obama wants to be instrument of "god"

[Sqrl]

DTG said:

Sqrl said:

So you're going to just ignore the fact that you contradicted yourself and move to another argument? Only this time you're making sure the burden of proof is squarely placed on the other side.

Tough luck for you though, because the burden of proof is always on the person making declarations of who is right and who is wrong. I'm not telling you your view is wrong, while you are telling the overwhelming majority of the world's population their view is wrong. Talk about self-importance.

 

 

I studied psychology. The statistical norm does not constitute normality. If tomorrow on every began showing the symptoms of schizophrenia would that suddenly make it "normal"? Saying that you believe in God, an entity lacking any foundation in physical reality or logic is no different than telling your psychiatrist that you think parasites are spreading underneath your skin. They're both delusions. One happens to be a popular delusion which is why it doesn't warrant psychiatric treatment as another one does.

 

Well I went out for the evening or I would have said pretty much the same thing Kasz said as I do happen to know the medical definition of a delusion (I looked it up for another discussion I've had, I believe it was also with Rath that time as well actually).  Kasz appears to have a much better handle on the material than I do so its fortunate for me that I stepped out just in time to let him make that argument, as it is I'm interested to see if you even bother to respond to him or if you just ignore it  like you ignored your previous mistake without acknowledgement.

Anyways, aside from your complete misuse of the word and your attempt to puff yourself up as a psych expert you also missed the point.

The point I was making is that the accuser is the one who should have the burden of proof. You are accusing the vast majority of the world's population of being delusional, I'm pretty sure any reasonable arbitrator would lay the burden of proof on you in this case.  As it is I'm pretty sure if you made this accusation in any legal setting you would also have the burden of proof, so by pretty much every applicable standard and convention I can think of you would have the burden of proof.

Particularly if you were making a case against me, because my position is merely that neither side has evidence enough to make a compelling case.  The only accusation I'm making is that both sides are seeking answers and to that I believe both sides would confess.

But to address your question specifically yes if tomorrow every person began to show the symptoms of  schizophrenia it would, depending on the definition you used, be the "normal".  In the statistical sense (the way you used it) it is certainly the normal. 

That obviously leads to the next point which is that you made yet another statement that is demonstrably false.  The statistical "norm", by definition, constitutes normality.  In addition a quick look at several other definitions of normal yields this:

• conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature"; "normal ...
• in accordance with scientific laws
  
• being approximately average or within certain limits in e.g. intelligence and development; "a perfectly normal child"; "of normal intelligence"; "the most normal person I've ever met"
• forming a right angle
• convention: something regarded as a normative

A belief in a god (in one form or another) is normal by every applicable definition on this list.

As for your parasite example it is completely different.  A trained physician with proper medical equipment can demonstrate the falsity of that belief.  If you can demonstrate the falsity of god then please do so.

Now I have to say that your argument is poorly constructed or at least poorly phrased.  The point I think you were trying to make is that the "normal" is not necessarily correct.  And I completely agree with that, I think saying "god exist because the majority of people think he does" is an extremely flawed argument.  Fortunately I'm not making that argument and nobody else is that I can see.

What this boils down to is two basic positions, neither of which have hard proof or evidence of any kind to support themselves.  Now, there has certainly been no shortage of logical arguments for and against a belief in god over the millenia, but those do not constitute proof and I doubt we will settle the controversy here and now. 

So the best both sides can really do is acknowledge that I'm correct....ok well not me specifically, but they can acknowledge that neither side has the ability to prove to or convince the other side that they are correct and just agree to disagree.

In the meantime back on the original topic the fact remains that a person's religion is part of who they are and if you don't like that then you shouldn't vote for them because it will effect their decisions and it is the basis for their morals, that is just part of religion.