"
those who voted in support of the motion viewed their colleagues as having a mental disorder."I think this is another error. Supporters of the motion are saying that (belief in) God is
not a delusion: those who voted against are saying that (belief in) God is a delusion. I think you should change "in support" to "against" to get the meaning right. If you are saying that belief in God is not a delusion then you are not saying that anyone is deluded or has a mental disorder. Only opponents of the motion said this (given the medical definition of delusion).
"I'm not saying I don't understand what controvertible or incontrovertible means"
Neither am I saying that, but you did ask me earlier for my "standards for incontrovertible proof" and I was trying to make the point that you've already shown you have knowledge of such standards viz. "I simply do not believe that the claims so far presented justify a belief in the Christian God." ie a sense of what is
controvertible so you should be able to establish in your own mind what standards are demanded by incontrovertibility. So again I ask you
do you have incontrovertible proof for the non existence of God, or failing that do you have any proof?
Are you atheist, agnostic or something else?I have no problem if you prefer not to identify with either of the first two labels but I still contend that saying: "
Atheists on the other hand have simply said that they do not find the evidence presented so far for God convincing and they do not accept religious faith as a good argument." does not correspond to the dictionary definition of atheist.
Do you deny the existence of God? Please can you describe your position more clearly.
My position: I believe an eternal, transcendent, creator God exists. I do not believe this can be proved or disproved incontrovertibly. So my belief in the existence of God is a faith belief.
No because an agnostic is answering a different question from what is posedExplain this statement please
.the burden of proofYou're obviously keen to bring this into the discussion. I'm not sure we can sensibly bring that in until you have defined your position about how you view the proof of God's non existence. A good discussion can be found in section 3 of
http://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence note the following statements: "
However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application." and "
On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the New Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism." but do read the whole article.
This house believes that God existsAs I said before because a neutral title like this was not used implies that the neutral definition of delusion was not intended.
there are other Gods out there This is an inaccurate way of putting it. I think you mean to say that there are diverse religions which have different concepts of God, or gods. An eternal, transcendent, creator God is not boxed up by man's conception of God. So rather you need to ask in what way has the transcendent God (or gods) been revealed. Otherwise you end up with nonsense questions such as "is the God of Islam the same as the God of Christianity and/or the God of Judaism". An eternal, transcendent God is not boxed up in that way. Rather you have to ask if the revelation of God in religions etc is true or not e.g. did God reveal Himself to Moses, through Jesus or to Muhammed etc?