issues, this admission:
mm wrote:Because there is no objective evidence either way.
...compels a rational person to rejct or be agnostic on the issue in question. "I don't know" is as perfectly legitimate a reply as is, "there is nothing to support the contention". This is why most athiests are #6 athiests-- we've looked at the information, and concluded there is not enough to support the assertion, and so we opt to reject it. Bring objective evidence to the table and we'll reconsider that option.
However, to assert that because there is no objective evidence one can adopt the belief in question
is merely gambling that it's true. And that's more often than not a deluded position to take.
For you to call this delusional makes you even more delusional, because YOU have no objective evidence for YOUR claim
This claim is above completely
off the rails. The non-believer is not tasked with coming up with evidence to disprove the unproven assertions of the believer. The non-believer is merely taking in the information offered by the bleiever, finds it is not supported or lacks credibility, and rejects
it. This is the usually argument we have-- that somehow because I cannot prove god didn't create the universe, the theist and I are on equal footing in terms of what is a likely explanation is mere poppycock. The theist's safety net leads to all sorts of "possible" reasons existence exists, none of which are subject to objective evidence, but are clarly
running the gamut between most likely to utterly batshit insane.
Let's say 3 people congregate, each having their own view of how existence began. The first is the theist who invokes god. The second is the materialist who invokes natural causation of matter/energy (i.e., the Big Bang). The third offers the following:
"Existence exists because a giant purple creature released a mixture of desires thereby bringing existence to fruition."
Where would we categorize this third assertion? We could argue it's in both the natural and supernatural realm on its face, but also it is clearly just another in a list of endless assertions that could be made and have as much gravitas
as any other-- it is, indeed, specious (let's ignore the fact that we can still see the receding heat signature of radio noise from a Big Bang scenario). And #3 is quite bizarre and deluional sounding, isn't it?
So what defines delusional if not the insistence of a position with utterly no corroborating evidence? The only reason the god assertions don't strike us as delusional is because they are so common. But to the ears of someone who has never heard it before, it seems quite likely that the theist and the purple creature asserter would sound almost indistinguishable from one another.
We have no reason to think that something is delusional unless it inconsistent with what CAN be objectively established.
And god can be objectively established... how again?
Suppose someone says that they are Napolean. If they explain that this is who they were in a previous life, well then what objective evidence do we have to say that it isn't true?
Ther utter lack of any evidence that supports the contention of reincarnation or previous lives.
However, if they think this means that they are emperor of France, well then that would not be consistent with the objective evidence that France hasn't had an emperor for 132 years.
Napoleon was ousted as Emperor for a number of years; according to your guidelines, why couldn't he be Napoleon, the Emperor of France, who is now presently deposed having come back from the dead?
I don't think one could draw a more shakey foundation for deciphering what's true and what's fantasy than your perspective; indeed, I doubt you use it in any practical sense yourself, because you seem to be coherent enough to write posts that are rambling stream of consciousness. You just seem to cast a wide and crazy net to have your worldview.