T
thistle
Guest
Atheists comprise only 14% of the world’s population so it does not make sense to say “a world where belief in God is classed as delusional”. That implies believers are are a minority.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
Paddy1989
Guest
14% In the world but about 90% in Hollywood and mainstream media which influences the minds of the young. This is mixed in with a large amount of deists who despise Christianity especially Catholicism as much as the pop culture atheist
Last edited:
P
pocaracas
Guest
I like to break things down.Either god exists or he doesn’t exist.
Let’s start with this one, shall we?
Either a god exists or none… I’m not sure it’s a 50/50 proposition, but have it your way.
That’s mighty big of you to grant… have a cookie!If God doesn’t exist then there is no objective purpose meaning and value to the universe and everything in it, everything just is. If God doesn’t exist then the Christian who invents God subjectively to give foundations for meaning and purpose to life are being delusional, i’ll grant that.
I think you’re mixing things up here.However what i noticed is this, the Atheist is also bound by the same objective truth here as the Christian that life objectively has no meaning purpose and value, 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.
Let’s use “purpose meaning and value to the universe and everything in it” as Q.
Let’s call “objective Q” as OQ.
And also let’s call “subjective Q” as SQ.
What you’re saying is that, since there is no SQ (“atheist” view), then OQ is a delusional view, because there’s no Q.
But no one said there’s no Q. You’re the one saying it.
From the moment there is a SQ, there is also Q. It comes with the package.
Where does truth come from, now?The atheist here is being delusional aswell but whats worse is they actually know the objective truth, they instead see more merit in their subjective truth, however objective truth trumps subjective trump every time, why?
Weren’t you talking about purpose meaning and value?
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Based on this interesting argument, would you agree that the illusion of control is part of both atheists’ and believers’ thinking albeit in different ways?
P
Paddy1989
Guest
Your assumption with this post is that as we uncover scientific truths that the need for God becomes less however what has scientific truth God to do with the existence of God. Science is used to unravel truths of the natural world time, space and matter, it has no bearing on morality and being able to understand the first cause outside of time, space and matter. These are philosophical in nature
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
We know NOTHING objectively, even the statement I just made. You have referenced an objective system under G-d’s command, not ours, yet what we may know or believe about that system is based on our reason, our logic, our faith, our emotions, our understanding of the evidence for that system. The only sensory and cognitive perception we have is necessarily SUBJECTIVE because it is OUR perception; that is, we are the perceiver of the system. We probably believe the system is objective only because we are motivated to do so to satisfy our need for the illusion of control.
Insofar as precautions are concerned, yes we believe in probability of safety, health, and the like based on our taking precautions. But, in reality, we have no guarantees that the precautions are valid or effective in all or most circumstances. Nonetheless, we think in terms of guarantees to fulfill our motivational need for control of our lives. Otherwise–whether we are believers or nonbelievers–we would have huge difficulty in our normal, everyday functioning.
Insofar as precautions are concerned, yes we believe in probability of safety, health, and the like based on our taking precautions. But, in reality, we have no guarantees that the precautions are valid or effective in all or most circumstances. Nonetheless, we think in terms of guarantees to fulfill our motivational need for control of our lives. Otherwise–whether we are believers or nonbelievers–we would have huge difficulty in our normal, everyday functioning.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
We studied a form of Nihilism in school called Absurdism when reading Albert Camus. Camus defines Elusion as filling the void with an invented belief or meaning. He considered it to be a fundamental flaw in religion.
P
Paddy1989
Guest
No i’m saying that there is no OQ in the naturalist world-view. Without God then there is no objective meaning, purpose and value. SQ ( subjectively has purpose meaning and value) can be believed all one likes but it’s an illusion as i’d agree with meltzerboy2 which contradicts the objective truth that there is no purpose meaning and value. To put it mildly as possible the one who gives themselves subjective meaning has to realize one thing. The fact that the subjective meaning, purpose and value they give themselves is not binding on anyone other than themselves because subjective truth is only true for the subject
I feel William lane Craig explains it easier here
I feel William lane Craig explains it easier here
Last edited:
P
Paddy1989
Guest
I don’t believe we fill the void at all by INVENTING meaning and value into life, we uncover it because we believe it to be objectively true. For the naturalist however they are force to admit that meaning, value and purpose is nothing more that an invention to combat the fact that life has no objective purpose, meaning and value
P
pocaracas
Guest
There you go again…
Why do you say “there is no purpose meaning and value”?
If there is SQ, then there is Q, which is defined as “purpose meaning and value”.
Why do you say “there is no purpose meaning and value”?
If there is SQ, then there is Q, which is defined as “purpose meaning and value”.
P
Paddy1989
Guest
Ok but i disagree with your belief in that we can know nothing objectively
P
Paddy1989
Guest
There is no objective purpose, meaning and value, i’m not denying the ability to subjectively invoke it, my point is thats it’s an illusion if one does so. As i said you may say subjectively you have intrinsic value, i may say you have merely measurable value to the point you become an inconvenience to me, who is correct? Subjectively speaking we both are, Objectively speaking neither. As i said the video above explains it clearer
Last edited:
P
pocaracas
Guest
At some point in that ladder, you find the step where society, in all it’s subjectivity, imposes an overarching “purpose, meaning and value”… here, the line between what you consider subjective (pertaining to the individual) and what you consider objective (pertaining to some higher power) becomes blurred, as most people (in which I’m including you) can’t tell the difference.There is no objective purpose, meaning and value, i’m not denying the ability to subjectively invoke it, my point is thats it’s an illusion if one does so. As i said you may say subjectively you have intrinsic value, i may say you have merely measurable value to the point you become an inconvenience to me, who is correct? Subjectively speaking we both are, Objectively speaking neither
Reach into your pocket, fish out a coin. Tell me, does that coin have a subjective or objective value?
V
Vico
Guest
A delusion is a mistaken belief. There is a reality, although it may not be subjectively known. Faith is a supernatural gift in Catholic teaching different than uncertainty of atheism.I don’t believe we fill the void at all by INVENTING meaning and value into life, we uncover it because we believe it to be objectively true. For the naturalist however they are force to admit that meaning, value and purpose is nothing more that an invention to combat the fact that life has no objective purpose, meaning and value
Last edited:
L
Limoncello4021
Guest
Jesus says, “call no man a fool.”
But the Bible gives us an exception for atheists: "The fool says in his heart “there is no God.”
But the Bible gives us an exception for atheists: "The fool says in his heart “there is no God.”
P
pocaracas
Guest
So… which is right? Jesus or the bible?Jesus says, “call no man a fool.”
But the Bible gives us an exception for atheists: "The fool says in his heart “there is no God.”
F
FiveLinden
Guest
In some cases yes. Atheists who ‘believe’ are acting in their primal instincts. Atheists who work hard to resist this and only ‘conclude from observation’ are using intellect to overcome instinct. Certainly some atheists are indistinguishable in their behaviour from religious people.Based on this interesting argument, would you agree that the illusion of control is part of both atheists’ and believers’ thinking albeit in different ways?
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Paddy you seem to think that it is all a matter of belief. It isn’t. If you begin from observation and follow science, you don’t have to ‘believe’ anything to be an atheist. You just have to observe that nothing is seen or experienced that requires a god to explain it. So you are an atheist, in the same way that you are an a-fairy and an a-unicorn and an a-elves, and an a-Zeus, and an a-Santa. Nothing requires these things to explain them, so there is no point in believing them.I don’t dispute that. My main point is that in a world where belief in God is classed as being delusional and the secular line of thought is seen as rational i’m pointing the irony that naturalists live in delusion whether God exists or not. Their arguments for being Atheist with the main one being that it’s based in rational thought is shot down immediately when they don’t take it seriously enough to accept the objective truth of it
P
Paddy1989
Guest
I’m not denying your reasoning here but wouldn’t you agree that to explain objective meaning, purpose and value to ones life above and beyond themselves then you need a transcendent cause? If there is no cause for this to be objective then one subjectiveiy invents meaning purpose and value to fill a certain void wouldn’t you agree?
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Well, yes, but your statement begs the question: is there meaning, purpose and value to our lives other than that we decide for ourselves?I’m not denying your reasoning here but wouldn’t you agree that to explain objective meaning, purpose and value to ones life above and beyond themselves then you need a transcendent cause?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.