Atheists delusional?

[Prodigal_Son]

Thanks!

10 char

 

[Curious11]

how do they respond, by subjectively creating purpose and meaning to their life and live contrary to the objective truth there is no meaning and value.

What’s wrong with that? Seriously. You dance because you like dancing, not because there’s a God. You eat food you like because you like doing it, not because there’s a God.

We are animals with features inherited from a process of evolution by natural selection. We are born predisposed to like certain things and dislike others, the idea that it is bad to accept that there is no objective meaning and live according to our nature to find subjective value is simply false.

You have no proof any God, never mind your God, exists. By believing in him through an act of faith you’re creating subjective value, the fact that your religion creates dogma around it does not prove it is objective value. Until the day arrives where you can prove Yahweh exists, your values are just as subjective as those of atheists or any other religion and philosophy, so I’d appreciate it if you don’t call atheists delusional, because you hate it when they do it to you

 

[Curious11]

belief in God is classed as being delusional and the secular line of thought is seen as rational

That’s not true in every part of the world, and for the immense, vast majority of time, the reverse was true.

 

[Curious11]

GREAT book. Loved it. Plato was interesting, he questioned the claim that Gods could be like what the Greek pagans said they were and he envisioned different Gods more similar to the Christian God

 

[Curious11]

They are delusional if God exists because they are in contradiction of reality, they are delusional if God doesn’t exist because of how they react to the reality of a universe having no purpose, meaning and value

Would you rather stay curled up in a ball in your room crying at the fact that there is no objective truth?

Your hobbies are your hobbies, whether there is a God or not. You enjoy doing some things regardless of the existence of any God or Santa Claus. Your assertion that it is delusional to engage in hobbies or work in a job you enjoy and think you can make a difference in as a way to find meaning and purpose in a world with no God is simply incorrect and unnecessarily negative. I get the impression you’re trying too hard to try and show that atheists somehow need God like he’s some sort of live life support machine. There’s meaning and fulfillment outside God, stating otherwise won’t turn atheists into believers.

 

[KindredSoul]

Hi there, Prodigal!

I would say that intellectual knowledge can arise from non-deductive means. So, for instance, when I see a donut in front of me, I see the donut; I do not deduce its existence. I think the same could go for experiences of God or experiences of value.

I largely agree, but I beleive that, in some sense, “faith” is still a factor. If I see the donut, I do not need faith that I’m really seeing the donut–I simply am–but I do need faith that my perception is sound. I need faith, in fact, that human beings in general do see reality as it is, and not merely as (for example) some sort of evolutionary illusion designed to give us greater viability as a species. If somehow seeing a donut is even maybe advantageous to our survival as a species, it’s possible that I see a donut not because there is truly an objective donut there, but because evolution favored humans who would SEE a donut there, so most of us are wired to see it whether it’s there or not. This obviously sounds silly when it’s a donut, but replace “donut” with “value,” and it makes more sense. I do believe seeing some sort of value in things makes for a less chaotic species, and helps human society, and thus the human race as a whole, survive and thrive. So it takes faith (however automatically or easily such faith may come to me) for me to believe that just because I strongly see value, it’s in fact really there and not just a “tool” of my biology wired to further our chances of overall survival.

And it doesn’t rule out the idea that there IS a reason why valuable things are valuable (e.g. because they are reflections of the nature of God). It just means that we are incapable of accessing that reason in a non-circular fashion. It may not actually BE a brute fact, but from our perspective, it’s a brute fact.

Agreed here, totally. People on all sides, particularly Atheists but some religious people too, have a hard time grasping that there could be evidences and reasons we just have no ability to access, and it is incredibly illogical to, with confidence, say that any evidence or reason beyond human grasp must not exist.

I agree that this applies to many atheists, who hoist themselves on their own petard[…] But it’s perfectly consistent for an atheist to say that – as a matter of sheer inexplicable fact – we have non-deductive evidence for things being valuable, but we lack non-deductive evidence for God.

I agree, in the sense that it’s plausible that there could be such a scenario. Where faith again comes in, however, is that the implication of an Atheist’s claim is often–but not always–that no one has non-deductive evidence that they themselves claim to lack. I’ve often witnessed, when Theists claim such non-deductive evidence, Atheists are quick to point out that this is irrational, and strongly insist the Theist’s experience is just emotion, or bias, or preconceived notion, without similar introspection of their position.

Continued (Below)…

 

[KindredSoul]

…Continued (From Above)
There is a reluctance to believe that just because they themselves seem to lack such non-deductive evidence, it doesn’t mean everyone does. Some Christians make the opposite error: “I know God exists, because I just do, and secretly everyone does, and they’re lying if they say otherwise.” This too, would be wrong. All this is even aside from what I said above about how one would need faith, in fact, that one’s own self is truly seeing the non-deductive evidence in light of the fact that others claim not to.

And I personally know atheists like that, atheists that would never try to convince anyone God doesn’t exist, but that just don’t happen to believe in God. They tend to keep a low profile, so Christians rarely hear from them. (And yes, these atheists DO feel justified in convincing other people to change their lives, to accord to their values).

That makes sense. I believe you, such Atheists exist. I would simply expect them to bear no hostility toward people, even on the private, snoody intellectual level (“Silly superstitious people!”), who do believe differently. I charitably assume they don’t.

I think I agree. My only concern is that there may be arguments against the existence of God (e.g. the problem of evil) that do not have any analogues when it comes to value, as such.

That’s true, however I believe that many of those arguments either A. Do depend on belief in objective value (The problem of evil is precisely one such thing, for example, since it presupposes the objective truth of the value statement that a Good God could not morally allow evil to exist if He could help it) or B. Can only plausibly be arguments against specific religions, not against Theism in general–for instance, arguing that there is a ton of evidence that Jesus never rose from the dead, if that was true (editorial note here that I’ve never seen compelling evidence against Christianity, it’s just conceivable), would definitely be an argument against Christianity that bypassed the “objective value” relevance, but it would only detract from that one religion, not the general premise that there is a Divine Creator. It appears to me that all the objections to Theism in general will go back to depending on some foundation (however obscure) of believing in some objective value or other. “A God wouldn’t do X” “A God would have done it this way and not that way,” etc.

I like that all your arguments are put forward in probabilistic form: “tend to”, “most likely”, etc. Those qualifications make common ground easier to find than blanket statements.

Oh of course. I loathe blanket statements when made by others about me and those like me, so I try not to make them about others. I can sympathize very much with an Atheist who somehow simply doesn’t believe in God but does believe in objective value, I just can’t sympathize at the point at which he then claims Theism is irrational, silly, unreasonable, etc.

Blessings in Christ!

 

[KindredSoul]

Oh, I can also add that, much as I assume is true for Paddy, if I became an Atheist, it would likely be for similar reasons as would make it hard to believe in an objective truth by contrast. I do believe that saying “Atheists are delusional” is a blanket statement that is as unfair as when Atheists make it about us, although since Atheists make it about us routinely I can understand the urge to respond likewise, though I’m not saying two wrongs would make a right. But I also saw a a glimpse at a personal profession, in Paddy’s OP: Underlying much of the OP was an unspoken statement, “I can’t see how I could ever be an Atheist and yet still continue to believe in objective value and purpose, unless I was deluded somehow.” That statement, which does appear to me to be an undercurrent of the entire OP, is one that really resonates with me. Whether other Atheists are able to reconcile this or not is their business. I can only know that I, at present, cannot conceive of reconciling the two realities if the factors necessary to convince me of Atheism were in place, since for me personally, those factors would be very similar, if not identical, to factors that would also preclude there being any objective value or morality. But I also acknowledge that could be because I would have higher standards for what would convince me there almost definitely was NO God, of any kind, and those standards simply are so high that, in order to meet them, you’d have to have also shaken the very foundations of believing in intangible, transcendent, inarguable things in general. Others who are more easily convinced of the lack of a God of any kind may not have to have reached that point.

 

[Curious11]

since Atheists make it about us routinely I can understand the urge to respond likewise

Some atheists might argue that, since Christians have burned all kinds of heretics, including atheists, at the stake, they should therefore not care when atheists now criticize their belief.

That kind of thinking is foolish because making modern day Christians pay for the crimes of some of their predecessors is nobody’s idea of justice, just like calling all atheists, both those who call Christians delusional and those who don’t, delusional is unfair and frankly not very intelligent.

 

[pocaracas]

When you use the term “objective value”, I’m assuming that, unlike the value of a particular currency that is set by society, you mean a value that exists independent of the society upon which the thing being valued is; a value that is independent of the subjective value of each human individual; a value that is independent of every single human individual.

Can you imagine how easy it is for us, as individuals, to mistake the objectiveness of societal value (like money) with the perceived objective value that you seem to claim exists?

 

[abucs]

I had been a very staunch atheist / moral nihilist for about 7 years or so. I came from a background of hard sciences, with a specialization in cellular and molecular biology. I tell folks I came back to Christianity by the following:

When I moved out here, I got to know folks in the community. As a member of the public sector, you wind up doing a decent number of community functions, which generally includes church dinners out here. I got to see the kitchens of Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, and other denominations. Having cooked lots of dinners, I came to the realization that there must be something to the Christianity thing, as people don’t die in droves after consuming church meals

If you have the time could you please explain in your own words what your definition of moral nihilism is and what it was that attracted you to that thinking?

Thanks.

 

[KindredSoul]

Some atheists might argue that, since Christians have burned all kinds of heretics, including atheists, at the stake, they should therefore not care when atheists now criticize their belief.

That kind of thinking is foolish because making modern day Christians pay for the crimes of some of their predecessors is nobody’s idea of justice, just like calling all atheists, both those who call Christians delusional and those who don’t, delusional is unfair and frankly not very intelligent

Well, you’re preaching to the choir, since I wasn’t justifying that behavior, merely saying I understood the urge, meaning I can grasp the emotional impulse. But in context, I certainly wasn’t condoning it, and had just said, myself, it was unfair immediately before saying what you quoted, and then I followed up the statement with saying two wrongs don’t make a right, meaning the excerpt you quoted was sandwiched in a context where I doubly and explicitly disapproved of such blanket statements.

So, again, you’re preaching to the choir. I agree with you.

 

[Curious11]

I know, I was showing that atheists who don’t insult Christians also have grounds to “understand” those who do

 

[KindredSoul]

When you use the term “objective value”, I’m assuming that, unlike the value of a particular currency that is set by society, you mean a value that exists independent of the society upon which the thing being valued is; a value that is independent of the subjective value of each human individual; a value that is independent of every single human individual.

Yes.

Can you imagine how easy it is for us, as individuals, to mistake the objectiveness of societal value (like money) with the perceived objective value that you seem to claim exists?

Oh indeed, I can, it’s just that this ease does not preclude nor diminish, in any way, the possibility that any such objective values do exist. It just means it is difficult to determine, and even if someone, for the sake of argument, truly could “just see” it, it would be profoundly difficult, maybe impossible, to share this knowledge with anyone else by way of argument. So I acknowledge the difficulty you seem to be implying, even as I note that it is in no way a piece of evidence that such objective values do not exist.

 

[pocaracas]

So I acknowledge the difficulty you seem to be implying, even as I note that it is in no way a piece of evidence that such objective values do not exist.

Cool!
And do remember that I’m not trying to say that such things don’t exist… merely that I don’t see a reason for me to accept that they do, given how something similar can have been hijacked to fit that description.

 

[KindredSoul]

I know, I was showing that atheists who don’t insult Christians also have grounds to “understand” those who do

Ah, okay. That’s fair, if the Atheists who insult Christians (mistakenly) think ALL Christians have/would burn heretics at the stake, so they don’t realize they are insulting innocent Christians. Because the thing I “understand” (but DO NOT condone) isn’t insulting innocent people for what other people with their same beliefs have done, but insulting people who you yourself didn’t realize aren’t themselves guilty of that, precisely because your entire personal experience of those people exclusively consists of those who are explicitly and unapologetically guilty. In other words, I don’t even “understand” if a Christian insults an Atheist that he isn’t convinced insults Christians, but many Christians are (FALSELY) under the impression that ALL Atheists think Christians are delusional, because often the sorts of Atheists who don’t say such insulting things don’t get as vocal that they are Atheist, so the Christian doesn’t realize he is actually constantly meeting kind Atheists: There are so many Christians who simply only ever know someone is an Atheist once that person insults religion, meaning their entire sample of “known” Atheists is exclusively the kind who insult them. I can “understand” why a Christian would think it was fair to say about Atheists what those very same Atheists are saying about us, and many Christians simply have never met anyone other kind. It doesn’t make them right, just understandable. But if that Christian is making that statement despite knowing that it is an insult to Atheists who don’t insult Christians, and he is well aware from experience that such Atheists exist, I don’t understand that at all. Maybe as something said in the heat of frustration if he is frustrated currently with the ones who DO insult us, but in that case he should apologize when some atheist speaks up and says “Hey, I don’t think YOU are delusional or irrational, so why would you insult ME?”

Likewise, I could “understand” an Atheist in similar contexts. Such as why Atheist might think it’s fair to insult me (via a blanket statements) if he thinks I, personally would (because he thinks ALL Christians will, because he has never knowingly personally met one who didn’t explicitly say they would) burn him at the stake if I could, although if he persists in insulting me once I have corrected him and told him I would not do that, and that I respect him as a sane and rational individual, my sympathy and understanding would dwindle just as much as for the Christian who insults all Atheists even though some are explicitly telling him “but wait, I don’t think you’re delusional!”

In none of these cases do I condone the statements made in ignorance, I simply understand it, and only insofar as the Atheist OR the Christian sincerely (but wrongly) believes that ALL the people affected by his insult would say the very same thing about him. Otherwise, it’s just rude and nasty, whether from an Atheist OR Christian.

 

[KindredSoul]

Cool!

And do remember that I’m not trying to say that such things don’t exist… merely that I don’t see a reason for me to accept that they do, given how something similar can have been hijacked to fit that description.

Even as we disagree on the existence of such things, I find your statement here intellectually fair and coherent.

 

[IWantGod]

You have no proof any God, never mind your God, exists. By believing in him through an act of faith you’re creating subjective value, the fact that your religion creates dogma around it does not prove it is objective value. Until the day arrives where you can prove Yahweh exists, your values are just as subjective as those of atheists or any other religion and philosophy, so I’d appreciate it if you don’t call atheists delusional, because you hate it when they do it to you

If God doesn’t exist then we are all delusional. Faith can be considered as somebodies hope or belief that nihilism in all its forms is wrong. Atheism offers no escape from nihilism, and yet atheists act as if God’s nonexistence has no detrimental consequences, that’s why we make fun of it…

Atheism is a frustrating phenomena because your behavior suggests that you don’t really comprehend the consequences of your own atheism or don’t care. Why wouldn’t you hope for the greatest possible good being true, that your life really does have a meaning, that your life does have a true moral value, that your existence does have a purpose?

Belief in such things, true or not, perfectly reflects our dignity and nature as emotional and personal beings. Atheism, in an absolute sense, is abnormal. Its like a form of self-harm.

 

[Curious11]

If God doesn’t exist then we are all delusional.

I’m sorry, what?

atheists act as if God’s nonexistence has no detrimental consequences, that’s why we make fun of it…

Making fun of people’s beliefs is mean, un-Christ-like and hypocritical of people who complain that the secular world makes fun of them. If you make fun of atheists, shame on you. I could very easily argue that believers act as if there’s a good God that cares about us, when a simple look at the world shows strong indications that it is not true. Atheists don’t believe there are no detrimental consequences, they just say that, judging by the looks of things, we’re on our own. They don’t celebrate that as good news, and I’m sure many would embrace a world with a kind, all benevolent God who really cared about humans and ensured we were infinitely happy.

Atheism is a frustrating phenomena because your behavior suggests that you don’t really comprehend the consequences of your own atheism or don’t care. Why wouldn’t you hope for the greatest possible good being true, that your life really does have a meaning, that your life does have a true moral value, that your existence does have a purpose?

Frustrating for you. Who ever said there was no purpose? There’s subjective purpose, which I might add also includes belief in God, whether you like it or not.

Atheism, in an absolute sense, is abnormal. Its like a form of self-harm.

Right. Because fasting, mortification, self hatred because of sin, scrupulosity, obsession with an extremely strict and tight definition of “sexual sin”, forbidden marriage for clergy, forbidden sexual intercourse for homosexuals, forbidden use of condoms in spite of the risk of STDs, and fear of eternal hell… all in the name of something that hasn’t been proven to be anything more than smoke and air, is not self harm, that’s just what people would define as a cool and enjoyable life.

 

[IWantGod]

There’s subjective purpose

First of all i don’t make fun of people, but the glorification of absolute atheism as a rational decision is laughable… I’m sorry.

If there is no true purpose in reality, then creating an imaginary purpose for ones self is necessarily an act of make-belief regardless of how many people share in that fantasy.

Right. Because fasting, mortification, self hatred because of sin, scrupulosity, obsession with an extremely strict and tight definition of “sexual sin”, forbidden marriage for clergy, forbidden sexual intercourse for homosexuals, forbidden use of condoms in spite of the risk of STDs, and fear of eternal hell… all in the name of something that hasn’t been proven to be anything more than smoke and air, is not self harm, that’s just what people would define as a cool and enjoyable life.

You are criticizing religion here and i am not going to get into that debate with you. I am talking about theism in a metaphysical sense and it’s comparison to nihilism.

Choosing not to believe that your life has a true meaning, purpose, and moral value; is abnormal in my opinion. It does not reflect your dignity as a personal being. Thus hoping for true meaning, moral value, and purpose, seems to me to be a healthy normal reaction to the possibility of nihilism… Its’'positive, especially considering there is no a-prior reason to reject what theism implies.

Absolute Atheism is negative because it necessarily has negative metaphysical consequences. What? You would rather accept nihilism than place ones hope in God’s existence? I’m sorry, you are not being reasonable. And you know its not reasonable that’s why instead of embracing nihilism you try to supplant God with subjective values and subjective meaning and subjective purpose and hold them up as something worthwhile because you know we cannot live without it. But you should know that these self-motivating values are just a fantasy, but you act like you don’t know, which suggests that such a person is delusional…And i don’t blame people for being delusional because if nihilism is true then everything we do is meaningless and absurd including the fight against death itself… What rational motivation do we have left? The answer is zero.

Absolute Atheism, by definition, is a metaphysical tragedy, and is not something that should be accepted lightly even if things seem to suggest the possibility of nihilism.

I’m sorry, what?

You know what i said. If there is no true objective meaning, moral value, or purpose to our existence, then any sense of self-worth we have is a fantasy, a contrivance. And me laughing with insanity about the idea is the consequence.

But i don’t think anybody really believes that their lives have no true meaning or moral value or purpose since their behavior tells otherwise. Nobody walks around thinking “I’m worthless and that’s okay”, they want their sense of self-worth to be true; that’s what motivates them.

So i will just put it down to dishonesty.