Atheists delusional?

[Kei]

Ah, I was speaking of each of us individually, to a Buddhist who (presumably) knows of the relationship between suffering and joy.
Taking up our own cross, imitating Christ, all that.

I cannot explain why it is preferable to embrace our sufferings, or why we freely take on more suffering via mortifications, without going back to the spiritual meanings these both hold, a thing a materialist may not understand.

Of course, also in imitation of our Lord, we are to help others, and assist them. But yet Christ is not only in the one aiding, but in the one in need of help.

 

[rossum]

Ah, I was speaking of each of us individually, to a Buddhist who (presumably) knows of the relationship between suffering and joy.

As a Buddhist, I approach suffering differently: it is something to be avoided. The Four Noble Truths explain the way to avoid suffering:

• Suffering exists.
• Suffering is caused by selfish desire.
• Stopping selfish desire will stop suffering.
• The way to stop selfish desire is the Eightfold Path.

rossum

 

[Kei]

Yes, and so desire is to be avoided, striving for emptiness.
In contrast, in the Christian view, suffering isn’t to be avoided, which was what I was trying to explain, though we are to help those who are suffering, which is what I was trying to explain.

 

[Shakuhachi]

And all mistaken beliefs need not be a delusion.
But what about Kim Jong Un? Donald Trump? Delusional?

 

[HarryStotle]

Kei:

Ah, I was speaking of each of us individually, to a Buddhist who (presumably) knows of the relationship between suffering and joy.

As a Buddhist, I approach suffering differently: it is something to be avoided. The Four Noble Truths explain the way to avoid suffering:

• Suffering exists.
• Suffering is caused by selfish desire.
• Stopping selfish desire will stop suffering.
• The way to stop selfish desire is the Eightfold Path.

rossum

So desire that is NOT selfish will NOT have any associated suffering if the object of desire is NOT obtained?

What is the difference between unselfish desire and just not bothering to care about whether any object of desire comes about or not?

What would be the difference between “stopping selfish desire” and stopping all desire?

Which desires are “noble” or unselfish and why should they be at all fulfilled?

Suppose your desire is for a peaceful world or for the well-being of others, but the fact that the world is not peaceful or others are being harmed causes you to suffer? Would that mean the “noble way” is to no longer to desire a peaceful world but to not care whether or not it is peaceful?

Also, why would desiring a peaceful world or the well-being of others be considered “selfish?”

 

[HarryStotle]

Kei:

No. Perhaps you misunderstand what I say? What strikes you as Stockholm syndrome-y?

Just this bit:

Suffering is not to be escaped but embraced, and indeed the joy we then can embrace all the more

Personally, I’d rather minimize suffering for all of mankind, but I know I must work within the constraints posited on me by society and technological availability.

Is mankind never benefited by suffering?

Will minimizing all suffering necessarily create the optimal state for mankind or the paragon of a human being?

Suppose you have a child under you care for their entire childhood/adolescence. Will simply shielding them from all suffering – i.e., minimizing levels of suffering to zero – be, in an ultimate sense, conducive to their well-being?

It isn’t clear to me that it would necessarily be. Perhaps it would only create a perfectly entitled and mollycoddled fiend?

 

[pocaracas]

That’s why I said we had to work within constraints.

 

[rossum]

So desire that is NOT selfish will NOT have any associated suffering if the object of desire is NOT obtained?

Correct, though unselfish desire is not easy. As soon as we think, “I want…” there is an “I” in there. Getting rid of that “I” takes a lot of work and years of meditation.

Which desires are “noble” or unselfish and why should they be at all fulfilled?

Detachment is the key. If the desire is not attached to your illusion of self then it can be noble. There are various ways to eliminate desire, fulfillment is only one of them.

Suppose your desire is for…

As long as it is my desire, then it cannot be un-self-ish. Me/my/self is the problem. You have to detach the desire from your illusion of “self”.

rossum

 

[Glark]

If there is no God nor ultimate meaning and purpose, we simply invent our own. Atheist fully acknowledge this as a personal subjective invention. How is that delusional?

Athesits believe - in effect - that humans are nothing more than lucky dirt. Yet they vehemently insist that their lives have meaning - that is seriously delusional.

 

[Paddy1989]

This is the inconsistency that I believe Atheists need to realize. The way they want to think of themselves and humanity as having intrinsic value and meaning only makes sense to deists/theists. We Catholics believe that since man is wired to God, essentially we share in his nature then the concepts of equality, human dignity and intrinsic value reflect the truth of our nature. It’s inescapable. The naturalist can only write these concepts off as illusory. Illusions that are sweeter than their truth

 

[TheOldColonel]

I used to think I was delusional then I convinced myself I wasn’t.

 

[PickyPicky]

I own several objects that are, objectively, just the equivalent of dirt, but which have subjective meaning — what we sometimes call sentimental value — for me. I fail to see the delusion.

 

[Paddy1989]

Do you see your human value as subjective?

 

[abucs]

You might be interested in this : Atheism and Delusion – Think about it.

Atheism and Delusion – Think about it.

I understand an atheists reluctance to ‘not base his whole life on something he sees no evidence for’. Nobody wants to ‘waste his life’ on delusions. You have to do what your mind thinks is sensibl…

whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com

 

[PickyPicky]

Very probably: I suspect my human value is greater to me than to most folk.

 

[Shakuhachi]

“Lucky dirt”? Strawman?

 

[rossum]

“Lucky dirt”? Strawman?

More like a gross ignorance of chemistry. “Dirt” is chemicals, and chemical reactions are not random (aka “luck”).

Some forms of creationism, such as YEC, have no scientific support, so YEC websites have to lie to their readers to give the illusion that YEC is not completely scientifically ridiculous.

rossum

 

[HarryStotle]

Paddy1989:

Do you see your human value as subjective?

Value is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS subjective.

That would be your subjective opinion about value.

Got any objective reason for thinking you might be right about the ALWAYS part?

Besides that you subjectively think it is so, I mean.

 

[HarryStotle]

Any Christian who claims that they “KNOW” that God exists, is delusional, because such knowledge is unattainable.

Unless, of course, the Christian happens to be correct and God does exist.

The necessary faith to believe in almost anything, isn’t impossible to attain, but the knowledge is.

If certain knowledge of God is “impossible” to attain, then it would likewise be impossible for you to know that it is unattainable. Which means your absolute claim to your knowledge – i.e., that knowledge of God is unattainable – would itself be unattainable.

Now the question wouldn’t be whether the limited intellect of the human being could attain to the knowledge of God, but whether God could infuse certain knowledge of his existence into the human intellects that he chooses to so infuse.

Absent being God or having privileged insight into God’s working or the workings of those intellects, you couldn’t possibly know that, could you?

You couldn’t possibly know what God knows.

Nor could you possibly know what other knowers know, could you?

The only thing you could possibly know is what you do.

So all your words about what anyone else can possibly know or not know are delusional projections of your experience onto others.

So you need to reserve your epistemic judgements to the solipsistic limits of what you do know, not what others might or might not know.

Your position, along with all its attendant claims is thus reduced to your limitations, and says nothing about what limitations might or might not be true of others.

So you need to speak for yourself, alone.

Stop projecting your solipsism, unnecessarily.

 

[HarryStotle]

As far as the OP goes, the only one who isn’t delusional is the epistemological solipsist, because they’re the only ones who accept the intrinsic limitations on what the conscious mind can and can not know.

Actually, as shown in my last post, epistemological solipsists, by their own reckoning can only speak to what they, themselves, do know. Even what they can know is uncertain to them.

To be absolutely consistent with their point of view they have no epistemic warrant for saying anything, in general, about what “the conscious mind” of anyone else can or cannot know. They can only speak about what they themselves do know – having experienced only the workings of their own mind and not anyone else’s.

Epistemological solipsism is in effect the epitome of agnosticism.

Apparently, your version of epistemological solipsism isn’t the “epitome of agnosticism” since you haven’t shown any skepticism or agnosticism at all regarding your supposed “knowledge” of what others can or cannot know. The “epitome of agnosticism” shouldn’t make such exorbitant claims about the limitations of other minds or other persons, since you have no access at all to those minds or what those persons can know. Your comments should be limited only to what you know about your own knowing, not about anyone else’s.

But, that having been said, an epistemological solipsist can be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or an atheist if they so choose. So long as they accept that outside of the existence of themselves, everything else must be accepted on faith.

Non sequitur. You wouldn’t have a clue what others ought or ought not “accept” about the possibilities of existence outside of those “selves.” As an epistemological solipsist, to be entirely consistent, you would have to admit that you have no idea about what others can or cannot accept by faith or knowledge, since you have no idea what the minds of others can or cannot know.

Your claims about others are pure overreach and completely undermined by the very premises by which you subscribe to epistemological solipsism.

By all rights and by your own presumptions, you should be off somewhere talking only to yourself, solipsist.