Can we substitute "non-factual" for "delusional"?

[cosmik debris]

There have been many discussions about terminology used in this forum. Recently the term delusion has been used. It is offensive to some. A substitute was recommended. That substitute is "non-factual".

Is this acceptable? Can the people in this forum be convinced to use this phrase in stead of "delusional"?

[cain_7777]

1. No

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. There is too much semantic difference between the words

"Non-factual" refers to conclusions that are based on assumptions because the facts are not known.

"Delusional" refers to conclusions that are based on a willful denial of facts.

While there are indeed people who use "delusional" when they should be using "non-factual," I assert that there are plenty of times when discussing religion and religious beliefs when "delusional" is entirely appropriate, making any agreement to not use "delusional" itself a delusion.

[Orrex]

3. "Non-verifiable" seems more appropriate to me

Unless we make "verifiable" a necessary component of "fact," that is.

Anyway, I don't think that one "believes" a fact; one can "accept" or "dispute" a fact, but "belief" doesn't seem like the right term to me.

I don't "believe" that it's snowing outside; I accept that it is snowing outside.

In contrast:

I "believe" that Snickers is the best candybar mass-marketed in the US.


I agree that this may seem an overly lawyeristic distinction, but it doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

[Deep13]

5. I'm not willing to concede that religious ideas are incapable of being...

...verified or falsified. I do think verification is necessary for a fact.

[Orrex]

7. Actually, I sort of agree

If a belief can be verified, then it's a fact, end of story.

If a belief can in principle be verified but has not been, then it's probably okay to call it a "non-fact-based" belief.

If a belief can't be verified, then we simply can't say that it's a fact.

If a belief can't be verified even in principle ("I have an undetectable magic hat"), then it can never be a fact and may be a delusion.

[jgraz]

11. Exactly -- the non-falsifiability of religion is a key part of its continued acceptance

-- and atheists' continued objections to it. In fact, many religions have made absolutely falsifiable claims over the years (mostly concerning messiahs and the apocalypse) and there is no evidence that any of them have ever come true.

But sadly, the doctrine of religions always provides some sort of escape clause that allows the faithful to continue in their beliefs -- assuming they haven't all eaten toxic pudding or something.

[MistressOverdone]

36. ah...so jaded!

[Zhade]

45. Jaded? No. Accurate? Yes.

NT!

[MistressOverdone]

58. Perhaps

that's what jaded really means? Too concerned with accuracy?

Now I'm really working off the fourth cup of coffee. I fell into a gopher hole (probably also home to a hibernating rattler) yesterday and am home today with Flexoril. Wild stuff. I can barely sit up.

[Zebedeo]

67. And what of the non-falsifiability of atheism?

Or are you saying that atheism is falsifiable? If so, what evidence would suffice to falsify atheism?

[trotsky]

18. Oh, so YOU took my hat, eh?

Jerk! ;-)

[Orrex]

29. Sorry--I didn't see it there

And anyway, I thought I had you on Super-Ignore.

[Zhade]

44. How about "unverified"?

It allows for verification, should any evidence ever be found, while stating the truth in what can't possibly be an offensive matter (unless believers are offended at the fact that their gods and beliefs haven't been verified by any standard of empirical evidence).

[Deep13]

4. Why? Is it an inaccurate description?

Delusion:
noun
1. (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
2. a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"
3. the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas

What are "non-facts"? If they are not facts, then they are false.

[cyborg_jim]

6. Not necessarially

If they are not facts, then they are false.

All one can be sure is that you have failed to show something true - but that is not the same as it being false.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. not necessarily

opinions are "non facts" in that they cannot be proven.

[Deep13]

12. Some opinions are purely subjective and have no objective reality.

Cantonese food is better than Mexican food. That's my opinion. It is entirely subjective.

It is my opinion that there is or once was life on Mars. That is something that may or may not be true, we don't know, but in either case it is a representation about an objective fact. It must either be true or false. Whether or not God is real in any meaningful sense (not just "real for me") is an objective fact that must be either true or false because his/her/its/their existance would have profound consequences for the condition of the universe.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. Would you agree, then, that all "facts" are not known at this time?

For example, in the 1600s, the "fact" was that there are six planets. It was only later that Uranus and Neptune were discovered. Would you say that Uranus and Neptune did not exist back then?

I believe that proof that germs exist and are the causes of infection and disease wasn't discovered until relatively recently. Same thing for vectors that cause diseases such as malaria. Because they were not known at the time doesn't mean that they didn't exist. It also doesn't mean that some people thought they did exist and set about to find them/or prove their theory.

The same with God. Right now you might not be able to find evidence that, in your mind, proves God exists. But is all the evidence in? Have all venues been explored, all theories tested?

[cyborg_jim]

21. Negation by Failiure

The same with God. Right now you might not be able to find evidence that, in your mind, proves God exists. But is all the evidence in? Have all venues been explored, all theories tested?

It's a weak argument I'm afraid. Those who want to believe in a 'god' can always push him into the gaps. We assume things are false until we can show them as true. It is the only reasonable way we have of going about such things.

God is no more special a concept than any of the other many things that have not been proven other than to those already predisposed to have reverence to the idea.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

24. You're making a lot of assumptions

the first one being that God is "he" and that he can be pushed into gaps, which implies that God is something other, seperate, from everything else. My concept of God is that of All That Is, which includes all that we know about and all that we have yet to discover. By this definition, God most certainly be proven to exist--unless you say that nothing exists.

[cyborg_jim]

25. Reducing god to a synonym I see

What's the point of that?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. The point is that God concepts

vary with the individual. I was trying to make the point to the person I was answering that God concepts vary. And I call "reducing" All That Is a rather laughable concept.

[cyborg_jim]

27. Sure

But that's what you're doing.

What descriptive benefit does one have considering 'All That Is' to be 'God', rather than 'all that is'? It seems to me to serve no practical purpose other than to keep the word 'god' in play.

[Silent3]

33. Concepts may vary...

...but for any given concept of God, that God either exists or doesn't exist. If God exists according to a specific concept because that concept is no more than a synonym for "everything", that existence is both true and unremarkable at the same time.

What I think is going on here (perhaps not with you specifically, but in our culture in general) is that people are relying on the squishiness and malleability of definitions of God as a basis for belief, as if to say "I believe in God because, by some definition of God out there somewhere, even by one I might not be aware of yet, God must exist".

Perhaps the idea is to take it on faith that God exists, and to worry about what exactly you mean by "God" and what it means for that God to exist later?

Or maybe the idea is that, because one can concoct a definition for God that makes the existence of God undeniably true, that the other definitions of God somehow get to sponge off of the solid, provable definition and grab a little "essence of reality" for themselves.

[Silent3]

34. You're either reducing God to a synonym for everything...

...as cyborg_jim is saying, or there's more to what you're saying than you're letting on to.

I can take a brown paper bag, and drop in a tennis ball, a mouse trap, and a broken iPod, and then say, "I call this collection of objects 'Fred'".

Ok... so what? Having named this collection, what's next? Is there now a deeper meaning of Fredness for me to contemplate? Is the mouse trap aware of its participation in Fredness?

I next expand the size of the bag to encompass the entire universe, metaphorically if I can't do it physically, and decide to call this new, bigger collection "God".

Again... so what?

The only interesting God one can get out of "everything" is some sort of universal consciousness that encompasses everything, some sort of special synergistic effect, something with which one can communicate, or from which one can obtain knowledge, in a special way that's not available at the simple bits-and-pieces level of "everything".

All of those more interesting version of God, however, are more than just a synonym for "everything" -- which is good if you want something grander than a new synonym, but bad if you think you're going to get away with asserting the existence of this more interesting God as being a simple, automatic consequence of the existence of everything.

[Deep13]

28. Not all facts are known.

Nevertheless, enough facts are known about some things to draw definite conclusions. We don't know all there is to know about the planets, but we do know for a fact that at least eight major planets exist. Perhaps more Uranus-sized planets exist and we simply have not found them. That is unlikely, however, given what we do know about the Solar system. Not all opinions are equal. For an idea to be seriously considered, one must have more than the simple assertion it exists.

I recently heard this example. There is a ceramic tea-pot orbiting the Earth halfway between the Earth and the orbit of the Moon. We can't see it because it is so small, but I have faith that it is there. Anyway, you can't prove it isn't there. Also, I will take personal offense if you question the validity of my belief in the ceramic teapot. I am unaware of any reason put forth by religious people beyond subjective faith and wishful thinking that anything divine exists. What is more, unlike the gods of old (including Jehovah) which created and controlled the universe, the modern concept of god seems to be carefully crafted to avoid any observable consequences. He resides in the spirit world (where ever that is) and cannot be verified scientifically. I submit that an invisible god and a nonexistent god look exactly the same.

There is no scientific litmus test that can prove the absence of divinity. Nevertheless, the historic, psychological and circumstantial evidence is pretty damning on that point. For all practical purposes, there is enough evidence to conclude that there is no god.

[TRYPHO]

31. This is the last time I say this ...

(for a while, coz I'm boring myself now, but)...

The same with God. Right now you might not be able to find evidence that, in your mind, proves God exists. But is all the evidence in? Have all venues been explored, all theories tested?

God cannot intervene in this Universe, be detected or have a confirmed "presence" or it would (logically?) demand the end of faith. If we "knew" or "met" or had a direct-channel to, or could chat with or see God, this would be the planet without believers - because we'd all KNOW, not believe.

If you think it through, it can't happen. (I could mention my *time/faith* issues but I'm too tired at nearly 2am to start a long answer).

Just know, ayeshahaqqiqa, that whilst you are in this reality, you will never directly MEET God, though you might have some experiences that tell YOU that God exists, that isn't proof positive, so to speak.

TRYPHO

[jgraz]

13. Delusion is absolutely the right and proper word for atheists to use

There really is nothing better for describing how we view religious beliefs. The fact that it has such a negative connotation is unfortunate, but I expect that if we were applying it to any other set of beliefs (economics, politics, gardening), people would not be nearly as offended by it.

[Deep13]

14. Hold on! Are you challenging the absolute truths of gardening?

Blasphemer!

[jgraz]

17. If you've seen my yard,

you'd know that most of my gardening is "faith-based".

[kwassa]

15. Do you want to talk with theists or not?

Or would you rather just pass judgment?

[jgraz]

16. That's what rational people do with beliefs -- they JUDGE them

I'm not passing judgement on YOU, and I'd probably be delighted to sit down and chat with you over any subject. (I'm guessing we both have very similar opinions of George Bush, for example.)

But judging a belief system? You bet. That's totally valid, and you can feel free to pass any judgement on any of my beliefs you want. For example, I think the Bears suck. Given the fact that they're going to the Superbowl, you could rightly point out that my opinion is in conflict with current evidence, and probably due to the fact that I grew up in Wisconsin.

Now let's say the Bears win this Superbowl and the next three (:scared:), and I still say the 8-8 Packers are a better football team. Would you not be justified in calling that belief "delusional"? I'd say you were, though I'd suggest you avoid doing it in a Wisconsin bar.

[kwassa]

19. Not rational, if you want to converse with people.

How many are going to stick around to talk to you if you insult them?

your own example:

"Now let's say the Bears win this Superbowl and the next three ( ), and I still say the 8-8 Packers are a better football team. Would you not be justified in calling that belief "delusional"? I'd say you were, though I'd suggest you avoid doing it in a Wisconsin bar.

But what if I wanted to stay in that bar? Would it be rational for me to keep insulting the Packers?

[More Than A Feeling]

22. But this "bar" belongs to neither side.

Neither side has the type of legitimate home-field advantage that a packers fan would have in a bar in Wisconsin.

[jgraz]

23. I didn't ask if you would be popular, I asked if you would be justified

I also wouldn't walk into a redneck bar in Valosta, GA with a "Bush is a Moron" t-shirt on. The fact that an opinion is unpopular does not really affect its value as truth. Seriously, would you give up your faith if a couple of drunk atheists threatened to beat you up? Would you consider the argument that you're in danger from drunk atheists as a valid reason for renouncing religion?

My hypothesis is that religion, specifically Christianity, is a belief system that people subscribe to despite strong evidence against it. The technical name for such a belief system is "delusion". You may find that insulting, but that doesn't make it any less correct.

I do promise, however, that as soon as you show me evidence that belief in god is not a delusion, I will cease to call it that.

[Zhade]

46. Do people have to agree with your beliefs for you to talk to them?

NT!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. I have no problem with it

Basically, the world views of believers and atheists are very far apart. I don't pretend to think that I will ever change another's mind when it comes to R/T. But I do enjoy finding out other people's ideas about religious topics. Sadly, too often people decide to post using terms that they know will be considered offensive. It's nice to have terms that aren't going to offend and will allow the discussion to be continued. Of course, there will be those who don't want this because, I feel, their whole purpose is to offend. That is what the Ignore button is for.

[jgraz]

10. how about anti-factual? :)

Factually challenged? Differently rational? Or perhaps just "special".

Seriously, if people don't want a vigorous debate, there are always the dedicated forums. Otherwise, try participating in the discussion instead of looking for insults in every post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Noumenal? Suppositional? Conjectural? Speculative? Alleged?

Baseless?

[Zhade]

32. I like "unproven", which theists cannot honestly argue against.

NT!

[moggie]

38. Doesn't go far enough

There are many theories in science which we're almost certain are correct, but which aren't 100% proven. How about "unjustified", in the Platonic sense? This distinguishes between belief and knowledge.

[MistressOverdone]

35. Hmmm

Delusional implies mental illness. Non-factual implies false. How about "unproven"?

[cyborg_jim]

37. Unproven also implies false

[moggie]

39. No it doesn't

The assertion "OJ is a murderer" is unproven. Is it definitely false?

[cyborg_jim]

41. It IMPLIES false

Please, carefully examine the statement.

We base our mutual legal systems on it.

"Innocent until proven guilty."

[moggie]

47. It IMPLIES false OR TRUE

Really, is this so hard to grasp? "Unproven" has absolutely nothing to say about the relative probabilities of "true" or "false". For example, in science and mathematics there are unproven theories which are almost certainly true (such as Goldbach's Conjecture).

[MistressOverdone]

40. No, I don't think so

It implies a possible false, but it states that there is no proof. And the word "yet" is right around the corner.

[cyborg_jim]

42. Again, I must emphasise the implication

It is implied that it is false, because to assume unproven things as true is too chaotic.

[moggie]

48. That's a bizarre argument

It's not a purely binary system. There are three values: true, false, and "we don't know yet". When you hear the expression "the jury's still out", do you think "uh-oh, guilty"?

[moggie]

49. Scratch that

I expressed myself really badly there. And I do see where you're coming from: just as the legal system has a presumption of innocence (for good reason), science has a presumption of falsehood for unproven theories (for an equally good reason). But the original question was whether we can choose a term which is not offensive to theists, and I don't think "unproven" is necessarily offensive, since it still allows for almost the whole spectrum of probability. A theist might say "unproven, but almost certainly true", and be comfortable with that.

[MistressOverdone]

51. Being a theist

I'd phrase it, "unproven to you yet, but clear from evidence presented I have experienced." But that's a mouthful.

And then that begs the question, well, why not share the evidence and prove it? I have read here that the believer bears the burden of proof, but I put forth that is true only if the believer is trying to evangelize. I personally have no interest in doing that. As Christians we are told to spread the good news, and frankly, I don't know anyone who hasn't heard it. So I think that takes me out of the equation.

I just don't think we are called to engage in theological arguments, which I would imagine are quite fun if you like that sort of thing, but men have been debating this since we jumped out of the trees and we haven't resolved it yet, so it is a waste of time.

[cyborg_jim]

52. God is a waste of time eh?

Just teasing.

[MistressOverdone]

54. You know, I reread that

and it sounded harsh. But I have learned that logical argument is really more of a skill than a way to prove or disprove something. And it's kind of like chess. Fun for some, painfully boring for me.

[cyborg_jim]

55. And yet you still engage

Interesting.

[MistressOverdone]

56. Well, I do have to engage in chess for my job

believe it or not. I am a teacher and it is a great game for kids.

But I don't engage in the more formal logical arguments here. I just share my experiences. It is a whole different perspective, I think

[kwassa]

53. Unproven is merely unproven

It implies absolutely nothing.

[jgraz]

60. Which is why it's a poor substitute for "delusional"

Seriously, kwassa, would you rather talk to someone who says exactly what they mean or someone who uses semantic trickery to make you feel better? If you really do not want to have a conversation with someone who directly challenges your beliefs, that's your decision. But I can't believe that you would rather talk with someone who privately scorns your faith yet pretends otherwise.

[kwassa]

61. Is being polite a form of semantic trickery?

I don't think so. Calling someone "delusional" is to make a negative judgment about them. The person you describe as delusional will not be happy with you, and probably stop talking to you. Is that what you want?

Now, you might have that judgment about them, but it will not win friends and influence people to call them delusional.

Is it productive to call people delusional? You can get your point across in other ways, because it all comes down to HOW you talk to people, not what you are saying to them.

So, use the term "delusional" if you want to; to me personally it means nothing.

[jgraz]

63. heh --being polite is often a form of trickery

Ever been to a car dealership?

Anyway, I guess we aren't going to agree in this. I put emphasis on what the writer means while you're focused on how the readers interpret it. The context is also important. For example:

    kwassa: I believe in god
    jgraz: You're freakin delusional

is me being an asshole.

    kwassa: Do you think "delusion" is a proper way to characterize my beliefs?
    jgraz: Yes, according to the standard definition of "delusion"

That's me being polite, but stating what I think. You may not like it, but I'm not too chuffed about your belief that God's letting you into heaven and keeping me out. Of course, I recognize the difference between you truthfully stating your belief and you telling me "burn in Hell, heathen!"

[Zhade]

43. Probably not. Most believers can't admit that there is no evidence to support their beliefs.

No matter how you state it, that fact will piss them off.

The ones who are honest enough to admit their beliefs are in no way proven? Priceless gems.

[MistressOverdone]

57. Wow. Priceless gem?

Nice Monday morning feeling.

How could my beliefs ever be proven to anybody but me? Faith is intensely personal. If you interpret your life in one way, you see it. If you don't, you don't. I'm the first to admit there is no scientific proof that I am aware of. Tantilizing hints here and there, but maybe that's the purpose. And you know, sometimes it really does piss me off, because I'd like a bit more affirmation now and then. It's almost like a game. If you play it like you are supposed to (believe with out seeing) you win.

There is a hymn that addresses that, and I don't quite have it memorized but I got it off a site.

Humbly I adore thee, Verity unseen,
who thy glory hiddest 'neath these shadows mean;
low, to thee surrendered, my whole heart is bowed,
tranced as it beholds thee, shrined within the cloud.

Taste and touch and vision to discern thee fail;
faith, that comes by hearing, pierces through the veil.
I believe whate're the Son of God hath told;
what the Truth hath spoken, that for truth I hold.

O memorial wondrous of the Lord's own death;
living Bread that givest all thy creatures breath,
grant my spirit ever by thy life may live,
to my taste thy sweetness neverfailing give.

Jesus, whom now hidden, I by faith behold,
what my soul doth long for, that thy word foretold:
face to face thy splendor, I at last shall see,
in the glorious vision, blessed Lord, of thee.




It is set to plainsong and it quite a lovely piece and I think it says what I am trying to epxress. But sometimes I'd like just a bit of taste and touch and vision. Just a little!

[kwassa]

62. Most atheists can't admit that believers don't care about their evidentiary standards.

It all comes down to the question of evidence.

Believers and atheists will never agree on what constitutes evidence.

I have evidence, as far as I am concerned, that God exists. It is not necessary for me to provide evidence acceptable to you, and convince you of his existence. I think most other believers in these forums come from this stance, too.

The endless loop of a conversation that goes on in this forum is some atheists trying to hook believers in to justifying their belief in God utilizing scientific evidence. Most believers recognize that scientific evidence provides little support for a belief in God, but they don't care. Include me in that group. I've had other personal experience that leads me to believe, but I know it wouldn't convince you, nor do I care do convince you.

So, keep fishing, if you like. I think it is a fairly futile exercise, though.

What I don't understand is why some atheists are so bent on teaching believers the error of their ways. I don't see a reverse effort coming from the believers in this forum, to try to convince the atheists here to believe in God.

[jgraz]

64. I think most atheists start from this assumption

And that's fine in most cases. What bugs me (and others on this board) is when believers change the definition of words like "evidence", "proof" and "false" in order to make their faith seem more scientific.

[Zhade]

65. You may have evidence. You assume you definitely do.

That's the difference.

As long as you don't assert that the "evidence" you have that convinces you is enough to convince anyone else, it doesn't matter what it is, because no one else needs to give it a moment's thought.

Hence my regular calls for secularism, a win-win for believers like you and nonbelievers like me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

68. "Can't admit" is a very loaded and perjorative way of saying "don't agree".

NT.

[greyl]

50. No.

If delusional is used properly, it has specific and important meaning.
There are non-factual povs which aren't delusional, they're just ignorant.

Delusion is not precisely the same as ignorance.

[Crunchy Frog]

59. How about "non-empirical"?

I agree that "delusional" is extremely insulting and invites flame wars more than reasonable discourse.

[bryant69]

66. I would use the term "extra factual" to indicate that religion

is beyond being proven by facts. This could be because religion is crap or because the proof of religion is in an experience that is outside proof.

I doubt this would satisfy you though, come to think of it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com