Atheists delusional?

[IWantGod]

Atheism is like being invited to a party that God is the creator of. Once you get there, you eat all the food and enjoy the company of the women and the laughter of the brothers and the pleasure of being alive. You even see fights and wars there, and poor health among some of the guests. And yet still you enjoy yourself and would prefer to be there than not. And when its all done you walk towards the door to leave. Somebody stops you and asks “Are you not going to give thanks and praise to the host for the pleasure you enjoyed?”. You reply " I can’t see him, he does not exist". Then the man asks, “but then who brought all the food and the beauty and the good things we see”. The atheist replies “it just exists for no reason.” and walks out.

In other-words, the atheists complains about the bad, but they fail to recognize any true value or meaning in the good beyond it’s utility to them. They fail to see the true sacredness of existence, and instead it just becomes a free lunch at God’s expense.

The Atheist thinks he is just being reasonable, But by not recognizing the objective value of the people at the party he has in fact insulted all the guests.

To me personally, absolute atheism, especially in times of suffering, is not only an unreasonable reaction, it’s an insult to anyone who has ever lived on the face of this planet and it’s an insult to every child that is born…

 

[abucs]

Yes, when people say atheists are delusional the word delusional is not meant to be a slur. The word has a definition and it is supposed to be a description of a way of thought.

Cannot atheism properly be called the philosophy of delusion?

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

 

[TheOldColonel]

According to atheists, people like me believe in imaginary beings. Therefore, I insist atheists prove their existence to me before I’ll listen to them. So far, I’m not convinced their real.

 

[FiveLinden]

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.

My sense of self-worth comes from doing my best to do good for others, by which I mean seeking their happiness and upholding their rights - rights which come from democratic consensus. Calling my decisions a ‘fantasy’ and ‘a contrivance’ is a most unpleasant way of discussing my conclusions about the world and, I think, not in line with the values you express.

 

[IWantGod]

My sense of self-worth comes from doing my best to do good for others, by which I mean seeking their happiness and upholding their rights - rights which come from democratic consensus. Calling my decisions a ‘fantasy’ and ‘a contrivance’ is a most unpleasant way of discussing my conclusions about the world and, I think, not in line with the values you express.

It most certainly is a contrivance if you know there is no good and yet expect me to believe that you are doing good. The reason i say that is because there is no such thing as good or evil, there are only physical objects and physical mechanisms if metaphysical naturalism is true. Your behavior in the world has no true meaning.

Perhaps you do it because you get pleasure from it, and that’s if it is even meaningful to say that you choose to do anything at all. I would most certainly call you delusional if you said you do it because one ought to do it or because it is truly good. But maybe it is truly pleasurable to you, and good is just a word you give to that which has some kind of utility value. A person may like killing people and therefore for him that is good because of the pleasure he gets from it. In that sort of world, might makes right i suppose.

 

[IWantGod]

My sense of self-worth comes from doing my best to do good for others, by which I mean seeking their happiness and upholding their rights - rights which come from democratic consensus. Calling my decisions a ‘fantasy’ and ‘a contrivance’ is a most unpleasant way of discussing my conclusions about the world and, I think, not in line with the values you express.

It most certainly is a contrivance if you know there is no good and yet expect me to believe that you are doing good. The reason i say that is because there is no such thing as good or evil, there are only physical objects and physical mechanisms if metaphysical naturalism is true. Your behavior in the world has no true meaning. So it most certainly is a fantasy if you think that your actions truly have moral value. People might like your behavior, because of what they value, but that is not the same thing as recognizing moral truth… It’s not actually true that cutting off somebodies head is wrong, but it is true that it’s not liked by most people, just like some people don’t like cheese and pickle…

Perhaps you do it because you get pleasure from it, and that’s if it is even meaningful to say that you choose to do anything at all. I would most certainly call you delusional if you said you do it because one ought to do it or because it is truly good. But maybe it is truly pleasurable to you, and good is just a word you give to that which has some kind of utility value. A person may like killing people and therefore for him that is good because of the pleasure he gets from it. In that sort of world, might makes right i suppose.

 

[FiveLinden]

It most certainly is a contrivance if you know there is no good and yet expect me to believe that you are doing good. The reason i say that is because there is no such thing as good or evil, there are only physical objects and physical mechanisms if metaphysical naturalism is true. Your behavior in the world has no true meaning. So it most certainly is a fantasy if you think that your actions truly have moral value. People might like your behavior, because of what they value, but that is not the same thing as recognizing moral truth… It’s not actually true that cutting off somebodies head is wrong, but it is true that it’s not liked by most people, just like some people don’t like cheese and pickle…

Perhaps you do it because you get pleasure from it, and that’s if it is even meaningful to say that you choose to do anything at all. I would most certainly call you delusional if you said you do it because one ought to do it or because it is truly good. But maybe it is truly pleasurable to you, and good is just a word you give to that which has some kind of utility value. A person may like killing people and therefore for him that is good because of the pleasure he gets from it. In that sort of world, might makes right i suppose.

No, you see there was this thing called the enlightenment. People talked about what we needed to be happy and over the years we developed these ideas. The US constitution was one of its fruits. As was democracy. And freedom of religion. We realised we did not need to attribute ideas of ‘right and wrong’ to a ‘god’ or ‘gods’ but could make our own decisions. Your caricature of those of us who do not believe is unreasonable. I would say offensive, or in your terms ‘uncharitable’ but I am so used to it it no longer has an emotional impact on me. Non-believers as you believe us to be: amoral, uncaring and unthinking are imagined beings you have created to contrast with yourself and your own beliefs.

 

[IWantGod]

No, you see there was this thing called the enlightenment. People talked about what we needed to be happy and over the years we developed these ideas.

No, i am aware of that. What you are falling to see is that doesn’t mean that something is morally true. I would hope you do good because you believe that its actually true that such and such is good. Not because you get pleasure from it and others agree with you and call it good simply for that reason.

 

[Seeksadvice]

To me, moral nihilism means that there is no universal right/wrong. What is right/wrong is a product of society and associated social pressures/norms/etc. Kind of a strange philosophy for a prosecutor, but eh, I looked at the job as doing what is necessary to keep things from imploding.

I guess what led me to that conclusion for a long time was the comparison between groups regarding the reaction to the same type of behavior. Let’s take the US revolution. To Americans, the participants were/are generally considered heroes and those who supported England traitors and other things. To the English it was the reverse. See also, Nathan Hale vs. Benedict Arnold.

Churchill once said that, basically, history would be kind to him because he intended to write it.

The Arab jihadi is either a terrorist, or a glorious martyr, depending on who you ask.

 

[IWantGod]

Non-believers as you believe us to be: amoral, uncaring and unthinking are imagined beings you have created to contrast with yourself and your own beliefs.

You can only claim you are good if there is actually such thing. Otherwise it’s just a meaningless, a fantasy.at best.

 

[IWantGod]

To me, moral nihilism means that there is no universal right/wrong. What is right/wrong is a product of society and associated social pressures/norms/etc. Kind of a strange philosophy for a prosecutor, but eh, I looked at the job as doing what is necessary to keep things from imploding.

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then this is true for all our personal concepts, not just the ones about morality…

 

[FiveLinden]

No, i am aware of that. What you are falling to see is that doesn’t mean that something is morally true. I would hope you do good because you believe that its actually true that such and such is good. Not because you get pleasure from it and others agree with you and call it good simply for that reason

“Morally” true? What does that mean? No I do not do good for pleasure. It is a calumny to say that atheists in general act for that reason. "Good’ can agreed by people. It’s called freedom and democracy, two things that do not derive from religion, but from its rejection.

 

[FiveLinden]

You can only claim you are good if there is actually such thing. Otherwise it’s just a meaningless, a fantasy.at best.

Good can be something we agree. Why do we need a god to tell us what it is?

 

[IWantGod]

Good can be something we agree. Why do we need a god to tell us what it is?

All you are telling me here is that a group of people agree they like something. That does not tell me that someone ought to do or ought not do something.

God is the creator of all that is, thus if anybody should know what is right and what is wrong it is God.

 

[FiveLinden]

All you are telling me here is that a group of people agree they like something. That does not tell me that someone ought to do or ought not do something.

God is the creator of all that is, thus if anybody should know what is right and what is wrong it is God.

Yes but if there is no god or gods then agreeing is the best we can do. And where I live most people think there is no god. But nearly all of agree pretty much on what good consists of.

 

[Curious11]

Cannot atheism properly be called the philosophy of delusion?

No, it can’t. That’s disrespectful. I’d be flagged and likely suspended if I went about calling Catholics delusional in this forum. So don’t be hypocrites.

Besides, you literally have ZERO proof God exists, so the fact that you claim lack of belief is delusional reflects an arrogance that is, quite frankly, uncalled for and unfit for someone who claims to follow Jesus.

 

[IWantGod]

But nearly all of agree pretty much on what good consists of.

No; nearly all of you agree on what you like with perhaps some small differences.

 

[abucs]

Thanks for your explanation.

 

[Curious11]

glorification of absolute atheism as a rational decision is laughable

Says who, you? God’s existence is a hypothesis, an untestable hypothesis. Believing God does not exist based on lack of any signs that point to his existence is perfectly rational. Whether it makes you feel good is another story, but running down atheists doesn’t make you right.

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.

I cannot believe this is coming from someone who believes in an unproven deity, has dogmatic beliefs about it and plans their life around what that deity will think about their actions and thoughts. Atheists, at least, don’t claim that their views on purpose are objective and universal, Christians do. Atheists don’t delude themselves, if anything Christians are more likely to, since their “objective purpose” is just as unproven as any other religion.

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…

Who said atheists wouldn’t want a world with a good God? Who said they celebrate the lack of God? Christians themselves say you can’t be a Christian to feel good, but because you think it’s true. Humans have dignity without God, we’re just not the center of the universe, we’re not the best thing to ever occur since water was invented. Besides, you’d have to question how exactly scaring people to death with hell enhances the dignity of a person…

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.

Again, according to who, you? Reaching a conclusion you don’t like is not, despite what you seem to hope, the same thing as being unreasonable. Besides, can you convince God is not a nihilist? He seems to be pretty liberal when the moment comes to decide who lives and who does, even ordering and permitting genocides an embarrassingly large number of times. Is that part of his cosmic plan to enhance the dignity of a person?

 

[IWantGod]

Besides, you literally have ZERO proof God exists,

That’s not true. Besides metaphysical arguments for God, there is the moral argument. If you have ever experienced something that is immoral, you know like setting a house on fire and watching an innocent family burn inside, you know, real evil, then i don’t think you would be saying that right and wrong is just subjective, and i don’t think you could reasonably argue that an objective standard doesn’t exist.

Then it just comes down to the honesty of the atheist at that point who has decided to become a member of a forum that can offer no reason for him or her to convert.

.