Atheists delusional?

[abucs]

Atheist/ agnostic here,

I really enjoyed your post, but would like to make one argument. The assumption that atheists are delusional if they try and find meaning in the world without a belief in God, or that they believe in any such thing as objective truth doesn’t seem right to me. Is God the only thing in the universe that gives it order and meaning? To believers, this might be the case, but I think that many Atheists think that there is a natural order to things, whether it exists solely in nature, or is a result of the human condition. I don’t know what the truth is, but I do think that there are objective morals and laws which we should all strive towards if we want to coexist peacefully.

Where does the objectivity in the world come from? You got me there. I think that you might have a more fully fleshed out and more concrete answer than I do. If your answer gives you comfort and helps you to find meaning in the world, that’s great, I’m actually jealous! I don’t think (all) atheists and agnostics are delusional, although I’m know many of them are. I think that the search for truth should be encouraged, but unfortunately it seems that many of us arrive at different “truths”. Please, don’t think that I am delusional because I find meaning in different places than you, I certainly don’t think that you are delusional for believing in God.

Cheers!

Hi Wookash,

not sure if it was me that you wanted to respond to your post or IWantGod. I am happy to respond if it was me, or people in general but I don’t want to intrude if you are wanting to converse with someone else.

Regards.

 

[Wookash]

Oh gosh, my intent was to respond to the original post. I don’t know how things work around here yet! You wouldn’t be intruding if you commented at all, any response is welcome!

 

[abucs]

Hi Wookash,

not sure if it was me that you wanted to respond to your post or IWantGod. I am happy to respond if it was me, or people in general but I don’t want to intrude if you are wanting to converse with someone else.

Regards.

Sorry for the confusion. There are two ‘Reply’ buttons. One for each post and one at the very bottom. You used the one at the bottom which is the general reply so I apologise I did not know who you were responding to.

I agree with a lot of your post. I think a search for truth and meaning is very important and it is good for as many as possible to join in that search and to interact as amiable as possible so that we can learn from each other.

My contribution was to critique the materialist atheist view of the world that all that exists is matter (energy) and scientific law. From this viewpoint free will cannot exist and people are living their daily lives in deterministic and pre-ordained fashion.

So for example this thinking would suggest I am writing this post only because the visual stimuli of your post started a chain reaction of uncontrollable atomic reactions in my brain and my post is the result. In such an atheistic theory there is no free will.

I pointed out that in such a theory if anyone acts in a way that they believe they have free will then they are being delusional as judged by that very philosophy.

So for example if I say that tonight I am going to choose to write on the internet and choose to think heavily about the reality of existence then under the materialistic atheist philosophy I am deluding myself.

I do not have choice under that philosophy.

I don’t argue that it is not a good thing to do or a valuable thing to do or something that the atheist should not do but rather under the atheist philosophy of materialism such thinking that you are choosing to this or choosing to accept more reasoned arguments over others is properly defined as a delusion.

One is deluded if we think we have choice under the atheist materialist philosophy. Because we all live our lives under the working assumption we are choosing things all the time then under such a philosophy we are all deluded, including the atheist.

That was my point.

Regards.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

No, I don’t think that’s it. Much of the current atheist movement is the result of a “educational” system that doesn’t educate, blovating “entertainers” that are barely entertaining, and, most of all, a Western Church which abandoned its mission. Do any of these trends exist in the Islamic world? In Orthodox Christian nations, like Russia? I think not. Nations are populated by individuals that chose to tolerate what makes up those given nations and western Christianity has decided to not care about these trends, or to put up token resistance and pretend to play martyr when criticized. This is happening with our permission, period.
What history are you referring to? It wasn’t all bad. Much of it was good, such as, vocational charities, ideas on human rights that didn’t exist in the classical world, providing an adhesive effect which bound people together like never before and on and on. If you mention the Crusades then you already lost the argument because that was more complex then people care to admit. I could be wrong but this is all happening with our permission, if I am please tell me how.

 

[abucs]

Hello Centrist. I do think it is largely the replacement of Christianity in the school system that has percolated all through society.

I has been a deliberate policy and for many reasons the replacement religion of political correctness is in the ascendancy. I do not see this changing until political correctness is severely challenged which will then percolate back through society - politics, corporations, civil discourse, community associations, media and of course education.

I agree the Church has not done very well (to put it mildly) in such circumstances. It does look like capitulation and surrender under the false banner of tolerance and togetherness.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

You are on to something. I never read the book but I saw an interview with him on YouTube. You even mentioned many things I failed to. Whatever the source of these transformations I cannot help but to suggest the we we the source of it ourselves. Not enough people stepped up and “no, we’re not going to be doing that” and so here we are. I could be wrong but I blame us ourselves.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

People are already beginning to challenge it, thank God. Hopefully PC has reached its apex and is now beginning to decline. I strongly believe that this could be the case because it really doesn’t do anything to keep a nation together and only creates a dependent population of “victims” looking for the next best thing, rather than clinging to what has worked for millennia.
The Church, any church, has an obligation to stand up to evil but the Church has failed to do this. This is terrible because if the Church hadn’t failed and actually led the Western world after World War II I am certain that things would be very different today.
You may be right in what you say and I can see no reason as to why you are not.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

I still say too that we are the delusional ones for allowing all of this to happen.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

Around minute 23, he’ll show a simulation of fields in empty space-time.

And how does that prove that the universe exists without a cause?

The clue is in the “empty space-time” bit.
Coupled with the knowledge that those fluctuations you saw in that video can produce particles.

Can you imagine what happens to empty space-time if many such particles and their anti- variants are simultaneously randomly generated?

 

[IWantGod]

Okay, God didn’t cause the big bang, but what has that got to do with causing something to exist. Physics doesn’t deal with the same qeustion that metaphysics deals with. Nothing you have presented suggests to me that physical reality is existentially necessary, but it does suggest that the big-bang was an inevitable product of physical laws.

 

[pocaracas]

Okay, God didn’t cause the big bang, but what has that got to do with causing something to exist. Physics doesn’t deal with the same qeustion that metaphysics deals with. Nothing you have presented suggests to me that physical reality is existentially necessary, but it does suggest that the big-bang was an inevitable product of physical laws.

Perhaps you’re right.
But what is something? Matter and energy?
Is empty space-time something?
If space-time itself can generate matter and energy, is god required for anything?
What is the metaphysical matter that requires a god to address?
Existential necessity? I can’t say existence is necessary, but it is patent.

 

[IWantGod]

Existential necessity? I can’t say existence is necessary, but it is patent

There must be an act of existence that exists necessarily since you cannot get something from absolutely nothing without an existential cause (in other-words, by the word “cause” i mean a being that can make some possible or potential reality an actual-reality.) Things exist, thus it must be true that an existentially necessary being exists.

There is clearly such a thing as potential realization, a movement from possibility to actual-existence. Thus we cannot apply the concept of necessary-existence to everything that happens to exist without ending up in a contradiction.

In order to prove that metaphysical naturalism is true, the first thing you have to do is show that physical reality is necessary existence. You cannot demonstrate that with the scientific method. You can only prove it by showing us that physical reality is logically necessary and thus metaphysically necessary.

Assuming that you could achieve such a feat, that of course would not disprove the concept of a supernatural existence, but it would most certainly render Christianity irrelevant in so far as a Creator-God is concerned .

But as far as i can tell, the complete opposite has occurred. Metaphysical naturalism has been proven false and therefore it’s opposite is necessarily true. In other-words a necessary non-physical cause of physical existence exists…

 

[IWantGod]

If space-time itself can generate matter and energy, is god required for anything?

Putting the possibility of miracles aside, all activity that is fundamentally physical in nature arises out of the laws of physics; that i cannot deny. Thus in a very particular sense God is not required as an explanation, and in that context, any further explanation is properly the domain of science.

I believe in secondary causality. I don’t believe that every kind of cause pertains to the possibility of existing, but rather some causes pertain only to the way a thing exists while it’s existing, it’s behavior and the qualities it produces in particular in reference to everything else. In other-words, God designed the laws of physics, and then everything that came after the fact were according to the laws of physics. But i don’t think that physical reality in general can exist without God’s will.

 

[IWantGod]

Perhaps you’re right.

I am right.

 

[IWantGod]

But what is something? Matter and energy?

Well, if it is not nothing at all, then it most certainly has an act of existing.

 

[pocaracas]

There must be an act of existence that exists necessarily since you cannot get something from absolutely nothing without an existential cause (in other-words, by the word “cause” i mean a being that can make some possible or potential reality an actual-reality.) Things exist, thus it must be true that an existentially necessary being exists.

Why do you say “a being”?
That word alone implies an animalesque entity.
I fail to see how space-time cannot do all that you claim this being does.

There is clearly such a thing as potential realization, a movement from possibility to actual-existence. Thus we cannot apply the concept of necessary-existence to everything that happens to exist without ending up in a contradiction.

That applies to things within the Universe, yes… and, according to physics, they actually entail transfer of energy… but everything that exists now existed right after the big bang, merely in a different energetic configuration.
Does it apply to the Universe itself?

In order to prove that metaphysical naturalism is true, the first thing you have to do is show that physical reality is necessary existence. You cannot demonstrate that with the scientific method. You can only prove it by showing us that physical reality is logically necessary and thus metaphysically necessary.

Like I said, physical reality is patent. Existence is patent.
To me, necessary means that it would have to happen regardless of anything (is this what you mean by it?). If everything is deterministic, then yes. If the singularities can be non-deterministic, then no.
Ultimately, we do no know how these things work.

But as far as i can tell, the complete opposite has occurred. Metaphysical naturalism has been proven false and therefore it’s opposite is necessarily true. In other-words a necessary non-physical cause of physical existence exists…

It’s not the first time you talk about this proof… can you point me to that proof? Or perhaps type it out here yourself?

I believe in secondary causality. I don’t believe that every kind of cause pertains to the possibility of existing, but rather some causes pertain only to the way a thing exists while it’s existing, it’s behavior and the qualities it produces in particular in reference to everything else. In other-words, God designed the laws of physics, and then everything that came after the fact were according to the laws of physics. But i don’t think that physical reality in general can exist without God’s will.

You are certainly free to believe that.
I don’t believe it, though.

 

[IWantGod]

Like I said, physical reality is patent. Existence is patent.

I don’t understand what you mean by patent? If you mean physical reality has to exist and cannot not exist; you have provided no evidence of that. You can at least have the curtsy of being agnostic.

To me, necessary means that it would have to happen regardless of anything

You are talking about something necessarily doing something like moving from one state to another necessarily. I am talking about something that is not a realization of some potentiality, but rather something that “exists” necessarily and therefore cannot not exist. It cannot be something that potentially exists, it cannot be a sequence of potential actualities…

For example, if the universe was necessarily actual, it would never have been a potential actuality. It would just exist with no change in its existence because everything that it already is would be necessarily real.

That applies to things within the Universe, yes… and, according to physics, they actually entail transfer of energy… but everything that exists now existed right after the big bang, merely in a different energetic configuration.

Does it apply to the Universe itself?

Physical reality is physical reality regardless of what state its in. The fact that it has potential states, one of them being our universe, is evidence against the necessity of it’s existence

You are certainly free to believe that.

I don’t believe it, though.

I don’t just believe it, i know it’s true.because the alternative is impossible.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

Like I said, physical reality is patent. Existence is patent.

I don’t understand what you mean by patent? If you mean physical reality has to exist and cannot not exist; you have provided no evidence of that. You can at least have the curtsy of being agnostic.

I thought I’d made it clear that I think we cannot know if physical reality has to exist. We just know that it does exist. It patently exists.

I am talking about something that is not a realization of some potentiality, but rather something that “exists” necessarily and therefore cannot not exist. It cannot be something that potentially exists, it cannot be a sequence of potential actualities…

So, something that exists regardless of anything… a bit in line with my previous sentence, but I can see the slight difference in need of clarification.

Physical reality is physical reality regardless of what state its in. The fact that it has potential states, one of them being our universe, is evidence against the necessity of it’s existence

That the Universe came about from some other state is well known.
How exactly and what that other state is, however, is unknown.

pocaracas:

You are certainly free to believe that.

I don’t believe it, though.

I don’t just believe it, i know it’s true.because the alternative is impossible.

Why is it impossible?

 

[Russell_SA]

As an Atheist - couple of definitions as I use them:
Theism and Gnosticism are different descriptive points on a spectrum.
Theism and atheism address your beliefs/conclusions/convinced-of about an idea.
Gnosticism and Agnosticism address your knowledge about an idea.
Knowledge is a subset of beliefs.
Beliefs are what instructs our actions.

Atheism is a single position on a single question: Do you believe/are-convinced that the supernatural exists? No, No I do not. That’s it, that’s all it is. There are no world views of atheism, no leaders, tenants, rule books, etc.
The inability of someone to convince you of their point does not mean your point is still not correct or that it is correct or that other points to take are now to be taken up. Just that your reasons for holding your belief about an idea are not enough for someone else to be convinced of that conclusion. This can vary based on the idea being discussed. Such as claiming to have a pet dog vs claiming to have a pet dragon.
Example: jar of marbles that no one can investigate. The theist claims that there is an even number of marbles and in-fact there are 72 marbles. The atheist does not believe the theist is justified in that conclusion so does not believe that there is an even number of marbles. Does this mean they believe there is an odd number of marbles? No, No it does not. If someone came after the theist and claimed there is an odd number of marbles, the atheist would not believe them either. The statement, “I do not believe X” is not the same as “I believe X is false.” There is also no middle ground between what you believe and don’t believe. You either believe there is an even number of marbles or you don’t. You can’t hold simultaneous claims of believing an even number of marbles and an odd number of marbles or an even number of marbles and an unknown even or odd number of marbles.
So you can be an agnostic theist/atheist or a gnostic theist/atheist.
So as an atheist, what would convince me that the supernatural exists? I don’t know. It’s like asking someone what would it take to change their understanding that this reality does actually have magical power to be discovered like your D&D mage would have. That’s what the theists are coming across as. People that have taken their D&D priest character a little too seriously. Extraordinary claims that shift the fundamental understanding of our reality by this amount must have that level of evidence to support it. Your deity should know what it would take for me to believe it exists and is either choosing not to or can not do so. Either way, not my problem.
Once we can demonstrate that the supernatural exists, it just becomes a natural explanation. Just like how once the religious claimed supernatural involvement for lightning bolts but once we understood how lighting bolts work, it just became a natural explanation. Supernatural is the label we seem to use for the unknown in our world just like we use alternative medicine for its unresearched curing properties. But once we researched the willow bark to extract its blood thinning properties it just became medicine, aka Aspirin.
But to your points…

 

[Russell_SA]

“If God doesn’t exist then there is no objective purpose meaning and value to the universe and everything in it, everything just is.” - Why should I care what meaning or purpose your deity wants the universe and everything in it to have verse what I think this meaning is verse what anyone else thinks the meaning is and what makes you think the idea of a deity and meaning of the universe are linked? Why have you dismissed the idea of creation for its sake aka the clockwork deity? You seem to be starting out by painting the target around your arrow here.

“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.”
What’s wrong with being mistaken? If this is what reality is presenting to you, then you are tentatively justified in holding that conclusion. But you have to keep trying to break your understanding to continue to justify your grounding conclusions. Children are not delusional because they believe in santa. Their reality points to a santa. Their parents are teaching them to think about how to justify a santa without teaching them the problems of the idea of a santa. If you’re never exposed to proper current processes for testing your conclusions, you will keep being labeled as gullible by the charlatans out there.

"by subjectively creating purpose and meaning to their life and live contrary to the objective truth there is no meaning and value. "
There is no justification for meaning beyond what we can understand. Just like a car will ultimately rust away, but it has meaning here and now. It can provide us a better life by taking us to a better job, by taking us out on a date with our girlfriend or boyfriend. You need to point out why meaning on a limited time scale for beings who live a limited time scale is not valid. Otherwise your whole point about “ultimate meaning” is just - this is not a reality I would like, so I’m going to invent a solution to solve a problem about reality that I don’t like. Well how reality actually is has no bearing no how you wish it to be.

“The atheist here is being delusional as well 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?”
Objectivity vs subjectivity - As I understand it, you can only have objective good or bad when you reference a specific problem. There may be multiple subjective good responses, but you can have an objective bad response. Such as nutrition for example. It is subjectively good to eat an apple or a pear for nutrition (unless you’re allergic to one), but it is objectively bad to drink battery acid if the goal is human nutrition.