Thanks.

Frankly, nothing I've read in this thread, or in the article, has changed my view about religious behaviour when considered from the perspective of there being no gods although I am now aware that the word 'deluded' was a misnomer the way I was using it.

I did ask if there was another word that could be used (other than 'wrong') to describe someone who believed themselves to be in the presence of a super powerful intelligence that communicates with them and directs their lives (etc etc) when they were simply imagining the whole thing.

It being 'normal' or 'not harmful' doesn't change the fact the religious may well be experiencing something unreal as if it were real. In fact, many of them must be.

That describes fairly closely nearly atheist's view of religion (leaving out the deluded stuff and the "simply imagining" stuff obviously). By definition an atheist has to believe that the religious folk believe in stuff that doesn't exist or he'd not be an atheist.

There really are only a couple of issues that remain now that you have lightened up a bit on the name calling.

First, it doesn't lead to an argument that would convince the theists of the errors of their ways. Really no point to it other than maybe in getting atheists to unite in an unhelpful and divisive way. "Those darn theists with their false gods."

Second, it doesn't take into account utilitarian and social benefits that might explain theism. There is a lot of research on this sort of thing. It is very unclear (i.e. stupid to take a strong stance) as to what is best for humanity.

You don't seem to find it to be problematic to believe in "free will" or "unconditional love" or phrases that include the word "should" though. All quite ridiculously incorrect concepts that lead quite nicely into how your comment of "simply imagine" is not even close to correct or kind-hearted.

You don't actually need me to be present to have an argument with me do you Brian, there are so many straw men in that one post that I wouldn't know where to start if could be bothered to deal with any of them. I can't.

I couldn't find one straw man there. Perhaps you can point them out to me.

Anyway, it wasn't argument. If you re-read, I generally agreed with your overall stance by stating that you believe exactly what nearly every atheist believes, which is that theists are wrong about the whole god thing. I happen to be one of those atheists who believes that the theists are wrong, if that helps make things a bit clearer.

The part about what to do (the "first" and "second" stuff I wrote) is completely separate from your ideas and particularly interesting to me. Perhaps, between the two of us it is only interesting to me. Lots of interesting research and philosophy there. No problem if you don't find it interesting or unimportant.

The last paragraph wasn't at all straw man. You believe in loads of things that don't exist (no worries, so do I, I'm sure) or are ridiculous to believe because there is no evidence (again, no worries) or that differing opinions stated as fact require it likely that you are wrong (again, no worries). If that is of no particular importance or interest to you, just consider it someone talking about stuff you don't particularly care about. I felt the same way earlier today when one of my friends was talking about office design.

Fine, I'm full of cold and have nothing better to do right now.

Is this correct? I thought that there were 'weak' and 'strong' atheists and what separated them was the certainty, or lack of it, about there being no gods.

It implies that you think I'm a strong atheist, I'm not. My questioning about the state of mind of the religious has always been from a 'what if' perspective.

It's not name calling, this is the first straw man. You make it look as if I'm simply insulting the religious in order to somehow weaken or refute their position (you've mentioned your belief that Dawkins does this, presumably to support your premise that I'm doing it too), however I'm not. Then you dismiss it.

You didn't need to, I've never been doing that.

Second straw man, or at best an extension of the first. You don't need to prove how my 'name calling' won't lead to an argument convince theists to change their minds, and would probably unite them, I'm not name calling.

Third straw man, again, no one is doing this. You've introduced a new and entirely irrelevant element here. I'm not taking a strong stance, you've simply put me there, stated that it's an error, and then used it to counter the name calling that never happened.

Fourth straw man. You don't know how I feel about any of those concepts but you state my position for me (that I 'don't seem to find it to be problematic ') then use it to attack and refute the 'simply imagine' phrase that I used, and you throw in an Ad Hominen for good measure with your 'kind hearted' sideswipe. Or perhaps you were using a 'no true scotsman' argument by implying that a position of wondering if the religious are simply imagining what they believe requires some innate cruelty.

Keep them coming, this is great practice for me.

That sucks. Have some soup.

The implication wasn't there as the comment on atheists was general, not specific to you. Weak atheists think that the theists are wrong because they think that theism is not a justifiable belief.

You stopped saying something offensive when you admitted that the word you were using was incorrect. I tend to think that you are a reasonably nice sort of person, so I give you the benefit of the doubt when you say something that sounds offensive.

I still tell you to stop saying it, but that doesn't imply much about your character.

Perception is what matters here. If you call them delusional, they will be offended even if you meant it in the kindest way possible.

It is relevant, but (as you correctly point out) added by me. I did not imply that this was what you were going for. It is just something important to me, as I see very little point in working hard on an argument with no real-life payoff.

The "simply imagine" comment you had made sounded quite rude and was in keeping with making a strawman out of the theists. They obviously don't "simply believe" or "simply imagine." Presumably they believe for a wide variety of reasons.

I made certain guesses about what particular things that are false (or not justifiable evidence- or argument-based beliefs) that you specifically believe. Given that you are human, I am certain that you have loads of false (truth-negative and/or non-justifiable) beliefs. The specific ones I mentioned are just examples of common ones.

I can't wait until you finish the lessons on strawman arguments.

Looking particularly forward to you getting up to speed on "begging the question."

Just because I've recently become properly aware of what a straw man argument is doesn't mean that you're not doing it. I'm not really seeing it in other people's posts, just yours.

Already there, and it's not what I'm doing, in fact I don't think it applies since there's no implication in my premise that would support my conclusion AND I now know that I was using the word 'deluded' incorrectly anyway. Feel free to explain how I was begging the question though.

I'll have a look at the rest of your post later.

I, again, didn't mean it in a negative way. I am pretty happy to have found that you are working on learning argument and was complimenting you on you putting it to use.

Any time someone either simplifies a group or simplifies an argument there is a risk of a straw man having been invented. If I was oversimplifying your argument, and you called me out on it, then we have something to work with to clarify my misunderstanding (usually a shared responsibility) of your argument.

You thinking I have turned your ideas into a straw man isn't personal to me. It was an opportunity for me to clarify what I was trying to say and for you to clarify what you are trying to say. Basically, we get to flesh things out (nice use of metaphor, right?).

You weren't (or if you were, I didn't take notice). More importantly, I didn't say that you were. I am just looking forward to hearing your arguments evolve as you go. Also, I thought you might enjoy googling and reading up on begging the question while you are not feeling well.

Then I'll ask again. What word would you use for someone who believes that they are in the 'presence' of an all powerful intelligence, that this intelligence communicates with them (or at least that they believe they can communicate with it) and directs their lives and every one elses, and that it made the universe and has helpers called angels.... etc etc if in fact that is not the case.

You don't like the phrase 'simply imagining' and we've established that they wouldn't be considered deluded, so what are they? I think this is a level way above just being 'wrong', there must be a word for it.

It isn't that I don't like it that is the important issue. It is that it is a straw man view of them.

I think the proper word would be "religious."

Depending on the specific beliefs, the correct word would denote the specific religion. Christian, Muslim, Druid, etc.

The "if in fact that is not the case" doesn't change the word I'd use as it is either strictly undeterminable (weak atheism / agnosticism) or already included in the meaning of religion, Christian, Muslim, Druid, etc. (strong atheism).