Delusion In Most Atheists?

Author: BrutalTruth

Posts

Total: 506
#61
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@BrutalTruth
You only accept the bible as evidence for what God is, but you don't accept the bible as evidence.

How arbitrary.


What I can prove is that the bible teaches that The Truth is God, and even if you don't believe in the bible, The Truth exists.

Your argument from invincible ignorance might make you feel smart, but it is still a dumb argument.
#62
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
This is a debate site, yet you prefer to debate on the forums? Interesting, though I'm afraid I don't share the same preference. I will clarify myself, but I will not debate you here.
This is a debate site.... the forums included. Some people would rather debate on forums and some would rather formally debate. I would say the formal debaters are doing it so other give them brownie points and they could feel good about themselves. The forum debaters have free rain and aren't trying to impress anyone other than get their points across. I would say debating on the forums is much better and will actually finish an issue. Only people that can't handle actually debating their idea will stay away from the forums... or, just a narcissistic itch that they want to win something. The forums are far superior to the formal debate function in getting your topic to its conclusion.  

#63
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@MagicAintReal
Agnostic means nothing. It's a pointless word.
#64
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Agnostic means nothing. It's a pointless word.

Nope.
It means that you admit to not knowing or concede that something may be unknowable.
The "gnostic" root of the word means knowledge, i.e. agnostic means one who claims to not have absolute knowledge of some proposition.
#65
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
For example, I'm agnostic on whether or not life outside of earth exists.
While it's extremely likely that life in fact does exist outside of the earth, I don't claim to have absolute knowledge on whether or not life outside of the earth exists, and as such I remain agnostic on the existence of extraterrestrial life.

Topic's author
#66
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Mopac
In other words, you can't prove your claims, so your arguments are utterly useless and you forfeit the rest of the debate, right? I figured as much. Type1 may have let you win with those weak little semantics, but I'm a whole other monster. I guess some people can't handle actually having to put money where their mouth is.
Topic's author
#67
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Outplayz
Formal debates are bound by rules and are objectively criticized. Forum debates are bound to no rules and aren't necessarily criticized at all. Tell me again how that's a better recipe for hashing out truth? I've debated on forums for over a decade. Sometimes it goes somewhere productive, but most of them time it goes right down the crapper after a few ad hominem-infused rebuttals. I came here for real debates. Not debates with children calling each other names on a forum.
#68
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
If it results in insults guess who's winning? Hmmm. "Real debates are held to a standard." Common man... the same people voting to give you a win are the same people on the forums. This sites debate function is mainly for the popular kids... i guess i just don't make it. Maybe most of us on the forums don't have time to dedicate to the formal forums. How about that huh? And in truth... you just said it. If it's productive than you are delving deeper and deeper into analyzing your views. You can't have that with 5 rounds. Most of the debates leave me wanting more... that's why i don't even vote on them anymore. Plus, the forums people can come into the conversation and check both of you. You can't do any of that in the formal debates. Honestly, that part of the site just comes across as i need a trophy type mentality. Pat me on the back mom. Just how i see it... so don't take it too seriously. In any case, i'm on a debate site, in the forums, to debate... that is precisely why i choose a debate site vs something like Yahoo answers. You have a point if this is actually a formal debate.... in real life. But not this site man. Don't try to make yourself out like your big bad wolf bc you rather debate with a timer and be crowned victor.. it's laughable. Maybe no all of them, but there are people on the forums willing to debate you until you've reached a conclusion. Whether that conclusion be insults (which you won), or a concession. Which i for one humbly would do if the other changed my mind bc i am here to debate and do so as fairly as possible. Yes, we exist in these lowly forums. 

I'd debate you on this topic even if i had anything to say... but i tend to agree with you on this one. Although, i do not agree there is "no evidence" to suspect spirituality. There is plenty of evidence. Not the type of evidence science likes, but evidence none the less. 
#69
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@BrutalTruth
Your whole argument is a straw man. You argue against a god I don't believe in.

If you refuse to acknowledge that The Truth is God even after I pule the evidence up that shows this is what Christianity accepts as its God, you will be commiting the fallacy of invincible ignorance.


Besides all that, WWE posturing is not a valid argument.


Topic's author
#70
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Outplayz
Science likes all evidence. Evidence isn't proof, obviously, however, evidence can lead to proof. Unfortunately for theists, they have no evidence to support their beliefs. Only imagined evidence. I've met Christians who claim that the world around them is evidence of intelligent design, therefore a god. Theists generally have no understanding of what constitutes evidence. Only what they choose to believe. Valid belief isn't a choice. You don't choose to believe the sky is blue, or that fire is hot. These are undeniable parts of reality. You observe reality, not create it with what you choose to believe of it. Theists don't grasp that concept, and Mopac is no different.
#71
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrutalTruth
I came here for real debates. Not debates with children calling each other names on a forum.
So far, you have the edge on calling others names on this forum.
Topic's author
#72
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@ethang5
I'm not in a debate on this forum. An idiot is an idiot. It may be a logical fallacy to say so in a debate, but that doesn't make it any less valid as a fact.
#73
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrutalTruth
Ah, I got it. You can call people names if you're not in a debate.

My mistake. When you said you had not come here for debates with children calling each other names on a forum, I assumed that excluded you.
#74
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Outplayz
This is a debate site.... the forums included. Some people would rather debate on forums and some would rather formally debate. I would say the formal debaters are doing it so other give them brownie points and they could feel good about themselves. The forum debaters have free rain and aren't trying to impress anyone other than get their points across. I would say debating on the forums is much better and will actually finish an issue. Only people that can't handle actually debating their idea will stay away from the forums... or, just a narcissistic itch that they want to win something. The forums are far superior to the formal debate function in getting your topic to its conclusion.  
Excellent post.10/10
#75
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The Truth is God 
No.  Truth is truth.  Your truth is truth with the word god slung on the end.
#76
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Definitions courtesy Merriam-webster...


Definition of definition

a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something 
b : a statement of the meaning of a wordor word group or a sign or symbol


Definition of God

capitalized : the supreme or ultimate

Translation...

The Truth is God.

And thousands of years worth of writings from clergy, monastics, saints, theologians, etc. Back me up on this.

The Word of God is The Most Perfect Image of God. The Word is Truth. This is The Son in The Trinity.

The Comforter is The Spirit of Truth. This is The Holy Spirit in The Trinity.

So The Father is seen through The Son, and The Holy Spirit activates this.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

THE ULTIMATE REALITY.


So yes, The Truth is The Truth or

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

If you don't believe the truth is the truth, the holy spirit is not in you, and nothing makes sense.
You have to believe He is who he says He Is. Otherwise, you aren't getting it.

And that is what gnosticism or knowingism is at the core... "I know better!"







#77
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Outplayz

This is a debate site.... the forums included. Some people would rather debate on forums and some would rather formally debate. I would say the formal debaters are doing it so other give them brownie points and they could feel good about themselves. The forum debaters have free rain and aren't trying to impress anyone other than get their points across. I would say debating on the forums is much better and will actually finish an issue. Only people that can't handle actually debating their idea will stay away from the forums... or, just a narcissistic itch that they want to win something. The forums are far superior to the formal debate function in getting your topic to its conclusion.  

Formal debates are about who is the best advocate - the forums are about who is right.
Topic's author
#78
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@ethang5
Well, that's why you're not supposed to make assumptions. Assumptions are beliefs that are based on ignorance.

Let me explain this to you, since you apparently don't understand: Name calling in debates is frowned upon only because it's a logical fallacy when insults are used for the purpose of refuting an argument. Why is it a fallacy? Because proving that your opponent is a moron doesn't prove that your opponent's argument is wrong, as even morons can be correct.

This doesn't mean it's logically invalid to say someone is a moron if they are indeed a moron. This also doesn't invalidate the notion that morons, more often than not, make moronic statements and harbor moronic beliefs. Thus, to say someone is a moron, without the intention of thereby refuting said moron's argument, is perfectly fine. Unfortunately, most people, such as yourself, don't grasp that concept, and will use insults in attempts to refute arguments, which destroys the purpose of a debate.

Do you understand now?
Topic's author
#79
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
A debate, whether formal or not, is about which premise is correct. A formal debate is far better at ascertaining which is correct, as it is held to strict rules of validity in argumentation and evidence/proof thereof, whereas informal debates are held to no rules at all. It's astonishingly ironic how so many people on a debate site don't seem to grasp this concept.
#80
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@BrutalTruth
A good advocate on a false premise will win a formal debate over a bad advocate on a true premise because the way one votes in a formal debate is supposed to be indepedent of the truth of the premise.

Formal debates are for wannabe lawyers and politicos to practice the dark arts... I am not a fan of formal debating!

The ideal of forums is similar to the notion of 'brainstorming'  which is based on co-operation rather than competition.
#81
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
I think we are on the same page about that.

#82
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrutalTruth
I understood fine. It just seemed a little unself-aware to me that you said you weren't here to name call and was the worse name caller.

I didn't ask for, or need any explanation.


Topic's author
#83
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
I don't consider a debate won unless a premise has been proven false. Formal debates wherein a debater wins when they haven't disproven a false premise, or proven a true premise, are debates whose votes are utterly invalid. If that happens around here, then I won't be here very long.
#84
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
I'm waaaaaayyy late to this thread... Anyway,

I've been an atheist most of my life. And until just recently, I thought the majority of us were very sane, logical and intelligent, as opposed to theists whom are obviously delusional(the belief in the existence of that which cannot be known to exist is denial of reality, which is the textbook definition of delusion). However, I recently lost a boat load of respect for an atheist I used to truly admire. A woman who writes many essays on the evils of the Christian bible. All these years, I had neglected to read her essay on the definition of atheism. She states that "atheists" who claim that atheism is defined as a "lack" of belief in gods or deities are morons, and that true atheism is the affirmative claim that gods indeed do not exist.
I'm a Christian, but I actually see where you are coming from on this. 

There are actually some atheists I like an appreciate. Atheists are better than people of a lot of other worldviews because they at least insist on seeing evidence and trying to make rational decisions based upon that evidence. And that is more than can be said of a lot of "post-modern" worldviews, where people do whatever "feels" right and make decisions based on emotion rather than logic. 

But then you get some "Atheists" who are just as ideologically and emotionally driven as the worst worldviews out there. These folks will spout off some of the most ignorant stuff you can imagine and stick by it even after being presented evidence that what they are claiming is unarguably wrong. 

The way I have seen other wise sources explain this phenomenon is that there are two types of "atheists" out there;

  1. Big "A" Atheists; The dumb, ideologically and emotionally driven ones.

  2. Little "a" atheists; The logic and evidence driven atheists. 
The problem with the Big "A" Atheists is that they have absolutized their belief system to the point that it overrides everything else, including logic, reason and evidence.

The same way Catholics absolutize the authority of the Pope over the actual principles of Biblical scripture, these Big "A" Atheists do the same thing with their own belief system. For them, it becomes more important to harass and terrorize Christians and preach the supposed non-existence of any God, than to utilize any sort of rational decision making process.

#85
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
Formal debates are about who is the best advocate - the forums are about who is right.
+1


#86
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
Thanks. 
#87
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
Science likes all evidence. Evidence isn't proof, obviously, however, evidence can lead to proof. Unfortunately for theists, they have no evidence to support their beliefs. Only imagined evidence. I've met Christians who claim that the world around them is evidence of intelligent design, therefore a god. Theists generally have no understanding of what constitutes evidence. Only what they choose to believe. Valid belief isn't a choice. You don't choose to believe the sky is blue, or that fire is hot. These are undeniable parts of reality. You observe reality, not create it with what you choose to believe of it. Theists don't grasp that concept, and Mopac is no different.
Well i most certainly don't advocate for the Christians. They consider me satanic so there is really no reasoning past that. I'm not satanic however. I would say i'm agnostic spiritual. Spiritual isn't well defined and in my case means many things. For instance, i believe more than one platform bc all could be possible. And since there is no proof... i can't confidently say which platform is right. But, most, if not all, of the platforms have the same implications. My favorite platforms is non-duality, pantheism, panentheism, oneness. It sorta implicates things like Boltzmann brain ideas where an entire universe is a mind. But i think ultimately... we are all the manifestation of a eternal consciousness, intelligence, mind, etc. ('source'). But in any case, those are the spiritual platforms i am most curious about bc i think they are actually quite logical implications of having infinite time and space... which is a discussion in and of itself.

Within this source we are all there. It's like infinite sand... everything in that sand exists. If you make a sandcastle, then you've actualized something that already existed in the sand. We all exist within this source, and to experience, we actualize and manifest as a character to an experience. But i don't expect you to believe me... i just want you to know how my mind works on analyzing these things.  

Those platforms have similar implications. If there is evidence, what does that evidence look like? Since it is a mess... as in, everything exists within this source, there are a lot of things that can be true. So evidence for the spiritual wouldn't be easy to come by. It's not as easy as saying there are angels and demons. One implication of the top platform is fictional realism. Since everything exists, everything could exist in some possible world. Which is sorta like modal realism too. Therefore, spiritual experiences will be as vastly different than the humans on this earth. 

I'm a little bias on this front bc i've had quite a few spiritual experiences (spiritual just meaning supernatural or not explainable). 4 of those experiences were quite profound. I have no logical way of describing how or why they happened. Now, even if i put my experiences aside... there are thousand if not millions, or more, people throughout time witnessing such experiences. There is two camps. Either you believe everyone is lying, mistaken, or mentally ill. Or, that there could be something to it. I'm in the second camp bc the way i see it, only one of these experiences has to be true. If just 1 is true. The implications of 1 happening at the very least, points towards a reality we are not aware of that can intelligently interfere with our world. Since i've had 4 of these experiences myself... i have really no other option than to think something is going on. 

In conclusion, i would say evidence for the Christian god... sure, it's not really good bc that evidence could point towards anything. But is there this kind of evidence? I would say absolutely. I think it is disingenuous just to ignore these things that defy our laws and say that all of this evidence is fake. I know i'm not faking it... and i'm just one out millions that has seen something that blows my mind. I imagine what else has happened throughout the time of our existence. One other thing i know about these experiences... they aren't repeatable. So i also don't see how they can ever be anything more than weak evidence. Since hard evidence, proof, would require something repeatable. There may be some element to it that can be tested, but what i'm trying to say is currently we have no way to test these experiences that would make them any more than weak evidence. But that's evidence none the less. 
#88
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Raltar
actual principles of Biblical scripture
Who declared the bible the final authority on anything?

#89
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Raltar
There are actually some atheists I like an appreciate.
They would be the ones who allow you to think that you actually have something worth saying, when in fact you only have the teachings of the IPSS, so nothing worth saying.

#90
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Who declared the bible the final authority on anything?


They would be the ones who allow you to think that you actually have something worth saying, when in fact you only have the teachings of the IPSS, so nothing worth saying.