F*cking christ Stas B. people don't have to prove anything contrary to what you say. You could say elephants fly and I could say they don't. Those are our opinions whether they are wrong or right.
I really can't comprehend this point of view. Of couse they don't have to prove anything. They don't owe me anything. But what's the point of a discussion involving a bunch of people plugging their ears and shouting out their opinions? What could anybody possibly gain from that? When you have a real discussion, at best you may learn something and reconsider your own point of view. At worst, you may just have some intellectual excersice analyzing other people's logic. What's going on here is group masturbation and you seem to be mad at me for interrupting.
If someone thinks you are wrong in what you say, they don't have to prove to you that fact because even if they prove you right they will still think you are wrong in some way.
If they try to prove me wrong, they may prove me right instead but still think I'm wrong in some way? That's crazy.
Ranting about it for multiple posts is starting to make you look childish for basically saying over and over "Prove me wrong, show your logic/evidence."
I'm childish for telling people over and over that asserting things is pointless and to provide logic/evidence? You know what, maybe you're right. It's clearly not working with you people. I guess it is kind of pointless.
23yrold3yrold thinks you are a little wrong in your remark, he doesn't have to give you chapter and verse as to why he thinks that as you have shown in post after post you wouldn't believe him if he did post exactly where you were wrong.
You guys are hillarious. Since you can't easily prove me wrong, you just go ahead and assume that I'm wrong anyway and that I either never admit being wrong or that this time it's something very special and personal for me so I'll just keep denying it. Do you realize how asinine this is? I couldn't care less if it turns out religious people can't be classified as delusional. I couldn't care less if it turns out that I'm wrong in front of some crowd of random people on the internet that I don't even know. What motivation could I possibly have to fiercely deny that I'm wrong? 23yrold3yrold has some motivation to fiercely deny that he's delusional. Matthew has some motivation to fiercely deny that his religious fiends and family members are delusional. I don't have any motivation to fiercely deny that they're not.
A person is considered delusional when they hold an irrational belief despite being presented with strong evidence against it.
An irrational belief is any belief that is not based on a valid logical rationale.
Strong evidence is evidence that is scientifically valid and is convincing on its own to a rational, unbiased person.
The belief in the god hypothesis of the origin of the universe is irrational because:
1. There are alternatives that make less assumptions and give more insight about the nature of the universe.
2. Given #1, there is no valid logical rationale for choosing the god hypothesis.
These two points do not require further proof here because they are self-evident for most people and have been proven a countless number of times elsewhere. If you reject #1, try making a comparison between any religious hypothesis and any generally accepted scientific hypothesis about the origin of the universe. If you reject #2, go read about Occam's razor as many times as you need untill you understand it and see why #2 is true. If you still reject these points, you are in denial and it's impossible in principle to prove them to you.
There is strong scientific evidence against the god hypothesis:
1. God does not have scientifically measurable effects on the universe.
2. Logic and everyday experience prove that theories that can be eliminated by Occam's razor are much less likely to be true.
Evidence of this type is used in science routinely, therefore it is scientific. Evidence of this type must also apply to the god hypothesis since claiming otherwise is a logical fallacy called special pleading. To see why it is strong, let's suppose it's not and then apply reductio ad absurdum:
Ex. 1: I claim there's an immaterial, invisible pony sitting on my head. If evidence of type #1 isn't strong, it is not enough on its own to convince a rational, unbiased person of the absence of said pony. That's absurd. If you accepted the initial definitions, you must accept that #1 is strong evidence.
Ex. 2: I claim that government agents broke into my house on sole basis of the door not being locked when I came back. If evidence of type #2 isn't strong, it is not enough on its own to convince a rational, unbiased person that government agents did not, in fact, broke into my house. That's absurd. If you accepted the initial definitions, you must accept that #2 is strong evidence.
To conclude, I have proven that theists hold an irrational belief despite being presented with strong evidence against it. They are delusional per definition. You can claim that being delusional is not so bad and not grounds for sending someone to the loony bin, but this is irrelevant. I do not like living in a society where people's delusions have very direct effects on my life. In the country I live in, I can't get married without accepting the local religion and I can't go out on saturday because I don't have a car and there's no public transportation, to give a few examples. These laws were passed due to delusional theists having the right to vote. If you think that's all right because you have theist friends and they're cool, fuck you and fuck your delusional theist friends. Delusional people in general and theists in particular should not be allowed anywhere near the steering wheel of a fucking country. I'm not saying theists should be denied the right to vote. Theists just shouldn't have representatives of their delusional interests in the government. They should not be allowed in parliament on the grouds that they are simply delusional.