| |
| Are atheists delusional? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| VitalOne |
 Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:41 am Post subject: Are atheists delusional? |
 |
|
Banned (Trolling)
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 133
Location: US
|
To be delusional means to have false belief
It is an undeniable objective fact that modern science is not the actual truth, rather it's a highly inaccurate incomplete image of what the truth is. Science is a very useful tool, but not the actual truth. This is because modern science can only determine what's within empirical testability, which is why there are many unknowns.
If an atheist believes only modern science is the truth, they are therefore entirely delusional. Instead of holding the correct non-deluded view that modern science is a useful tool, and not the truth, they take the delusional belief that modern science really is the truth.
Otherwise, if an atheist did not believe that modern science was the truth, they wouldn't be an atheist, they would be at least agnostic.
Therefore we can correctly conclude that every atheist who believes that modern science really is the truth is nothing more than a delusional.
Last edited by VitalOne on Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Pong |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:28 am Post subject: Re: Are atheists delusional? |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
"The medium is the message."
Would it illustrate your point to say that I am text on an internet forum, part of the textual totality of existence, and I invite texts to prove me wrong through forum debate?
I think you're conflating atheists with scientists a bit. Fast & loose, we may lump the two though, sure, since theists certainly have their own distraction to trump science. But this doesn't strictly follow:
| VitalOne wrote: |
| Otherwise, if an atheist did not believe that modern science was the truth, they wouldn't be an atheist, they would be at least agnostic. |
See, you're saying that an atheist must fall for science ultrareality, when this is only a weakness of atheists.
Anyway it's just one part of their minds expressing its own and maybe unhinged perspective, not the whole balance of a person you can never know through this medium.
_________________
A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inow |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
To answer the thread title, Yes.... Some are, just not about the god-concept. Your question is like asking "Do theists like cheese?" Well, some do, some don't. Same with delusion impacting the mind of people, whether theist or atheist. Sure, some of them will experience delusion. The point, however, is that theist belief in the god concept is delusional by definition. Your trying to spin and generalize about people who lack belief does not change that fact.
To address the OP, you continue to strawman the position of non-belief. Who the frak says that science is ultimate truth? If you believe that's what people think, then you are pathetically misinformed.
Science is a method, an approach to learning about the universe, and that method is extremely successful at helping us in getting ever closer to the truth. We check what we think against reality and reject ideas which are mistaken. We use what we learn to come up with models which as closely as possible resemble the nature around us. Now, yes... There are some things we have learnt using the method of science which have been confirmed over and over again for hundreds of years, and those things are as close to truth as you can get. However, people are not looking to science as the "absolute truth," but as the best possible method to ensure their truths are accurate. People accept the results of the scientific method as valid and incorporate the knowledge gained into their lives.
Your premise that atheists see science as absolute truth is flawed, and as a result so too is your conclusion.
_________________
iNow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."
~C. Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:17 am Post subject: Re: Are atheists delusional? |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 3243
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
| VitalOne wrote: |
To be delusional means to have false belief
|
Incorrect. This is not a reasonable definition of delusional. To be delusional is to believe something that is directly contrary to the evidence that is abundant and obvious in regards something that is a matter of fact and not a matter of theory, explanation or preference.
| VitalOne wrote: |
It is an undeniable objective fact that modern science is not the actual truth, rather it's a highly inaccurate incomplete image of what the truth is.
|
Since I deny this, it is obviously not undeniable. We can give you the benefit of the doubt to assume that you were not aware that people could deny what you say here (as difficult as this is to believe), but now that you must know this then since this is a matter of fact then your refusal to retract this statement could be construed as delusional.
| VitalOne wrote: |
Science is a very useful tool, but not the actual truth. This is because modern science can only determine what's within empirical testability, which is why there are many unknowns.
|
Yes science is a very useful tool. And what kind of tool would that be? Well what it has proven itself to be beyond any shadow of a doubt is a very effective means to discover new and unexpected things about the world around us. I put to you that a means to the truth is far better and more valuable than any alleged "truth". But in your last statement here you are essentially correct. Science is a very effective means to the truth for a limited area of applicability and outside that area of applicability it simply will not make any claims. In fact its exceptional ability to discover and recognize its own limitations easily makes it the most reliable means to the truth on this planet.
| VitalOne wrote: |
If an atheist believes only modern science is the truth, they are therefore entirely delusional. Instead of holding the correct non-deluded view that modern science is a useful tool, and not the truth, they take the delusional belief that modern science really is the truth.
|
"Entirely delusional"? Even though I think that you are probably delusional in this one particular area, if you were truly "entirely delusional" then you would probably be living in a mental health facility because if you have no effective perception of reality at all then you would be unable to function on your own.
| VitalOne wrote: |
Otherwise, if an atheist did not believe that modern science was the truth, they wouldn't be an atheist, they would be at least agnostic.
|
Oh I see. You are conflating science being the truth with science being identical with the truth about everything. What a preposterous straw man. Science in a method of inquiry for finding out the truth about things which are objectively observable. It is discovering new things everday so obviously it is not identical with the truth about everything.
| VitalOne wrote: |
Therefore we can correctly conclude that every atheist who believes that modern science really is the truth is nothing than a delusional.
|
If you really think that you can correctly conclude such a thing then it is my conclusion that either, you have no great functional grasp of the skills of logic by which correct conclusions should be drawn, OR, since it is a matter of fact that the argument you have presented is logically unsound, we would conclude that we have another area in which suspect that you are willfully delusional.
P.S. I am a theist, but I am not a delusional theist -- not at least in respect to science and atheists. I can say that I have encountered delusional atheists who support the most preposterous things, but then I have also encountered delusional theists who support what is arguably even more preposterous things -- or possibly they are only more imaginative or more creative in their delusions.
P.P.S. The whole direction of your argument suggest that you should be addressing naturalism rather than atheism.
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com
I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
Last edited by mitchellmckain on Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:35 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:38 am Post subject: Re: Are atheists delusional? |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 1089
|
| VitalOne wrote: |
If an atheist believes only modern science is the truth, they are therefore entirely delusional. |
Not only delusional, they are also a bit stilted. But, I know of no atheists that believe this.
Do theists believe only the bible is the truth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1854
|
| Atheists do not believe in deities. Any other assumption you make about atheists is a presumptuous arrogance on your part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gc |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:53 am Post subject: Re: Are atheists delusional? |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 08 Sep 2009
Posts: 213
|
| VitalOne wrote: |
| Otherwise, if an atheist did not believe that modern science was the truth, they wouldn't be an atheist, they would be at least agnostic. |
Unfortunately the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" can often be confusing. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. Not believing that something exists and believing that something does not exist are two very different things. I don't believe in God, but I can't say for certain that God does not exist (I would bet that the majority of atheists think the same). So "atheist" and "agnostic" can mean essentially the same thing. I think Dawkin's spectrum of theistic beliefs is much less confusing. Using that scale I'd be a 6. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| VitalOne |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 pm Post subject: Re: Are atheists delusional? |
|
|
Banned (Trolling)
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 133
Location: US
|
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
Incorrect. This is not a reasonable definition of delusional. To be delusional is to believe something that is directly contrary to the evidence that is abundant and obvious in regards something that is a matter of fact and not a matter of theory, explanation or preference. |
Nope, you're wrong, this is a sufficient definition of delusional, and it's in the dictionary as well
Once again atheists attempt to re-define things to gain converts
But even if we use your definition, it's still the same result, atheists are still delusionals, since their beliefs are directly contrary to the evidence
| Quote: |
Since I deny this, it is obviously not undeniable. We can give you the benefit of the doubt to assume that you were not aware that people could deny what you say here (as difficult as this is to believe), but now that you must know this then since this is a matter of fact then your refusal to retract this statement could be construed as delusional. |
Well if you deny this then you are either misinformed or a fool
There are many unknowns in science, and two of the biggest unknowns are directly connected to an afterlife and God, which are:
- how is consciousness generated
- the origin of the universe
Therefore your statement has been refuted
Otherwise, if modern science is the truth, then there shouldn't be any unknowns, contradictions, or any unexplained phenomenon right?
We can't even answer simple questions like "what is light?" or "what causes gravity?" right now in modern science
| Quote: |
Yes science is a very useful tool. And what kind of tool would that be? Well what it has proven itself to be beyond any shadow of a doubt is a very effective means to discover new and unexpected things about the world around us. I put to you that a means to the truth is far better and more valuable than any alleged "truth". But in your last statement here you are essentially correct. Science is a very effective means to the truth for a limited area of applicability and outside that area of applicability it simply will not make any claims. In fact its exceptional ability to discover and recognize its own limitations easily makes it the most reliable means to the truth on this planet. |
So you agree with everything I said
| Quote: |
"Entirely delusional"? Even though I think that you are probably delusional in this one particular area, if you were truly "entirely delusional" then you would probably be living in a mental health facility because if you have no effective perception of reality at all then you would be unable to function on your own. |
Delusion means "false belief" or according to the other definition belief contrary to the evidence
The evidence shows us that modern science is not the truth, and just a useful tool
Therefore believing modern science is the truth would be delusional
| Quote: |
Oh I see. You are conflating science being the truth with science being identical with the truth about everything. What a preposterous straw man. Science in a method of inquiry for finding out the truth about things which are objectively observable. It is discovering new things everday so obviously it is not identical with the truth about everything. |
So you agree that science is a useful tool and not the truth
What is your reason not believing in God or an afterlife then? Even though things are empirically untestable and cannot be determined??
| Quote: |
If you really think that you can correctly conclude such a thing then it is my conclusion that either you have no great functional grasp of the skills of logic by which correct conclusions should be drawn OR since it is a matter of fact that the argument you have presented is logically unsound we would have another area in which suspect that you delusional. |
You've done nothing this entire time to refute any statement I made, instead you only agreed, but then throw ad hominems and claim I'm wrong
| Quote: |
P.S. I am a theist, but I am not a delusional theist -- not at least in respect to science and atheists. I can say that I have encountered delusional atheists who support the most preposterous things, but then I have also encountered delusional theists who support what is arguably even more preposterous things -- or possibly they are only more imaginative or creatively delusional.
P.P.S. The whole direction of your argument suggest that you should be addressing naturalism rather than atheism. |
You're just an atheist suck up
And this entire time you've only agreed but then said I'm wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| VitalOne |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banned (Trolling)
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 133
Location: US
|
| Bunbury wrote: |
| Atheists do not believe in deities. Any other assumption you make about atheists is a presumptuous arrogance on your part. |
I never claimed atheists believe in deities, sorry for your delusion
| gc wrote: |
Unfortunately the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" can often be confusing. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. Not believing that something exists and believing that something does not exist are two very different things. I don't believe in God, but I can't say for certain that God does not exist (I would bet that the majority of atheists think the same). So "atheist" and "agnostic" can mean essentially the same thing. I think Dawkin's spectrum of theistic beliefs is much less confusing. Using that scale I'd be a 6. |
Well going by the actual traditional definitions it's not confusing, atheist meaning believing there is no God or believing the existence of God is very unlikely, and agnostic meaning believing it cannot be determined whether or not God exists
| inow wrote: |
To address the OP, you continue to strawman the position of non-belief. Who the frak says that science is ultimate truth? If you believe that's what people think, then you are pathetically misinformed.
Science is a method, an approach to learning about the universe, and that method is extremely successful at helping us in getting ever closer to the truth. We check what we think against reality and reject ideas which are mistaken. We use what we learn to come up with models which as closely as possible resemble the nature around us. Now, yes... There are some things we have learnt using the method of science which have been confirmed over and over again for hundreds of years, and those things are as close to truth as you can get. However, people are not looking to science as the "absolute truth," but as the best possible method to ensure their truths are accurate. People accept the results of the scientific method as valid and incorporate the knowledge gained into their lives.
Your premise that atheists see science as absolute truth is flawed, and as a result so too is your conclusion. |
So then you're agnostic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: Are atheists delusional? |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 3243
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
| VitalOne wrote: |
And this entire time you've only agreed but then said I'm wrong
You're just an atheist suck up
|
One of the most significant signposts of delusional people everywhere is this sort of black and white "us and them" mentality. This is direct and clear evidence of a person who has altered and ignored data in order to force the world to fit a simplistic understanding of the world to such a degree that he has squashed all of reality and all of its dimensions down into one dimensional measure. Agreeing with one thing you say does not change the fact that I disagree with everything else you say and agreeing with one thing that an atheist says does not change the fact that I disagree with him on other things.
The truth is that I don't suck up to anybody whether it is atheist that threaten me with accusations of delusional or irrational or theists who threaten me with damnation. In fact I love to point out my response is the same to this very typical gunman image of God that many theists employ as a means of intellectual blackmail. I point to Albert Camus' essay "The Myth of Sisyphus" where he explains that the true seeker after what is true and right is perfectly satisfied to suffer for an eternity in the knowledge that he opposes the lies and injustices of an evil tyrant.
It is the gunman, whether he thinks he is a god or otherwise, who is delusional. And this image of a god whom we must obey because of some threat of hell or something is no different. Just because the gunman believes this nonsense that his big gun means that everyone must obey him does not mean that anyone else does. People may humor his delusion for a while but they are certainly not going believe such an obviously unreliable source of information, but find a way to take away his gun and dispose of this animated garbage. I believe in God but I certainly do not believe in one that is that delusional.
I am not on your side. Yuk. And I am not on their side. I will call out either one when they spout a lot of ridiculous nonsense like you are doing now. Sometimes it is the athests spouting nonsense and sometimes it is the theists.
| VitalOne wrote: |
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
Incorrect. This is not a reasonable definition of delusional. To be delusional is to believe something that is directly contrary to the evidence that is abundant and obvious in regards something that is a matter of fact and not a matter of theory, explanation or preference. |
Nope, you're wrong, this is a sufficient definition of delusional, and it's in the dictionary as well
|
Oh I see you want to pick this one definition of many and ignore all the others. In which case you are saying that we should just substitute the word "wrong" whenever you use the word "delusional". Ok, but by the way, when I have used this word for you, I do not just mean wrong. I definitely mean to include all of the word's definitions including that of mental illness.
| VitalOne wrote: |
But even if we use your definition, it's still the same result, atheists are still delusionals, since their beliefs are directly contrary to the evidence
|
Contrary to what evidence? Contrary to what you accept as evidence but not to what they accept as evidence. Considering your generally irrational demeanor, I probably do not accept your evidence either, but have my own evidence which causes me to conclude that there is a God. What difference does it make? Well, it is likely to make a very great difference regarding my understanding of God's nature and values and thus upon the things I value in myself and others.
For example, the God I know greatly values diversity. If you believe that he created the species then you must consider the fact that He created over 350,000 species of beetle alone. Further I think He observed that a singularity of thought was worst sort of evil that could befall mankind and so he destroyed such an world with a flood and scattered man over the earth confusing their languages in order to prevent this from happening again. Thus the diversity of human thought is just as much a creation of God as the species, and so this is something we should learn to value and appreciate.
| VitalOne wrote: |
It is an undeniable objective fact that modern science is not the actual truth, rather it's a highly inaccurate incomplete image of what the truth is.
| Quote: |
Since I deny this, it is obviously not undeniable. We can give you the benefit of the doubt to assume that you were not aware that people could deny what you say here (as difficult as this is to believe), but now that you must know this then since this is a matter of fact then your refusal to retract this statement could be construed as delusional. |
Well if you deny this then you are either misinformed or a fool
Therefore your statement has been refuted
|
There is no evidence in the world that can refute my statement that I deny your claim. It is my choice and mine alone. Your name calling is irrelevant. The fact the remains that I deny it and therefore it is not undeniable.
I already examined your talk about science not being identical with the truth. The declaration that science is incomplete is just plain meaningless, and so I simply ignored it. That only leaves your claim that science is highly inaccurate to be examined.
Science is NOT highly inaccurate. That is the opposite of the truth. Science employs a methodology that looks at details and strives for extreme precision in its description of nature. No other way of looking at the world can compare in accuracy because no other way of looking at the world even defines a means of measuring accuracy in any way.
| VitalOne wrote: |
There are many unknowns in science, and two of the biggest unknowns are directly connected to an afterlife and God, which are:
- how is consciousness generated
- the origin of the universe
|
These are topics in which I have a great deal of interest, and we should discuss them sometime. They are areas of active scientific investigation and science has much to say about them that only a fool would ignore. But I personally do believe that both of these topics go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry. But that does NOT make science incomplete in any way. If you define the set of toasters, would you say that the set of toasters is incomplete because it does not include refrigerators? That is nonsensical.
So I take that what you mean to say is that you are taking issue with the premise of metaphysical naturalism what science can discover is a complete description of reality. I most certainly reject that premise. But the acceptance or rejection of this premise is not something that can be supported by objective evidence. It is a matter of what one chooses to see as significant. There are things that I see as significant that the metaphysical naturalist does not see as significant, but I do not delude myself with absurd claims that significance is something that objective evidence can establish.
| VitalOne wrote: |
Otherwise, if modern science is the truth, then there shouldn't be any unknowns, contradictions, or any unexplained phenomenon right?
|
My name is Mitchell McKain. That is the truth. The fact that this statement doesn't answer any number of questions or even that I have not given my middle name does not mean that it is not the truth. The statement is correct and thus it is the truth. Your confusion of modern science with metaphysical naturalism does not make your claim about science true, it only makes you confused.
But even if we suppose that we are talking about metaphysical naturalism rather than science, I don't think it makes you all that less confused. Lets go back to the statement "My name is Mitchell McKain", and indulge in a bit sophistry and say that a name is what people call me and thus since this name does not include the fact that you have called me a fool means that it is not complete. Such absurd arguments simply make a mockery out of the word "truth". What you have personally called me does not change the truth of my statement. Likewise the fact that you, like I do, have personal experiences and perceptions of the world that do not agree with the premise of metaphysical naturalism does not make the those who accept this premise delusional for their experiences and perception are not ours.
| VitalOne wrote: |
We can't even answer simple questions like "what is light?" or "what causes gravity?" right now in modern science
|
What century are you from? Science does answer such questions with scientific explanations. Either you are poorly educated and uninformed or you are simply not interested in scientific explanations. Science has its own objective standards by which to judge that things are explained, and what you think makes something explained is of no significance in scientific inquiry.
| VitalOne wrote: |
So you agree with everything I said
|
Incorrect, I agree with very little of what you said.
| VitalOne wrote: |
The evidence shows us that modern science is not the truth, and just a useful tool
So you agree that science is a useful tool and not the truth
|
I agree that science is a useful tool, but that it is a tool for discovering the truth about a great many things. What is it discovers is the truth. Your equivocation is just offensively ignorant.
| VitalOne wrote: |
What is your reason not believing in God or an afterlife then? Even though things are empirically untestable and cannot be determined??
|
How peculiar. I have reasons for believing in God and an existence after death. But this reasoning of yours should be called unreasoning. I can barely imagine someone thinking as you say here that the lack of being able to test or determine something should be considered a reason for believing it. Please stop before you cause serious damage to the sanity of the people around you.
| VitalOne wrote: |
| Quote: |
If you really think that you can correctly conclude such a thing then it is my conclusion that either you have no great functional grasp of the skills of logic by which correct conclusions should be drawn OR since it is a matter of fact that the argument you have presented is logically unsound we would have another area in which suspect that you delusional. |
You've done nothing this entire time to refute any statement I made, instead you only agreed, but then throw ad hominems and claim I'm wrong
|
No I have merely shown that an application of logic to your statements would lead us to a conclusion that you are delusional. This is in fact exactly what you yourself are claiming to do with other people and failing to accomplish.
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com
I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| TheBiologista |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: Are atheists delusional? |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 2053
|
| VitalOne wrote: |
It is an undeniable objective fact that modern science is not the actual truth, rather it's a highly inaccurate incomplete image of what the truth is. Science is a very useful tool, but not the actual truth. This is because modern science can only determine what's within empirical testability, which is why there are many unknowns. |
By what means has it been objectively established that "modern science is not the actual truth"? By what means has it been objectively established that empirical testability is categorically incapable of determining what we colloquially label as "the truth"? How can you show these things to be true if empiricism has no value? By what method do you derive knowledge, specifically what you call "objective facts" without recourse to empiricism?
| VitalOne wrote: |
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
Incorrect. This is not a reasonable definition of delusional. To be delusional is to believe something that is directly contrary to the evidence that is abundant and obvious in regards something that is a matter of fact and not a matter of theory, explanation or preference. |
Nope, you're wrong, this is a sufficient definition of delusional, and it's in the dictionary as well |
Sufficient for your purposes, which is to distort the meaning of the term such that it can be applied to a group of people you don't like. Psychologists hold that delusions are marked by refusal to move from a belief despite evidence. Perhaps they're part of the atheist conspiracy too?
| VitalOne wrote: |
| Once again atheists attempt to re-define things to gain converts |
Once again you ascribe a behaviour to a large and disparate group based on what could generously be called weak evidence. Or more realistically be called wilful misunderstanding on your part.
| VitalOne wrote: |
| Bunbury wrote: |
| Atheists do not believe in deities. Any other assumption you make about atheists is a presumptuous arrogance on your part. |
I never claimed atheists believe in deities, sorry for your delusion |
You've misunderstood Bunbury. He stating that the only trait which unifies atheists is a lack of theistic belief. He is not claiming you suggested otherwise, he's pointing out that your tendency to ascribe other broad traits to atheists is unjustified. It is a prejudice, though one better tolerated by society than the likes of homophobia or racism.
_________________
http://thebiologista.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gc |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 08 Sep 2009
Posts: 213
|
| VitalOne wrote: |
| Well going by the actual traditional definitions it's not confusing, atheist meaning believing there is no God or believing the existence of God is very unlikely, and agnostic meaning believing it cannot be determined whether or not God exists |
Well, according to your definitions I am both an atheist and an agnostic (the existence of God is unlikely, but we can't know for sure), so yeah I'd say those definitions can lead to confusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JennLonhon |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:31 pm Post subject: Re: Are atheists delusional? |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 109
Location: Under the Sun, Moon and Stars
|
| VitalOne wrote: |
To be delusional means to have false belief
It is an undeniable objective fact that modern science is not the actual truth, rather it's a highly inaccurate incomplete image of what the truth is. Science is a very useful tool, but not the actual truth. This is because modern science can only determine what's within empirical testability, which is why there are many unknowns.
If an atheist believes only modern science is the truth, they are therefore entirely delusional. Instead of holding the correct non-deluded view that modern science is a useful tool, and not the truth, they take the delusional belief that modern science really is the truth.
Otherwise, if an atheist did not believe that modern science was the truth, they wouldn't be an atheist, they would be at least agnostic.
Therefore we can correctly conclude that every atheist who believes that modern science really is the truth is nothing more than a delusional. |
Dude, if you believe this, than you're the one that's seriously delusional....
1. What do you mean when you say that scientific discoveries aren't truthful? can you disproof that we breath oxygen? Can you disproof that we are built from small cells? Can you prove that our genetic code isn't just one out of 8.388.608 random combination and prove that we are "just the way god made us"?
2. Again, you are saying that all atheists are unbelievably passionate about the modern science. Even if they are, who are you to say that I am delusional if I believe in things that are logical, instead in god.
3. Therefore we can correctly conclude that every christian that believes atheists are huts, is delusional himself....
_________________
"Be the change you want to see in the world"
Mahatma Gandhi
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace"
Jimmy Hendrix |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| korben |
| Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Banned
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 110
|
I'm glad I skipped this thread, lol. I wonder if VitalOne has trouble accepting the reality of putting his pants on in the morning.
_________________
[insert a quote here] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
The dig was malicious and unjust, but we could've taken it as spur. Instead of wasting effort lashing back at the OP. Like that was necessary, or did any good.
"To one with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
_________________
A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
Page 1 of 2 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
