Atheists delusional?

[laylow]

If you listen to Christopher Hitchens articulate the reality of the world in all of its rational wonder and you accuse him of being delusional, then I truly question whether you have the slightest inclination as to the meaning of the word.

 

[abucs]

I’ll wager that you couldn’t recount accurately what happened 3 weeks ago let alone 30 years back.

It depends.

If I had a three year encounter with God and spent 30 years talking about it and sharing my experiences with others who also were in wonder with their encounters then a lot of the remembering would be quite accurate. Perhaps not everything as verbatim, but close enough in the sense of being accurate and reliable.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I’ll wager that you couldn’t recount accurately what happened 3 weeks ago let alone 30 years back.

It depends.

If I had a three year encounter with God and spent 30 years talking about it and sharing my experiences with others who also were in wonder with their encounters then a lot of the remembering would be quite accurate. Perhaps not everything as verbatim, but close enough in the sense of being accurate and reliable.

So you thought you had what you believed to be an encounter with the creator of existence itself and you simply discussed it with others for 30 years without recording any of it whatsoever in that time. Then thought, hang on, maybe I should write some of this down.

Is that the scenario you’d like me to accept?

 

[abucs]

So you thought you had what you believed to be an encounter with the creator of existence itself and you simply discussed it with others for 30 years without recording any of it whatsoever in that time. Then thought, hang on, maybe I should write some of this down.

Is that the scenario you’d like me to accept?

No, not at all. Next question.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So you thought you had what you believed to be an encounter with the creator of existence itself and you simply discussed it with others for 30 years without recording any of it whatsoever in that time. Then thought, hang on, maybe I should write some of this down.

Is that the scenario you’d like me to accept?

No, not at all. Next question.

But that’s the scenario you posted. An encounter with someone you knew to be the son of God. That lasted 3 years. And you didn’t write any of it down for at least 30 years. If that is not what you meant, then perhaps you could point out where I have misinterpreted what you said.

 

[abucs]

First of all the question was about the possibility of remembering something from 30 years ago accurately.

Secondly, I would not have you believe or accept anything.

Thirdly if we are to look at the early Christian era the people preached and made plans to evangelise and travelled far and wide, they did not ‘simply’ talk to each other for 30 years.

Lastly I would not have you believe the people didn’t write anything down for 30 years. I expect they would have written a lot down. Whether they did or not cannot be proved one way or the other. I certainly would not argue the case that they did not write anything down for 30 years and have you accept that.

Back tomorrow.

 

[Bradskii]

So no writings have been discovered. No mention of earlier writings have ever been made. No reference to previous writings is ever mentioned by the scribes, thirty plus years after the event. Which none ofbthem saw firsthand.

In fact, the only time I have heard anyone at all suggest that a written record of Jesus’ life and times were made contemporaneously is in the post you just made.

So if it’s ok with you, in the absence of any proof to the contrary whatsoever, I’ll stick with the facts as known.

 

[abucs]

So no writings have been discovered. No mention of earlier writings have ever been made. No reference to previous writings is ever mentioned by the scribes, thirty plus years after the event. Which none ofbthem saw firsthand.

In fact, the only time I have heard anyone at all suggest that a written record of Jesus’ life and times were made contemporaneously is in the post you just made.

So if it’s ok with you, in the absence of any proof to the contrary whatsoever, I’ll stick with the facts as known.

ok, so we have established that it is not me wanting you to accept a scenario, it is you wanting to accept a scenario. Fine, have at it.

You cannot prove that the apostles did not write notes about what happened. You may wish to believe they didn’t, that’s fine. But you can’t prove it. To call it a fact is just a mis-use of the word fact.

When Shakespeare wrote King Leah did he refer to the first broad outline sketch that he made in his finished writing? How many biographies refer to the several repetitions of outlines they first make?

The final book or writing is the finished product. What comes before is simply (name removed by moderator)ut to that book.

Considering that in the time we are talking about any writing material would have disintegrated within decades and we are reliant on people copying writings, who is going to bother with initial drafts when they have the finished book?

Do you go into a bookstore and ask if you can have the writers initial note takings? To ask the question is to answer it.

No, you want the finished book.

Just because we don’t have initial note takings of ancient books, doesn’t mean that there weren’t any.

That is a fact.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So no writings have been discovered. No mention of earlier writings have ever been made. No reference to previous writings is ever mentioned by the scribes, thirty plus years after the event. Which none ofbthem saw firsthand.

In fact, the only time I have heard anyone at all suggest that a written record of Jesus’ life and times were made contemporaneously is in the post you just made.

So if it’s ok with you, in the absence of any proof to the contrary whatsoever, I’ll stick with the facts as known.

ok, so we have established that it is not me wanting you to accept a scenario, it is you wanting to accept a scenario. Fine, have at it.

You cannot prove that the apostles did not write notes about what happened. You may wish to believe they didn’t, that’s fine. But you can’t prove it. To call it a fact is just a mis-use of the word fact.

When Shakespeare wrote King Leah did he refer to the first broad outline sketch that he made in his finished writing? How many biographies refer to the several repetitions of outlines they first make?

The final book or writing is the finished product. What comes before is simply (name removed by moderator)ut to that book.

Considering that in the time we are talking about any writing material would have disintegrated within decades and we are reliant on people copying writings, who is going to bother with initial drafts when they have the finished book?

Do you go into a bookstore and ask if you can have the writers initial note takings? To ask the question is to answer it.

No, you want the finished book.

Just because we don’t have initial note takings of ancient books doesn’t mean that there weren’t any.

That is a fact.

So if I ask how we know that reports written decades after the events they describe are accurate (despite the reports being inconsistent with each other and depite at least one being based on other reports), your answer is, with zero evidence whatsoever to back it up: ‘They might have made notes at the time’.

And this: ‘Just because we don’t have any doesn’t mean to say that none existed’ you class as (wait for it…) a fact. It’s the first time I have ever heard a fact described as ‘something that has no evidence yet still might be true’.

You must have something a little less inconsequential we can work with?

 

[SuperLuigi]

A+ atheism = religion

 

[abucs]

So if I ask how we know that reports written decades after the events they describe are accurate (despite the reports being inconsistent with each other and depite at least one being based on other reports), your answer is, with zero evidence whatsoever to back it up: ‘They might have made notes at the time’.

Well that is one component of the answer. I have already spoken of the special nature of the reports and the evangelising history of the apostles during that time. We could explore others if you like.,

And this: ‘Just because we don’t have any doesn’t mean to say that none existed’ you class as (wait for it…) a fact. It’s the first time I have ever heard a fact described as ‘something that has no evidence yet still might be true’.

No as written above. It is a fact that you can’t prove they did not exist.

Because this is a fact it is erroneous to claim they never existed is a fact.

They may never have existed, but you can’t claim that as a fact because you cannot prove it.

Back later.

 

[Paddy1989]

My attempt with this thread is to point out that the so called new age atheists who in actually fact aren’t so new anymore and are decreasing mainly due to lack of reproduction ironically are fundamentalists at heart. This is not an argument against intellectually honest atheists who take the convictions of a naturalist world-view seriously. When Fundamentalist Christians for example preach their belief in God you will find these militant atheists ridicule them to the point of humiliation without empathy because these fundamentalist Christians will not only be unable to reasonably defend their faith but may also proclaim theories that go against science such as the universe only being 6000 years old etc. These atheists will use fundamentalists as a way of generalizing all of Christianity so as to make themselves appear more rational. They have a sort of cartoonish understanding of God and the bible and even when they are corrected they still will spout it to the next person so it’s never really about engaging in debate and learning, it’s about using arguments and hoping their opponent doesn’t have an answer for them. The atheist will ridicule the Christian as simply believing what they want to believe because it gives them comfort and that in reality it’s a lie, when the militant Atheist claims the Christian follows a lie it gives them great comfort in their own lack of belief because now they can justify their snobbery over these people. The problem then is that the claims many of these militant Atheists make, that they have value and their value is so highly regarded that it is above all the other animals. Now this is arrogance in face of a world-view that teaches the truth that all we are is a collection of cells. When the Christian hears this and asks them to give proof for such a claim the atheist will claim that it’s merely subjective, the Christian response should only be then well of course it is, your merely believing what you want to believe to give yourself comfort even if it’s a lie for the objective truth states the opposite but you deny it to suit what you want to believe. If the militant Atheist was surely seeking the truth by their ridiculing of Christians for believing a lie then why do they reject the truth of their own world-view? The answer is obvious, it is not truth they seek but comfort and the attempt to shut down the message that the Christian speaks because it makes them uncomfortable… Continued below

 

[Paddy1989]

To me militant atheism just seemed to be the ‘‘in thing’’ just like the LSD hippie protest generation felt they would also conquer the world and have since faded away. The reality is religion is on the rise and this militant atheism in decline and guess what the biggest killer of it shall be? Themselves, their own desire to prevent their ability to reproduce has meant they are dying off compared to religious people who don’t advocate contraception and are increasing. Atheism itself however will never fully die away anytime soon as it’s been around forever but this form of atheism that seeks to control all of the political, social and economical stage will not be able to take hold, marxism only took hold because it used violence, these militant atheists don’t hold such a ideology they would die for, their only interest is destroying dogma, not replacing it with a new one which marxists did and why it lasted as long as it has even till this day.

 

[pocaracas]

Thanks for insulting every single atheist that replied here with a strawman that represents none of those. :that’s christian charity for ya:

 

[Paddy1989]

Wow. How have I attacked every atheist who replied here? I admit I have not been fully keeping up with all the posts on this forum but many of the atheist posters on here I have read dont display this level of arrogance i am arguing against. I have not seen any atheist ridicule Christians on this thread for believing what they claim to be a lie to make their life more comfortable but as I said I haven’t read every post on this thread. If the atheists here on this thread does invoke some subjective value to their existence I’m sure they admit this is only done to make their life more comfortable contrary to the objective truth of their worldview that the universe and everything in it ultimately has no purpose and value. As I said my point here is not against intellectually honest atheism who understand the consequences of invoking the naturalist worldview but against the fundamentalists who reason the same way as fundamentalists Christians

 

[pocaracas]

I admit I have not been fully keeping up with all the posts on this forum but many of the atheist posters on here I have read dont display this level of arrogance i am arguing against.

Thank you.

As I said my point here is not against intellectually honest atheism who understand the consequences of invoking the naturalist worldview but against the fundamentalists who reason the same way as fundamentalists Christians

Ah… those atheists.
They may exist, yes… at least, some do come off like that online.

But then why did you bring them up on this thread?

 

[IWantGod]

As I said my point here is not against intellectually honest atheism who understand the consequences of invoking the naturalist worldview but against the fundamentalists who reason the same way as fundamentalists Christians

At the end of the day, when someone rabidly claims that God is a fantasy, to me that just means that God is an idea they don’t value.

If a meteorite smashes the moon to bits, it’s just a physical event. We are physical beings as well. So if a human kills another human, what rational reason do we have to look at that event as being any different to any other event that has ever occurred in the history of the universe? There is no rational reason, outside of our feelings, to think that there is a distinction. So if metaphysical naturalism is true then the atheist is making a distinction based purely on how they feel (which is caused by their brain) and not according to how reality actually is objectively.

The atheist will claim that how they feel is important, but at the same time they will bash a Christian for following their feelings and what they feel to be true. It seems that at least some atheists, if not all of them, are hypocrites because they refuse to treat reality as it truly is according to their worldview and instead treat it according to how they feel, they act in the world according to their emotions and are driven by them, which causes them to treat other humans as being more than just any other physical object and even produce more of them; possibly because it gives life a sense of significance. Thus they are not doing that for rational reasons. They are not being objective which is the very opposite of being rational according to them because apparently our emotions do not lead us to objective truth and emotions don’t matter when it comes to truth. Only science leads us to truth, or so they say. Although what rational importance truth has beyond our feelings and desires is a mystery given metaphysical naturalism…

So it is evident, that at least some atheists are either dishonest or delusional. If the day came where an atheist simply admitted that some degree of fantasy and contrivance is necessary in-order for an atheist to make sense of the absurdity of the human condition and it’s continued existence, i would be grateful for that level of honesty at least.

 

[pocaracas]

The atheist will claim that how they feel is important, but at the same time they will bash a Christians for following their feelings and what they feel to be true.

What people feel to be true is not the same category of feeling as what people feel towards each other.
Some of us are capable of making that distinction and thus not be hypocrites, like you claim.
Metaphysical naturalism might be an accurate descriptor of reality… might… but the fact that humans have emotions and feelings for each other and desire their continued existence is…well… a fact. An inescapable fact.

You will then say that human emotions can’t have value in the face of the indifferent Universe. You’re right. But they do have value to us, humans. Not to the Universe. As far we can tell, the Universe has no conscience, so it can’t even care.

Why don’t you stop this enmity I sense in your writings and try to understand the nuance that others may be seeing clearly, but for which you seem blinded? Or maybe you’re just too rooted in your need for some abstract absolute externally imbued value?

 

[IWantGod]

What people feel to be true is not the same category of feeling as what people feel towards each other.

It isn’t? Your brain is telling you to feel something, you are reacting to it. You either have rational reasons to act on those feelings or you don’t. If feelings and emotions don’t reflect objective reality as it truly is, then they don’t reflect objective reality and it is just something in your head.

You either approach reality rationally or you don’t. You cannot have it both ways. Your distinctions are completely arbitrary. This nuance you speak of in respect of your subjective motivations in life is irrelevant. The truth is whats relevant is it not?

The truth is, your motivations in life do not come from treating reality as it truly is, your motivations begin with how you feel which is made evident by your response…

 

[IWantGod]

Not to the Universe. As far we can tell, the Universe has no conscience, so it can’t even care.

What rational reason do you have to care? You are a part of the universe. I’m not talking about your feelings. I’m talking about the rationality of your behavior in response to your feelings in light of the fact that you are merely an amalgamation of physical processes.