Atheists delusional?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paddy1989
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paddy1989

Guest
I have spent a good while observing both the mindset behind the Christian world-view and the Naturalist world-view. My conclusion is that the Naturalist is delusional from both perspectives and i’ll explain why.

Either god exists or he doesn’t exist. Either it is true or it isn’t. 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. 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. 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? Well if the objective truth states 2+2=4 can i subjectively state that 2+2=5, no that would be irrational and thats exactly what the atheist does by trying to impose their subjective truth over an objective truth. They are subjectively stating that life has meaning and value when the objective truth is that life has no meaning and value and purpose.

Now if God does exist and the universe does have an objective purpose, meaning and value intended by it’s creator then the christian is being consistent with the objective truth and is quite rational. The atheist is no longer in complete delusion but merely partially because they live their life in consistency with the objective truth that life has meaning, purpose and value, how ironic. The reason why they are still in partial delusion is while yes their subjective truth is now consistent with the objective truth, the foundations of them thinking this way is subjective not objective. In actual fact they would still think that the universe and everything in it has no objective meaning, purpose and value.

Now if a Naturalist recognizes the objective truth that there is no purpose, meaning and value and lives consistently with that then they are only delusional if God exists. If God does not exist they are the rational ones and Christians the delusional ones. My point however is you’ll always get the Atheist who says there is no meaning to life and purpose, we give it meaning and value ourselves, in other words the objective truth is too hard to bear so i’m going to live in ignorance of it.

If i’m in error here please point it out as this is something that has been swirling around in my head for quite a while so i’d like to hear different points of view. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Anyone can be delusional. It doesn’t take non-belief in God. Who knows. Some of us Catholics might be delusional.
 
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
 
Last edited:
Paddy1989 said:
Now if a Naturalist recognizes the objective truth that there is no purpose, meaning and value and lives consistently with that then they are only delusional if God exists. If God does not exist they are the rational ones and Christians the delusional ones. My point however is you’ll always get the Atheist who says there is no meaning to life and purpose, we give it meaning and value ourselves, in other words the objective truth is too hard to bear so i’m going to live in ignorance of it.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Because they life contrary to the truth that life has no objective meaning, value and purpose. When they choose to give their life subjective meaning it’s in contradiction of the objective truth that life has no meaning, purpose and value. Do you not see the delusion
 
Last edited:
It is not a delusion because they fully acknowledge the impermanence, subjectivity and relative nature of the meaning they give.
 
Yes but my point is that the objective truth is that life has no meaning, purpose and value. They acknowledge this truth and yet subjectively believe they have purpose, meaning and value. That would be like a Theist who acknowledged the objective truth that God doesn’t exist but subjectively believed in him anyway. It’s irrational
 
It is not at all like that because they do not believe in an ultimate meaning just their little personal meaning.
 
Paddy1989 said:
I have spent a good while observing both the mindset behind the Christian world-view and the Naturalist world-view. My conclusion is that the Naturalist is delusional from both perspectives and i’ll explain why.
Click to expand...
I enjoyed you post. It reminded me of something silly AND something serious.

The silly, “The evangelical (one who encourages those to join) Atheist invites us to the Atheist funeral, ‘All dressed-up and no place to go!’”

The serious:
Cornelius Van Til pioneered (well in the 20th century he was the guy) a branch of apologetics known as “Presuppositional Apologetics.” David Hume (who is generally viewed as an atheist) gives Van Til his jumping off point. “The Problem of Induction.” For Hume and the Atheist, there is no valid reason to believe that that nature is homogeneous over time or space. What happens in America may not happen under the same experimental conditions in England. What happened in 1700 may not be repeatable in 2018. Van Til suggests that until the Atheist can solve the problem of induction, all of their arguments are flawed by this foundational problem. Van Till then claims that because all space-time has its basis in the rational mind of God, his appeal to God using Kant’s “Transcendental argument” is valid in ways Kant didn’t recognize (and Hume’s followers reject from their Atheist perspective).

I am sure the above summary is between poor and fair, but you can read about Van Til on the Internet or read books by him or John M. Frame.

Eventually Atheists refused to debate Van Til which was taken by many of his followers to mean that his arguments were unaddressable.
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi. Which is delusional. It’s just as delusional as if you were to subjectively say your life has intrinsic value and i subjectively say your life has measurable value as long as it doesn’t inconvenience my happiness. Objectively speaking we are both wrong but subjectively speaking we are both correct just as i may say that caramel ice cream is tasty and you may say chocolate. It’s just subjective opinion. We’re just inventing meaning to something that objectively has no meaning. Thats my point. A animal that defends it’s life will value it’s life above anything else, it’s life like ours has no objective value, meaning or purpose but it’s in survival mode and is simply doing what it needs to do to survive. Someone giving subjective meaning and purpose and value to their life is evolution’s way of getting that person to fight for their survival through the faculties by which they are given, the intellect. It’s delusional to think otherwise
 
Last edited:
If a subjective belief contradicts an objective truth it is irrational. For example 2+2=4 is objectively true, if i said i subjectively believe 2+2=5 it is my subjective opinion but it contradicts an objective truth. The error in the naturalist being that they accept that life objectively has no purpose, meaning and value and yet subjectively believe it does. The naturalist just has to look at evolution to see why this delusion appeals to them. It helps them survive
 
Let’s say that I do not beleive in any ultimate meaning or purpose. Is it irrational for me to want my wife to survive chemotherapy because she contributes to Some meaning and purpose in my life?
 
If your wife is going through that i’m very sorry to hear mate. My belief is that Life has intrinsic value because we are created by God, your life, my life. Your wife’s life etc. Under the naturalist world-view i must stress however that there is no objective, meaning and purpose to life and if your subjective opinion contradicts that then yes that is irrational, it can be easily explained by evolution giving someone the faculty of intelligence in the first place to do all they can to survive. If an animal needs to value it’s life to survive then that will be the outcome
 
Thanks for your concern but my wife is fine. That was some hypothetical atheist. I think as long as the meaning is recognized as personal and transitory, not ultimate nor intrinsic, then there is no delusion.

We, however, as believers, if we are wrong and there is no God, yet we beleive, is that a delusion?
 
If we believe in God but in the end there is no God then yes we are delusional. We are not delusional if there is a God because we would be consistent with the truth. Christians believe that being consistent with both Truth and happiness is inseparable. The naturalist will believe that being consistent with both Truth and happiness is impossible for if naturalism is true then who could accept the Truth that there is no objective meaning, purpose and value to life and still be happy. They are forced to choose personal happiness and build meaning and value to their life from subjectivity because they would rather be happy than live by the objective truth. For the Christian, truth leads to happiness
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top