How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

Thanks for the exchange ...
Hope all is well ... You know how.I have read many of your posts - you are not an idiot. The thing is, an atheist does not display themselves as 'not believing in something'.That may be an agnostic - one who has yet to purport a stance either way, due to a lack of convincing evidence to suit their individual perception of life.Atheists have employed the absence of evidence, and established it as concrete perception; the paradigm then rests upon the premise of this absence.The movement then becomes as candid as any other zealot's - see smooth operator and the geocentric uprising for more complete details .... There is the sense that atheism is not so much a 'lack of faith', but rather an exclusive faith upholding limitations defined within its default position.When the variant constructs are breached, sectarianism occurs.Consider, there is much theology - or theory, alleged to be ‘based on the Bible', but - as we both know, in actual practice it is based on selective quotations.This, of course, obviously necessitates the requirement of selective nullification. It is this dynamic that, imho, best explains why there are hundreds of denominations and divisions in what is refered to as 'the church' - the Bible is not consistent and this leads to inconsistent selection and differences in opinion concerning what should and should not be nullified, resulting in schisms and sectarianism.Likewise, variant perceptions of life itself are not always consistent, and so, this has lead to inconsistent selection and differences in opinion concerning what should and should not be nullified as reality itself, resulting in schisms and sectarianism forming a society with definitively pluralistic world views.This dynamic is in no way spared on the variant traditions associated within atheism.Now, more to the point here, lets consider what atheism is and how is it defined ...

quote:

---

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is not believing in any gods.

---

Link - atheism.about.comThis is the primary limitation implicated in an atheistic world belief system. This could also be considered as the theological premise, as in Buddhism, etc..Continuing from that source ...

quote:

---

No claims or denials are made - an atheist is a person who is not a theist.

---

Here we seem to lean into agnostic territories, but then again, they are often confused amongst each other, no? However, this is not the brand of atheism always found at EvC, being a debate forum and all, or the sect traditionally applauded and held in high regard amongst followers on YouTube - lolA little further & we get to the meat of this ...

quote:

---

Sometimes this broader understanding is called weak or implicit atheism.

---

So then, through selectively nullifying variant perceptions, we now have a sectarian division of atheist's which could be commonly referred to as practitioners within the 'weak atheism' movement or practitioners within the 'implicit atheism' movement.

quote:

---

There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called strong or explicit atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

---

Conversely, through this type of schism, we are also confronted by another sectarian division of atheist's which could be commonly referred to as practitioners within the 'strong atheism' movement or practitioners within the 'explicit atheism' movement. These are those who are ready for battle.A dynamic presenting itself is the use of implicit and explicit within these variant atheistic belief systems.As well, we find the terms weak and strong, with their hierarchical overtones ringing as only church bells do.As far as one can tell, these dogmatic implications naturally wreak of religious orthodoxy.Paul - the ToRaH abiding Pharisee - is depicted informing his followers that 'faith is the substance of things hoped for' and 'the evidence of things not seen'.Finally, these inconsistencies implicate faith. They do not necessarilly validate her though. Reasonably, the evidence recovered in an outcome can do that. This is not meant to deconstruct your definition of faith, and so - what is faith that becomes validated by evidence previously unavailable or unrecognized?So then, atheism should be believing in something with evidence. Yet, it is common to find atheists who take a positive stance on paranormal phenomena.It is explained with the same sort of philosophical meanderings as all else without evidence considered definitive by the majority.While seemingly untenable and unsupported explanations which postulate ephemeral, but causal, connections between events may often appear to take on more appeal than well-supported statistical explanations which do not provide the same comfort or feelings of connectedness, suggesting atheists lack faith is more of a statement of your own personal theology.That is whether one, as an atheist, believes in ghosts and goblins or otherwise though, and so, nothing personal. Atheists follow those they trust - their gurus', and the general movement of their religious belief system.Science and atheism are not interchangeable, much less longstanding kinsman.Religion follows orthodoxy.People follow the evidence.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange Straggler.
Hope all is well in your camp ...Please don't get me wrong in all this - I have no interest in 'converting' anyone from their preferred stereotype - lolI've said before - if not for people parading around as different sorts of atheists and such, imho, people parading around as religious practitioners may have caused man's extinction long ago. Then again, natural catastrophes aside, perhaps neither camp would be as close without the advents of modern science. That is your mythology showing? Work with what is tangible - there is no proof of deity, positive or negative, either way. That is absence as premise.Honestly, I'm not sure that is even debatable bro. Nevertheless, it seems we always have neutrality until we succeed in fostering its infringement. Ohhh yes, I love me a good conspiracy theory - now we move into separate territory; evidence of imitation.Is evidence of a fat & shitty Elvis impersonator somehow evidence of the non-existence of Elvis' glory years?Do you really think that because that fat, greasy dirk ain't gettin' any action later, that Elvis wasn't either??Evidence of imitation and absence of evidence are not similiar or interchangeable.In this case you want to use evidence of imitation as confirmation of non-existence.In another scenario, evidence of imitation can be used to validate corporeal existence.Absence of evidence, by definition, does not have that luxury.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange Theo ...
Hope things are well with you. I appreciate the encouragement and criticism - even if it was not meant as such. I have little reason to suspect it wasn't ... Yea ... I get that quite a bit lol, so I must still have some work to do there. I'm not always succint or salient in point, much less to the point.I find myself constantly trying to shed layers of sarcasm which seem to build up debating amongst the various Levites.While they are not making it easier, I guess I shouldn't expect that they would ... I agree on both accounts ...* Most atheists may agree that there is no reason to believe in Deity because they identify with an overall 'absence of evidence' (aka. no evidence).* Provide evidence and perhaps many would reconsider their views.I, for the reasons stated above, hold many atheists in high regard, despite that such a stereotype seems, imho, to promote sectarian orthodoxy. lol - me either!!It is, nevertheless, the case we are presented with; the definition of atheism allows for belief in the paranormal. Perhaps their is a similiar dynamic between how brutha jaywill decides to promote Joshua the Anointed One as the Father and sista Peg decides to promote him as an angel. More sectarian gymnastics ... basically akin to arguing the variance between the definitions of the 'supernatural' and the 'paranormal' which we'll touch on below. The definition of an 'atheist' allows for the potential recognition of paranormal phenomena. I am only making an observation here.An atheist may be a racist of sorts by definition - allowing the potentiality of Casper within its world belief system while rejecting any deity.I feel it's important to assert here that I do not find that atheists in general are racist towards anything other than the concept of deity.Also, I don't suppose an atheist would reject diety, providing they percieved sufficient evidence ...More that, as this occured, they would cease to fit the stereotype.This is not the case when an atheist accepts Casper into reality. Hence, the sectarian division we encounter in the atheistic world belief system. I'm just glad it is rarely hostile, which says quite a bit afaik - lol Ahhh - the ol' No true Scotsman fallacy. Very common among the Levites as well ...Again, sectarianism is accomplished through a process of selection and selective nullification, however, this dynamic does not actually provide for exclusivity.An author from positiveatheism.org attempts to justify this issue by trudging through the murky waters of defining the 'supernatural' and the 'paranormal'.While aptly displaying the difficulty one encounters as they attempt to distinguish between unevidenced sentient life or phenomena in general, he finally admits, 'Face it: we don't know everything about science'. I think all religious zealots, if not atheists, are in agreement there. The lad eventually swerves even more abruptly around the obstacle, that is agnosticism, which he seems to be so desperately attempting to avoid ...

quote:

---

Scientific method itself demands that we must admit to the possibility, however remote, that one or more of the proponents of the paranormal just might be on to something that has completely escaped all diligent search by the world's scientific community (at least there is no consensus even remotely suggesting there even might be something on the horizon along these line). True, admitting to a remote possibility is not the same as suggesting that it's true -- far from it. It only says that we don't know everything and have been wrong before.

---

Basically, what he's saying is ...'atheism looks to science, and so, atheism demands the admitted possibility, however remote, that Casper may be real, without sparing the same criteria for diety.'.So, perhaps this gentlemen editor resorts to, 'I'm agnostic, but I can't let down my fellows' or 'The definition of atheists is suspect in nature'.In the end of the matter it seems atheists, as a term, are not so different then any other pious nationalists without a country.As a people, however, they are not so confined. While moist with sarcasm, this was not meant as an insult. It seems a bit curious to note that you naturally correlate non-christian authors as what I would suggest as an atheist's guru.By mentioning the greats - such as Dawkins & Co., whose contentions are molested as often as the tenets of Marxism or the US Constitution, if not any formally recognized scriptural canons, the point seems to have been cleverly reinforced. Nevertheless, I may have quicker said an atheist's trust began with their family and friends; regardless of the varied orientation of the kinsman's world views' - presupposing, as I do, that there is a distinct value in an actual human relation. It is these profound relations which have also lent themselves to constructing sectarian world belief systems, after all. And yet, you read and consider them anyway - I applaud you.Sometimes, it is difficult for me to identify you as an atheist, save we hold that the definition of atheism is, at minimum, the simple absence of theism: one is either a theist or one is not (and is thus an atheist).We are then confronted with the fact that a belief in theory need not require a belief in deity, or vice-a-versa. So then, a belief in deity needn't negate the definition of atheism, but rather the theory behind the deity is off limits. In practice however, this is rarely the case; the atheist who presupposes deity is, seemingly by tradition and orthodoxy, shunned from bearing the title 'atheist', being then naturally inclined to take cover as an 'agnostic'.They may, perhaps like Einstein, even attempt to refuse taking cover within the confines of sectarian orthodox world belief systems whenever possible. Maybe I'm funny or misunderstood - perhaps a lil of both? Honestly, there appears to be little harm done whether one considers their unique brand of Atheism as something other than a religious world belief system or otherwise. Yet, I do not wish to mince words; Atheism is a concept constructed within a syncretic world belief system.It is borderline rascist, as are most religions; only atheistic racism is reserved for deity. It is an orthodox construct, founded on an absence of evidence which employs sectarianism, as do most religions.Again, call it what you want. lol - infidels, McDonald's, freeratio, Burger King, etc. - contact webmasters and burger joints for more details.Seriously tho - do you feel the lack of organization or archaic ritual somehow negates the confines of religious orthodoxy that atheism requires? lol - perhaps we may have more in common than is gleamed from the surface ...Scary thought? The implications are naturally present; atheism's pleading thrusts her demands upon the scientific method. It's good to know we are in some agreement ...One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange Stragg ...
Hope all is well with you today. Personally, I have belief in the atheist concept. However, I place no faith in it, and so, do not subscribe to the available support group or title.Atheist mythology is exposed when ...* one claims, as science rather than dogma, that the concept of deity is based on theory, rather than entity.* the atheist does not recognize a fellow as an anti-theist when they presuppose paranormal phenomena.* the simple non theist is not recognized as an anti-theist when presupposing deism.* an atheist pleads for leniency towards the definition and criteria for atheism.It seems the majority of racist atheists have successfully commandeered the title of 'atheist', who by definition need not reject diety - but rather theology, in a similiar fashion as the racist Levites who attempt to commandeer the title of the Anointing as 'christians'. Much like them, the atheist's goalposts often seem to shift everytime an attempt is made towards establishing what defines the title.I have determined that ...* atheism is a borderline racist concept, reserving segregation to deity.* atheism is a concept constructed within a syncretic world belief system.* atheism is an orthodox construct, founded on an absence of evidence.* atheism is sectarian in nature.I understand that, in practice, a subscriber to atheism can accept Casper into their world view and retain the title of 'atheist' among a certain majority of others who decide to identify themselves as such. I understand that, even by rejecting the theory - or theological substance, which attempts to create an orthodox framework for deity, a practitioner will be shunned as a fellow 'anti-theist' by identifying the existence of deity. Facts don't lie or have an agenda.Do you believe commonly referred to atheistic sectarian terms, such as weak or strong atheism, are suggestive of a hierarchical nature?Do you believe that a group or a club whose membership status is defined by making non-evidenced determinations is not delusional?Do you believe that evidence of imitation and absence of evidence are similiar and interchangeable? Again, as Theodoric says, facts are just facts. I suggest that one will accept belief towards variant concepts by establishing what they are willing to percieve as convincing criteria and evidence, as well as, making certain determinations. Finally, there is a sense one may choose to employ faith in their conclusions.What we then have are four quick steps ...* establish acceptable criteria (requiring faith that the considered science and/or religion maintains the highest degree of accuracy)* establish sufficient evidence (requiring faith that the considered science and/or religion maintains the highest degree of accuracy)* establish educated determination (allowing one to place faith within a previously unaccepted and/or unrecognized concept)* continue having faith in your science and/or religionThis is not to say that the investigation should be done hastily or that it is commonly approached in this particular order or fashion.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange straggler.
Hope all is well ... Keep up brutha stragg ... perhaps english is not your first language, although it is not mine either.You initiated all this by responding to a post prepared for Theo - my response to you is out of courtesy.The hypocrisy required to partake in the atheist movement allows for non-evidenced distinctions.* Is it logical for the syncretic atheistic construct to contend that Casper is more possible than deity? There is the sense that you are unwilling or unable to percieve how the issue directly relates to the op.It may help if you stopped playing stupid, as you are not fooling anyone into believing you're unlearned.Atheistic sectarian orthodoxy rejects any adherence and contention of phenomena in relation to deity.Atheistic sectarian orthodoxy allows for the adherence and contention of paranormal phenomena.* Is it faith or delusion that is neccessary to convince oneself Casper is more possible then deity?Simple question ... Apparently not.From Message 77 ...* Is evidence of a fat & shitty Elvis impersonator somehow evidence of the non-existence of Elvis' glory years?* Do you really think that because that fat, greasy dirk ain't gettin' any action later, that Elvis wasn't either??From Message 91 ...* Do you believe commonly referred to atheistic sectarian terms, such as weak or strong atheism, are suggestive of a hierarchical nature?* Do you believe that a group or a club whose membership status is defined by making non-evidenced determinations is not delusional?* Do you believe that evidence of imitation and absence of evidence are similiar and interchangeable?Two succinct posts and five salient questions. No answers.Btw, we are now up to three posts and seven questions ... I would only inquire that, before responding in kind to the variance your newly proposed questions raise, you may return the aforementioned courtesy.If one is unable to follow the succinct and salient wording employed throughout the various ordered lists presented within Message 91, there seems little reason to suspect they may comprehend what is being discussed. However, I will certainly attempt to accomodate your request to the best of my ability.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

Hello all ...
Hope things are well.This is a question that has been put forth repeatedly within this thread which has not received a response thus far.

quote:

---

Is it wise to consider a group or a club, whose membership status is defined by making non-evidence based determinations, delusional?

​

Why or why not?

---

Thank you in advance for any time and energy that you may offer towards this thought.One Love