Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

10 Reasons Why Atheists Are Delusional

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Atheists/materialists/physicalist/naturalists are delusional. Here are 10 reasons why:

1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.

2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our body’s physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.

3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.

4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.

5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.

6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.

7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to “transcend” their “animal” nature.

8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like “transgenderism”.

9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all – either physically or intellectually.

10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.

Comments
Here is a good link for the C S Lewis song which was recorded in New Zealand: Brooke Fraser- “C S Lewis Song” http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DL6LPLNXbornagain77
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
ellazimm said:
I was trying to explain my disagreement and he decided I was trolling.
You are demonstrably lying EZ. In the other thread, you opened your comments by saying:
I’ve got this feeling you haven’t seen many mathematical proofs. But if I’m wrong I’d love to hear about your experience.
Note: you did not attempt to explain any disagreement with anything I said in that OP. I responded by reflecting your vague dismissal back at you, challenging you to explain your disagreement:
I’ve got this feeling you don’t have anything of substance to add to this thread. But if I’m wrong I’d love to hear your salient rebuttal to any point in the O.P.
Challenged to respond to any specific point of disagreement in detail, you responded:
I just want to know how much experience you’ve had with mathematical proofs. Why is that so hard to address?
That's two chances you had to explain your disagreement. I responded and warned:
How much experience I’ve had is irrelevant. Let’s assume I have none. What is germane to the argument is whether or not what I have argued is valid, not whether I have any experience in what it is I am arguing about. A valid argument made by a fool is still a valid argument nonetheless. Now, if you have a rebuttal or counter-argument to make about anything I’ve actually said or argued in this thread, feel free to present it and demonstrate my ignorant foolishness. Otherwise, stop trolling my thread.
Did Ellazimm respond by explaining her disagreement with any particular point in my OP? No:
I think your argument shows your inexperience, a lack of understanding. I think you don’t really grasp the systems you are discussing. You don’t build on work that has already been done. So I don’t take you seriously. It would be like me making a theological argument; I would quickly show my lack of ability.
That's the third time EZ avoided "explaining her disagreement". She continues this avoidance of explanation a fourth time:
Like I said, your lack of understanding shows. The questions you ask prove it.
I challenged her once again to explain her disagreement, and she replied with more of the same, which I removed from the thread. I never "banned" EZ from the thread; as far as I know he/she is free to explain her disagreement there. What nobody is free to do in my threads is troll. EZ says:
I don’t think mathematics is ‘true’ or objectively binding in the real world. I don’t know any mathematician who does think that.
When EZ balances her checkbook against bank records, then, and discovers that when the bank subtracted a check for $20 the balance, according to their records, went from $5000 to $3000, she won't call the bank to inform them of their mathematical error because, as EZ says, he/she doesn't think mathematics is "true' or objectively binding in the real world. When other mathematicians get some gas at the local gas station, and after putting 4 gallons in at $5 a gallon the clerk charges them $100 at the counter, they won't balk at the price because, as EZ claims, they don't consider mathematics "true" or "objectively binding" in the real world. Right? Nobody can get through the day, EZ, without assuming that at least some principles and equations of mathematics are objective true and universally binding arbiters of true statements about the world. To claim otherwise is to put one at odds with how they must behave in the world and is a form of delusional thinking. You're right to be careful, EZ. You've been demonstrated to be a liar and to avoid explanations in favor of trolling. Claiming that you are not trolling doesn't mean you are not trolling. You never "tried to explain your disagreement" despite having ample opportunity and being challenged to do that very thing.William J Murray
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT
New Zealand? A few of my favorite inspirational Christian songs are from a award winning singer from New Zealand. Those atheists down there must really love Christian music in order to have made her so popular in New Zealand and the world. :)
Brooke Fraser - Hillsong: “Lord Of Lords” Worship and Praise Song (HQ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlqDIfS4O3s Brooke Fraser - C. S. Lewis Song https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1206707769342154/?type=2&theater
Of related note to the C. S. Lewis song:
Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, “Hope”) The Argument From Desire Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever." http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm Peter Kreeft debates Richard Norman regarding the Argument for Desire on the excellent podcast episode of Unbelievable with Justin Brierley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ_yLsjxgyU
Also of related note to the 'argument from desire', the Christian Theist has far more scientific evidence for his belief in a heavenly paradise than the atheist has evidence for his belief in the multiverse. A completely unsubstantiated, and self refuting, multiverse that was basically invented in their collective imagination to try to 'explain away' the fine-tuning of the laws of the universe
Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences - video (reworked May 2016 – with following two videos referenced in it) https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1193118270701104/ (Entropic Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead is the correct solution for the "Theory of Everything" - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1121720701174195/?pnref=story Albert Einstein vs. "The Now" of Philosophers and of Quantum Mechanics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1129789497033982/?type=2&theater
bornagain77
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
I have a theory…. God is an All black supporter. With the most beautiful anthem that glorifies Him how can He not be?
Why would a Yorkshireman support the All Blacks?Bob O'H
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT
So Zeroseven does anyone have free willMarfin
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
HeKS
If that is the case, it might be helpful to state in what way you think it is a misrepresentation. As things stand, there is not really any way for WJM to respond to your comment other than to say that he thinks he disagrees with you.
I am being cautious. He banned me from another thread where a similar topic was discussed. I was trying to explain my disagreement and he decided I was trolling. I don't think mathematics is 'true' or objectively binding in the real world. I don't know any mathematician who does think that. Some aspects and areas of mathematics can be used to model some physical situations but a lot of mathematics has no real-world use whatsoever. And most of the mathematical models are only approximately correct. Why did you disparage Seversky's comment?ellazimm
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
Ellazimm, If that is the case, it might be helpful to state in what way you think it is a misrepresentation. As things stand, there is not really any way for WJM to respond to your comment other than to say that he thinks he disagrees with you.HeKS
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
WJM
5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.
I think that is a misrepresentation of mathematics and how it is applied. I'm not trolling or trying to derail the rest of your post. I'm just disagreeing with one small part, a part I know about.ellazimm
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT
ZeroSeven If everything is subective what exactly is the point of there being laws?Andre
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
Zeroseven, There's no rush required on any response, so if you decide you want to respond more fully later you are welcome to do so. As for my list, as I said, it was not exhaustive, but it covers a lot of the reasons I've seen for people deciding to describe themselves as atheists. As for yourself, you say you say that religion was just never part of your life and you never saw a need for it. I don't doubt you, but part of the reason you don't see any need for it is because, whether you recognize it or not, you live in a culture (Aus. and NZ are still considered part of "The West") that, in its modern form, has been so utterly suffused with religious (and specifically Christian) concepts of morality and ideas about human worth that they have simply become part of the fabric of your society, even after the logical and metaphysical foundation for those concepts have been abandoned. And this is true of all the other countries in the western world as well. Sure, societies may change around or adopt new views on specific social issues, but even then they are justified by appeal to moral ideals that were originally derived from Christianity and which have no ultimate foundation in its absence. In other words, what I'm saying here is that you should consider the possibly that the reason you've never felt a need for religion in your life is because it has already necessarily been so thoroughly influenced by religion at a foundational level. If it had not been, and if you were living in a culture that had not been so utterly molded by specifically Christian ideals (it's not hard to think of a few of these), you might find yourself a little less blasé about religion. Take care, HeKSHeKS
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
Heks "LOL. Priceless." Yes it is. Vividvividbleau
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
HeKS: Thanks for your kind words about NZ. I am indeed lucky to live in such a beautiful country. I am sorry that I don't have time to respond to you in depth as trying to wrap up the working day before the beginning of the working night...(aka kids). Just a couple of quick things that stood out. I don't see any conflict between not believing in objective morals, and believing people should abide by the law. I'm not an atheist for any of those reasons, and I don't think theists have inferior intellects (about from fundamentalist crackpots like Ken Ham). I just never had religion in my life, never had a need for it, never really came across it as I was growing up. And the more I have read and thought it about it as an adult, the more convinced I have become that it is nonsense.zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
WJM: 5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.
Seversky: The predictions of mathematics and logic can be verified against the reality they model like any other claims about what “is”. Implying that moral claims are in the same class is a category error.
LOL. Priceless.HeKS
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT
We see a theme here. At 28 I caught Clown Fish in a bold faced lie and I wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me that people like CF feel like they can say any damn thing they want, and when they get caught lying they just move on to the next damn thing as if they were not caught. I guess that’s what it means be to a subjectivist. The whole “thou shalt not bear false witness” thing becomes entirely optional.
Anyone who reads the exchanges between zeroseven and WJM will see the same thing going on. Zeroseven states something as an objective fact that is outrageously false. WJM catches him and exposes his lie. Then, as I said of CF at 30, "No acknowledgement; no apology; no mea culpa. Just move on to the next thing." Rarely have the materialists shown their complete and utter disregard for the truth in such a blatant and shameless way as they have in this thread.Barry Arrington
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
WJM @57
So, first Z7 calls the lip-service only life of not living as if what you believe is true a “profound” mental disorder and claims he “knows people that suffer from the kinds of delusions” (lip-service hypocrisy) HeKS describes. Then he turns around and asks “If one doesn’t live like a delusion is true, or only pays lip service to it, then how are they delusional??” Contradict yourself much, Z7?
Yes, quite true. I was wondering which claim I was supposed to respond to. Maybe they just cancel each other out. BTW, if Clark is vying for a role with the UN rather than just a position in NZ, that could explain why she isn't open about her atheism, even if zeroseven were correct about the widespread atheism of NZ. That said, I visited NZ in 2006 and didn't happen to notice that it was an unusually secular place based on my interactions with people, but I'm not sure how clearly something like that would really stand out. NZ is an absolutely beautiful country though. I definitely want to go back at some point. zeroseven, I would say the answer to your question in #50 is cognitive dissonance. For those types of atheists that WJM's OP is referring to (and it has been stated multiple times that it is not intended to apply to all atheists), they tell themselves intellectually that certain propositions about the world, the universe, their minds, etc. are true, but they largely live their lives as though they are not true. An atheist may claim that there's no such thing as objective morality, that nothing is truly good or bad, right or wrong, but when somebody robs them, or hits someone with their car and drives off, they get mad at the person for their actions and say they ought to be brought to justice. Or an atheist may say that people have no free will and that they don't really have thoughts that are about things, because that's impossible, but then they deride people for having different opinions than themselves, claim their own views are true, and criticize people for not accepting (their interpretation of) the evidence, almost as though they think people have thoughts that are about things, and the free will to change those thoughts through a process of rational deliberation, and some kind of moral responsibility to do so. Or an atheist may accuse a religious person of being irrational, claim to possess a superior intellect, and claim to simply care about evidence, logic and rationality and boast of a willingness to follow these wherever they lead, but when the logic starts to point in a direction that makes them uncomfortable they happily disavow logic itself, saying that there's no reason why reality should be a slave to logic. I've only been participating here for about a year and a half, but in that short time I've seen pretty much every one of the things WJM mentions happen here multiple times. I've had some discussions here that were so mind-bogglingly stupid that I can hardly believe they really happened, particularly relating to the third example I just mentioned above, where the atheists in the discussion started abandoning basic logic like they were trying to lighten the load on a sinking ship and logic was the heaviest item that wasn't nailed down. All this having been said, let's be clear here. There are very few atheists who seem to really believe the logically necessary implications of atheism. Those atheists who think about this issue seriously enough to clearly recognize the necessary implications and subsequently embrace those implications as 'true believers' are pretty few and far between, and even these ones typically admit that they can't actually live a life in harmony with these implications because it would be unbearable. Somewhat larger is the group of atheists who essentially pay lip-service to some of the implications that they find more palatable and/or which seem to play better in debates. Which of the implications fall into this category for any given person is, of course, subjective ... as is, apparently, absolutely everything else in existence. However, the vast majority of self-identified atheists are atheists for one or more of the following reasons: 1) They are told that smart people are atheists and they want to be smart too 2) They are told that science proves atheism 3) They are told that they should question everything except whatever "Science says", especially when it's saying that atheism is true 4) They are told by people who call themselves smart that people who believe in God are delusional, and they don't want to be delusional 5) They are told that they shouldn't believe anything unless there is good evidence for it, and then they are told that there is no evidence for God's existence and everyone who believes in God does so on the basis of blind faith 6) They are told that atheism is merely a "lack of belief in God" and so carries no burden of proof, which means they have no requirement to positively argue for atheism or rationally defend it by any means other than to assert that the theist has the entire burden of proof but no evidence. Having no understanding of how a burden of proof works, they proceed to ridicule a belief in God, say it is obviously stupid to believe in some old flying Sky Daddy, call theists delusional, accuse them of stupidly believing in "bronze age myths", but as soon as they are challenged to support their assertions they say, "No silly, I just lack a belief in the existence of God, I don't believe God doesn't exist, so I don't have to prove anything." (I wonder, do you see the problem with this?) 7) Bad stuff has happened to them or they've seen it happen to other people and they've come to the emotional conclusion that God doesn't exist. Of course, this list is not necessarily exhaustive, but it covers a lot of the ground. Most of these self-identified atheists, in my own experience talking to them elsewhere, both online and offline, do not have the first clue about the logical implications of an atheistic worldview. They have never thought seriously about the issue at all, with their atheism usually attributable to #1 and 5, or #7. Generally, they've heard soundbites and buzzwords about atheism being the choice of intellectuals and religion being the choice of gullible idiots and they've blindly jumped on the bandwagon, or else they've gone through bad times and decided God doesn't exist because of it.HeKS
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Zero Nope. I have thought that for a very long time the New Zealand anthem is one of the most beautiful anthems that glorify our Creator. That should.make you take a pause and understand that your country's foundations are imbedded in God.Andre
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Hi Andre, Given the Sprinbok's recent record against the All Blacks I can understand why you would think that.zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
William J Murray I should like to thank WJM for having marshaled such a fine body of strawmen for me to dispatch. It's uncommonly decent of him. I will begin by pointing out that atheists while sharing a lack of belief in any God or gods, are, like any other population, as diverse in their beliefs on many issues as any other large - and growing - group of people. Arguing that all, or even any, atheists hold such delusional beliefs is a form of stereotyping equivalent to my alleging that all Christians here subscribe to the same interpretation of the faith as the Westboro Baptist Church
Atheists/materialists/physicalist/naturalists are delusional. Here are 10 reasons why: 1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.
I believe that moral judgments are subjective preferences. I believe that if, as human beings, we find that we have a number of subjective preferences in common, such as preferring to live rather than die, then we have a basis for morality that needs no other warrant than the assent of those who are to be governed by it. Some atheists may take the position that they act as if morality is objective but I don't. In my view, we choose to observe a moral code out of respect for our own interests and those of others. It is similar, in principle, to the way players of a particular sport will abide by its rules during a game. You could argue that they are acting as if the rules are objective but it's really only because they want a good game. If everybody ignored the rules and did their own thing, there wouldn't be a game, just a free-for-all.
2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our body’s physical state and causative processing (free will), yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity exists.
We all have the appearance of having free will to some extent but how do we know if that appearance or sensation is not predetermined? There is also the problem of an omniscient God with demonstrable foreknowledge of the future rendering this appearance of free will an illusion. In practice all we can do is act as if we have free will and see where it gets us. And since when does free will have to be a metaphysical capacity?
3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.
I don't know that atheism necessarily entails any particular version of truth. I have always used the correspondence theory of truth in which the truth of any claim must be accessible to all.
4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.
We have never denied that human intelligent design can be identified reliably. Since we have no alien artefacts to work with, however, there is no way to determine at this time whether intelligent design in general can be reliably identified.
5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.
The predictions of mathematics and logic can be verified against the reality they model like any other claims about what "is". Implying that moral claims are in the same class is a category error.
6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.
How does the fact that we are natural creatures conflict in any way with the observations that human activities have had - and are continuing to have - a substantial impact on the environment?
7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to “transcend” their “animal” nature.
Well, yes. That is what we've been discussing at some length. You can't derive "ought" from "is". The fact that other animal species may behave in certain ways does not mean that we should do the same. So, yes, we decry the behavior of some which harms the interests and well-being of their fellows without good cause.
8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like “transgenderism”.
In my view, truth resides in the extent to which a claim or assertion or proposition or explanation of the observable world is observed to correspond to that which it purports to describe and explain. Moral prescriptions are a different class of claim.
9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all – either physically or intellectually.
There is no evidence of "spiritual laws that transcend the physical" and hence no reason to believe in such. And no one is insisting that human beings are all equal in all respects. We are insisting that all human beings be granted the same human rights and civil liberties, the same access to justice and equal treatment before the law. I presume you're doing the same.
10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.
So you don't believe all people should be treated equally regardless of their individual strengths and weaknesses, "the physical realty of human inequality"? Just what kind of society did you have in mind and how would it be just at all?Seversky
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
I have a theory.... God is an All black supporter. With the most beautiful anthem that glorifies Him how can He not be? God of Nations! at Thy feet, In the bonds of love we meet, Hear our voices we entreat, God defend our free land. Guard Pacific's triple star From the shafts of strife and war, Make her praises heard afar, God defend New Zealand. Men of every creed and race, Gather here before Thy face, Asking Thee to bless this place, God defend our free land From dissension, envy, hate, And corruption guard our State. Make our country good and great, God defend New Zealand. Peace, not war, shall be our boast, But, should foes assail our coast, Make us then a mighty host, God defend our free land Lord of battles, in Thy might, Put our enemies to flight, Let our cause be just and right, God defend New Zealand. Let our love for thee increase, May thy blessings never cease, Give us plenty, give us peace, God defend our free land. From dishonour and from shame, Guard our country's spotless name, Crown her with immortal fame, God defend New Zealand. May our mountains ever be Freedom's ramparts on the sea, Make us faithful unto Thee, God defend our free land. Guide her in the nations' van, Preaching love and truth to man, Working out Thy glorious plan, God defend New Zealand. Their success as a nation and a rugby team is very impressive. Supports my theory....Andre
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
Vivid: See above. There wouldn't be a need to lie about it in NZ. If she did, I don't know why. Once she put her signature on a painting and lied that she had painted it. I don't know why she did that either. And really, is there a big diff between Agnostic and atheist?zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
WJM at 59: I was talking about Helen Clark in her campaign to become the UN SG. She is not appealing to NZ voters there. If your agnosticism comment was when she was PM of NZ then I don't know why she would have said that. Certainly she wouldn't if she wouldn't feel a need to if she was campaigning to be elected in NZ today.zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
Zero For a lawyer you have a hard time following an argument. WJM writes "If all you say above is true, one then wonders why Helen Clark feels the need to lie about her atheism and refer to herself as an “agnostic”. See the logical problem there wrt the narrative you have painted about your country’s general atheism? Wouldn’t she be more likely to be elected if she just admitted she was an atheist and proclaimed it loudly and proudly?" Then you confirm it as if you are refuting it. I really think that atheists think they are so much smarter than theists that they just throw crap around as if they are saying something profound. Vividvividbleau
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
WJM, maybe those positions are contradictory. Maybe I thought further about what HeKS said. Maybe I changed my mind. Maybe I saw something from a different perspective. Your problem is you don't like the messiness of being a human being. Also my point was about a highly functioning and well-regarded country being delusional, not just any country. Clearly countries affected by religious fundamentalism (Iran, Saudi Arabia) are delusional, but they do not enjoy the high regard of the rest of the world.zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
Z7 said:
Vivid, yes, if his point was that politicians generally feel a need to present the version of themselves to the public that is most likely to get them voted in. Is that what being delusional means?
No, vivid. It means that if Clark had to cover up her atheism to get elected, and you characterize it as being "naive" to think she could get elected otherwise, then you must also know that NZ does not have, as you said, a "vast majority" of atheists, or else proclaiming her atheism would have been to her political advantage. You're the one being delusional claiming on one hand that your country is "by a vast majority" atheist while concurrently recognizing that only someone politically naive would think Clark's atheism was a political advantage.William J Murray
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Z7:
Really, you wonder why Helen Clark would not be fulsome in public about her atheism? I doubt if you are that naive.
You do realize you painted the population of NZ as having a "vast majority" of atheists, right? You do realize you called into doubt the Wiki statistics that contradicted that claim, right? You do realize that if what you claimed was true about NZ, then Helen Clark would certainly not have a problem stating she was an atheist to win an election there, right? You do realize that by asking me if I was "that naive", you are implicitly admitting that the population of NZ would likely never elect a self-admitted atheist, which directly contradicts your claims about NZ, showing that you must know your earlier claim about the atheism of NZ to be false. You're either a troll or you are delusional. Your country is not remotely "mostly atheist" or else Clark's atheism would be an advantage in the election, and you know this.William J Murray
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
Vivid, yes, if his point was that politicians generally feel a need to present the version of themselves to the public that is most likely to get them voted in. Is that what being delusional means?zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Further evidence of zeroseven's delusions: In 20, Z7 said:
It’s amazing how all those hundreds of millions of cognitively deficient, delusional atheists around the world seem to be able to live such successful and fulfilled lives. I guess they are the type of delusions and cognitive dissonances that don’t have any effect on the ability to live successful lives.
And in 33 said:
Well you have just diagnosed the vast majority of my fellow citizens as suffering from a psychiatric illness. I still find it amazing that a whole country could be infected with a psychiatric illness and yet still be so highly regarded in the world community. (And one of our most severely ill and deluded individuals may soon be the first female secretary general of the UN. Pretty good for someone suffering from an undiagnosed (well apart from your diagnosis) psychiatric illness).
Then turns around and says:
Eugen, the thing is, we (us atheists) regard you guys as delusional. Unlike WJM here I just don’t go around telling you all the time.
Z7 hold theisms to be a delusion, yet feigns "amazement" that "a whole country" and heads of state could be suffering from a delusion, when that is exactly what he thinks of whole populations and heads of state that are theistic believers. At 21, HeKS said:
Basically, yeah. Why? Because they don’t actually live like their delusions are true. They give lip service to the delusions and defend them with generally poor arguments. They claim that it is everyone else who is delusional for thinking differently. They often claim themselves to be the intellectual elite for holding to these delusions. But when their shift is over they go home and live their lives in a way that suggests they know just as well as everyone else these delusions are absurd.
At 22, Z7 responds:
What you are describing is a profound mental disorder. At the very least a serious personality disorder. I am quite familiar with the mental health profession and community. I know people who suffer from the kind of delusions you describe (for example gay people who have not come out of the closet). Generally there are further mental health consequences to living a life like that. I look around the country I live in where religion has retreated to the very fringes of public life and I don’t see a society suffering from the problems I would expect to see if what you say is true. Quite the opposite.
But then later changes his mind, at 50:
HeKS, just trying to parse your comment at 26. If one doesn’t live like a delusion is true, or only pays lip service to it, then how are they delusional? If I suffer under the delusion that I will die if I get wet, but nevertheless enjoy having baths and running around in the rain, how is that in any practical sense a delusion? I think I would call that being deluded as to being deluded. In other words, not deluded.
So, first Z7 calls the lip-service only life of not living as if what you believe is true a "profound" mental disorder and claims he "knows people that suffer from the kinds of delusions" (lip-service hypocrisy) HeKS describes. Then he turns around and asks "If one doesn’t live like a delusion is true, or only pays lip service to it, then how are they delusional??" You're contradicting yourself and destroying your own position, claims and arguments in a matter of minutes, Z7. You may be delusional.William J Murray
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Zero "Really, you wonder why Helen Clark would not be fulsome in public about her atheism? I doubt if you are that naive." You just confirmed WJMs point. Vividvividbleau
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
WJM: CF will back me up. He's been here.. Really, you wonder why Helen Clark would not be fulsome in public about her atheism? I doubt if you are that naive.zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
StephenB: that I have not addressed the 10 points doesn't mean I don't have an answer. Its just that they are not very interesting points, many are quite confused, and some of them based on false premises. Take number 6 for example. It's a false dichotomy. Why can't humans be a part of nature and also a threat to nature?zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply