Then I suppose you are talking about that other type of 'proof'... ya know... evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. Ironically.... a few days back a member provided to me a listing of rules pertaining to the 'rules of debate'. In that listing was this:
"
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]5.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired."

[/FONT]Strangely, that statement above (with minor changes in choice of words) it reads almost identical with the definition of 'proof' which I have previously offered. At least the meaning is the same.[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]

 

the definition is what it is....

http://www.tfd.com/delusional

"a. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
b. Psychiatry A false belief or perception that is a manifestation of a mental illness: delusions of persecution."

 

Then you are discrediting the speaker in the video, as he presented the definition that he intended. Now regarding your version of the definition of 'delusional': That would infer that you are declaring the beliefs of Christians and other Theists to be a false belief or perception and is related to a mental illness. Well goodness. I hope you have plenty of evidence available that reflects the medical records (specifically the psychiatric records) of every living Christian and other Theist that will support your claim, else you are going to be in serious trouble with some administrators for violating the rules of the forum. Secondly you will be required to prove that the beliefs or opinions of those same people are indeed 'false'. Good luck with that endeavor.

 

I think this definition is more appropriate

""a. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand."

 

Unfortunately for you, your preferred choice of definition will require you to show proof that a 'false belief or opinion' has been submitted. Proof must go beyond your mere opinion and as such will require physical, tangible evidence that is capable of compelling my mind to accept your assertions as true.

 

sorry, it's you that has to prove your believe is true and not just based on your faith

someone can claim to hear voices in their head..... doesn't mean it's God..... that requires proof, so prove those that wrote the bible really spoke for a God

.

 

http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
Rules of Debate: Rule 5: "
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]5.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired."

[/FONT]Your assertion was[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] "[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]I think this definition is more appropriate

""a. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.""

[/FONT]You asserted that a particular definition is more appropriate. Now show your proof.[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]

Also notice in that definition that there is no mention as to whether the assertion has to be either a positive or a negative assertion... It simply states... "[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]He who asserts must prove."[/FONT]

 

you have not proved a God is real.... until you do that, it's just a belief based on faith, nothing more

there is no pot of gold at the end of a rainbow either, but your free to keep trying to find it

.

 

We were not discussing whether or not God is real. We were discussing the definition of "delusional" as given by the speaker in the video and the preferred choice that you made. Stick to the subject of the discussion we are having.

There you go making another assertion, and according to rule #5, you owe some proof of that claim.

 

common sense says there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, unless you can prove otherwise

.