Why am I delusional?

[tuxbox]

I have not been a member here very long, and I hardly ever involve myself in the theist vs atheist debates that go on here. That said, something that comes up on occasion is that theists are delusional for believing in a god or a creator and I would like to know why some atheist paint most theist with this brush? I seriously tried to be an atheist when I found Christianity (the religion I was raised on) to be bogus, but that there were too many things that I had experienced and too many unanswered questions that an atheist view point could not explain. I will try to explain my reasoning for believing in a creator of some kind, the best I can.

I will start with my experiences of what some would call ghosts. I have lived in two places where I have witnessed this phenomenon. If I were the only one who had witnessed these events, then I could safely dismiss them as hallucinations, but how do several people at different times hallucinate the same damn thing? Because of these experiences I came to the conclusion that it is possible for there to be an after life of some kind.

Secondly, I look at life on this planet and evolution. While I definitely believe evolution to be true and that humans share a common ancestor with the banana, there are some aspects to life that in my opinion cannot be sufficiently explained by a natural "only" process. Here are some examples:

In the above picture there is an insect that looks like a freakin stick. What are the odds that a random mutation would produce a species to blend into its environment like that? To my knowledge, DNA is not self aware. It has no idea what the environment looks like yet a mutation occurred to help this species better survive predation.

Here we have a Venus Fly Trap. A plant species that catches insects for nutrients. As far as DNA and the plant itself are concerned, insects do not even exist, yet a mutation occurred and now it catches and digests insects. Again, what are the odds?

The universe also appears to be designed. Even Dawkins has said as much. I will not go into detail on the Big Bang and the fine-tuned universe crap, as most of you all have heard it before. But looking at everything, the universe, life and reality, I find it hard to believe it all just happened by chance. I admit that there might not be a creator and that consciousness may not survive death, and to be totally honest I do not care one way or the other. I just do not see how my beliefs make me delusional.

 

[Unwardil]

Well on the subject of hallucinations... Yes, people with similar brain chemistry are apt to experience the same hallucinations, just like people with similar social values are apt to vote for the same political party. Conspiracy theorists all come up with basically the same conspiracy, religious wackos all have pretty much the same concept of god, same with ghosts.

As for the biology thing, this is really where the delusion accusation comes in.

Basically what it boils down to when arguing this is the statement 'Because I don't understand how this stuff actually works, I guess I'll just go with a thing I CAN understand which claims (against all evidence to the contrary) to know what the hell it's talking about.'

That is what we call delusional and I think it's a completely fair accusation. How does one get from 'I don't see how this could happen without help' to 'I know the mind of God cause it's written in this 1700 year old (give or take)book' without employing a lot a bit of delusion.

Simply not knowing the answers to things and postulating about the possibility of the currently unknowable, however, does not make you delusional, nor, a theist for that matter. A theist is someone who believes in a specific deity and if that isn't you, then the delusional accusation is not being leveled at you.

You're wrong about the ghosts though. Paranormal activity is actually caused by subspace gremlins.

 

[tuxbox]

Well on the subject of hallucinations... Yes, people with similar brain chemistry are apt to experience the same hallucinations, just like people with similar social values are apt to vote for the same political party. Conspiracy theorists all come up with basically the same conspiracy, religious wackos all have pretty much the same concept of god, same with ghosts.

As for the biology thing, this is really where the delusion accusation comes in.

Basically what it boils down to when arguing this is the statement 'Because I don't understand how this stuff actually works, I guess I'll just go with a thing I CAN understand which claims (against all evidence to the contrary) to know what the hell it's talking about.'

That is what we call delusional and I think it's a completely fair accusation. How does one get from 'I don't see how this could happen without help' to 'I know the mind of God cause it's written in this 1700 year old (give or take)book' without employing a lot a bit of delusion.

Simply not knowing the answers to things and postulating about the possibility of the currently unknowable, however, does not make you delusional, nor, a theist for that matter. A theist is someone who believes in a specific deity and if that isn't you, then the delusional accusation is not being leveled at you.

hehe, well I never said my beliefs were of sound logic. I just do not see how it makes me delusional. If there is a creator I doubt it is anything like the religions of the world portray it. So I am not sure what the makes me, theist or whatever?

You're wrong about the ghosts though. Paranormal activity is actually caused by subspace gremlins.

lmao...

 

[Unwardil]

Well, you're definitely not a theist. A theist wouldn't say "if there is a creator' for a start. If you're absolutely convinced of some kind of entity being involved in the starting up of the universe, that would put you in the Deist camp.

Personally, I've never seen the point in believing in something like that. If it exists it doesn't need my help to continue existing and there's nothing in it for me whatsoever one way or the other. I'd say, given the historical record on this thing, that the safe money is on there not being such an entity, but I can't prove it one way or the other and no one can, yet.

But no, there's a pretty stark difference between firmly believing something to be true against all rational evidence have having the breadth of mindset to explore a number of possibilities. The one is delusional and the other is having an imagination. In both cases it's all in your head, the difference is, in the second case, you're perfectly aware of the difference.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

OP

Unless I'm deeply wrong about evolution, I'm pretty sure the pictures you just showed are a prime example of why evolution DOES happen and why it's responsible for all the complexity of life we see today. I'm sure LoRian experts on biology will explain this flawlessly (unlike me), but the point is that the insects that happened to have a random mutation that made their camouflage just a LITTLE tiny bit were able to survive longer and breed more than insects that didn't, thus passing these mutations to the next generation, and so on and so forth.

Also, you can't believe in evolution and not believe that it's responsible for all the complex species we see today - unless you have some expert opinion on how exactly these mutations are unexplainable by evolution, supported by actual empirical data. Which you don't.


Go on, boys, and correct me where I'm wrong.

 

[australopithecus]

In the above picture there is an insect that looks like a freakin stick. What are the odds that a random mutation would produce a species to blend into its environment like that? To my knowledge, DNA is not self aware. It has no idea what the environment looks like yet a mutation occurred to help this species better survive predation.

Here we have a Venus Fly Trap. A plant species that catches insects for nutrients. As far as DNA and the plant itself are concerned, insects do not even exist, yet a mutation occurred and now it catches and digests insects. Again, what are the odds?

Well seeing as said mutations have occurred the odds are 1:1. You seem to be confusing the mechanism of genetic mutations with with a self aware intent. Those genetic mutations happened, and they helped the organism survive long enough to reproduce. Right place, right time. If those mutations had occurred in an environment where it was of no use or directly detrimental to the organism the mutation would at best remain as neutral junk or at worst killed off the organism/population.

Environments select for mutations that are beneficial, nothing more. It requires no deity, magic or wishful thinking.

The universe also appears to be designed.

Appearance of design does not equal design.

I admit that there might not be a creator and that consciousness may not survive death, and to be totally honest I do not care one way or the other. I just do not see how my beliefs make me delusional.

I wouldn't call you delusional myself, but I can understand the accusations. Beliefs that contradict how reality works can be described as delusions.

 

[RedYellow]

The camouflage thing used to confuse me too back when I didn't know much about evolution. I used to think, "How does the bug know to make itself look like a stick?!" But then I realized it's not what the bug or the DNA see, it's what the predator of the bug sees or doesn't see, that shapes the bug. Bugs that inherited mutations which made them look a little more stick like were better at surviving and passing on their genes. Over time, many small mutations add up until it looks almost exactly like a stick.

 

[Dean]

tuxbox

["¦] something that comes up on occasion is that theists are delusional for believing in a god or a creator and I would like to know why some atheist paint most theist with this brush? I seriously tried to be an atheist when I found Christianity (the religion I was raised on) to be bogus, but that there were too many things that I had experienced and too many unanswered questions that an atheist view point could not explain. I will try to explain my reasoning for believing in a creator of some kind, the best I can. ["¦]

I suspect that the reason these ideas persist in the forum (if they do); it is because of the rather depressing tendency of many, many religious people (in and out of the forums) to present appallingly faulty and erroneously constructed arguments in defence of their beliefs, some of which have been torn to pieces by dozens of individuals so, so many times before, and sometimes claim to be victimized when we deconstruct their somewhat tenuous arguments ... Why cannot I escape the feeling that the undoubtedly superb reasoning you will surely present in this post will further accentuate those anti-theistic undertones ? What makes you think that a creatoral agency or agencies,such as God(s),are any more credible explanations for your allegedly (naturalistically) inexplicable experiences than any other explanation? Would it not be more parsimonious to look for a naturalistic explanation (abiding by Occam's Razor,coupled with Houdini's principle), rather than assuming something that is completely inexplicable, and can never be either proven nor disproved by material evidence? Since atheism is no more encompassing to the rest of a particular atheist's belief system, than the simple fact that they hold no belief in a God or gods, what exactly would constitute an "atheist view" in your mind? Atheism means either a dis-belief or un-belief in God(s). So we do not necessarily claim that no creator exists, even if we regard it as somewhat (grossly) implausible, and/or unparsimonious. Of course, the kind of God that you seem to be proposing is more of a deistic god, and one for whom their properties are entirely unknown to us, and is thus pretty unnameable to empirical measurement, and for that reason; I suppose I had best fixate on the parts of your post that make testable claims / predictions, i.e. empirically (theoretically) verifiable claims, and nothing else.

["¦] I will start with my experiences of what some would call ghosts. I have lived in two places where I have witnessed this phenomenon. If I were the only one who had witnessed these events, then I could safely dismiss them as hallucinations, but how do several people at different times hallucinate the same damn thing? Because of these experiences I came to the conclusion that it is possible for there to be an after life of some kind. ["¦]

That was (mostly) alright, until you made a claim of using this allegedly inexplicable phenomena that you observed as evidence of an immaterial realm that exists nowhere in either time or space, a.k.a. an 'afterlife'. It seems fairly clear that IF (and this is a VERY big "If") we do go anywhere after we die, we go there without that matter that constructs our bodies. Unfortunately, we know from observation of the materially explicable world that all light is the same, photons and so forth. Some people even claim to have photographed ghosts, which is a logical impossibility, unless of course you want to admit that ghosts are not supernatural in any discernible or meaningful way. Light is required for vision, and light can only be either reflected by or produced from solid matter, with mass. I would be interested to know what you mean by 'observe'. Can you be more specific? The tales I get from the vast, vast majority of people claiming to have 'witnessed' (there's another ambiguous term they like to employ), is seeing / hearing these things. Even if this were true, how do you know that your friends heard, saw or experienced the same phenomena as you did, in the same manner that you did, and why does your inability to explain this apparently unexplainable phenomena in any way point to an after life, i.e. a place that is nonexistent for all practical purpose? Another part of such tales that I cannot understand is the perpetual and burgeoning insistence that these 'ghosts', which are totally "supernatural", and thus can never be shown to exist, must in some way be vaguely human, and some people even claim to see their relatives come back to them as ghosts ... and have conversations with them! Based on what factual knowledge? Why would anyone assume this? More importantly, what has this point to do with the existence of a universal "creator" in your own terms, anyways? What makes you think that the existence of an afterlife necessitates the existence of God(s) or creatoral agencies by fiat? Who knows. Again, why would anyone assume this to be true. There is no way of knowing this will be true, and there is no possible way to guarantee that this will be true, under any circumstance. There could be an afterlife, and no God(s), as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out in the past. There could also be many Gods, and no afterlife. Once again, you seem to have a very malformed conceptualization of how (reliable) knowledge works, and you are building your castle out of toothpicks. You are making claims (plausible or not); based on unfounded a priori assumptions that you haven't properly explained.

["¦] Secondly, I look at life on this planet and evolution. While I definitely believe evolution to be true and that humans share a common ancestor with the banana, there are some aspects to life that in my opinion cannot be sufficiently explained by a natural "only" process. ["¦]

They can, and are. Ask any biologist. (With one or two outlandish,indeed, delusional,exceptions) ... I am a biologist in training, as it happens. And I do not know of any example of any magnificent feature of anything alive, that isn't explicable by purely cumulative changes, at least of biological life on this planet, or on any planet, for that matter. Nor have I ever seen any credible suggestion that anything in this universe "cannot be sufficiently explained by a natural "only" process". It is for that very reason,or at least one of the reasons,that I am an atheist.

["¦] In the above picture there is an insect that looks like a freakin stick. What are the odds that a random mutation would produce a species to blend into its environment like that? To my knowledge, DNA is not self aware. It has no idea what the environment looks like yet a mutation occurred to help this species better survive predation.

["¦]

Here we have a Venus Fly Trap. A plant species that catches insects for nutrients. As far as DNA and the plant itself are concerned, insects do not even exist, yet a mutation occurred and now it catches and digests insects. Again, what are the odds? ["¦]

Once again (as was pointed out by australopithecus), you confuse the introspective notion of the mutations per se, and assuming that this requires design. It demonstrably does not. Retrospective probability analyses are pointless which is part of the reasoning that the so-called universal "fine tuning" argument is BS. Also, insisting that such apparently beneficial changes occurred simply due to "a random mutation". Changes like that do NOT occur with single mutations. It's hardly complicated. All it requires is for individuals in the ancestral population of that organism to develop a characteristic that was beneficial to them in a changing environment, and thus they were 'favoured' (so to speak), and they were the ones who continued to propagate their genes, and continue the changes via mutation being acted upon as per the theory of natural selection, through naturally selective pressures, in response to the environment. It does not necessitate that the environment and the organisms (individually) are in some sort of "awareness" of each other. You seem to be disputing the basics of evolutionary theory, something which creationists quite often do ...and as you said, such lines of change allowed these animals to escape predators. An aspect of evolution that seems to directly conflict with such notions (enumerated by Dawkins et al), is the fact that God seems to be taking sides with ... well, evolution is more of an arms-race phenomenon. It would be interesting to know who's side God is on, or gods are on, in this arms race, if the DO exist, and if they drive this process . . . of course, it's difficult to discern, and such questions are meaningless, because it's doubtful that there will be any realm of biology with which one can inject God at some point. Apologists like William Craig have already started retreating into Cosmology ... and who can blame him for that? It's the only area of science where naturalistic descriptions of reality are (currently) struggling to be found.

["¦] The universe also appears to be designed. Even Dawkins has said as much. I will not go into detail on the Big Bang and the fine-tuned universe crap, as most of you all have heard it before. But looking at everything, the universe, life and reality, I find it hard to believe it all just happened by chance. I admit that there might not be a creator and that consciousness may not survive death, and to be totally honest I do not care one way or the other. I just do not see how my beliefs make me delusional.

I suspect that Dawkins has also pointed out (as members of this forum already have),that appearance of design to passive human observers, is NOT a synonymous term with 'design' ipso facto. This is a purely faith-based belief, and it is not a justification, other than in your subjective and somewhat contestable view that the universe is 'designed'. Perhaps it was designed, if you want to admit that it was designed to be inhospitable, dangerous, and random. Especially if you're going to claim that the universe was designed for life, and sadly, that's where we start slipping away into the murky waters of the fine-tuning argument(s) for a universe "purpose built" for life ... I wouldn't necessarily call you delusional, simply because it's rather unhelpful for discourse.

But with that said:

• From Google
  de,·lu,·sion/diˈloÍžoZHÉ™n/
  Noun: 1. An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality,...
  2. The action of deluding someone or the state of being deluded: "what a capacity television has for delusion".
  
  From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
  Definition of DELUSION
  
  1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
  2a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
  b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
  
  From Dictionary.com
  de,·lu,·sion   [dih-loo-zhuhn]
  noun ,1.an act or instance of deluding.
  2.the state of being deluded.
  3.a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
  4.Psychiatry . a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
  
  From The American Heritage Dictionary
  de,·lu,·sion (dÄ­-lzhÉ™n)
  Share: ,n.1.a. The act or process of deluding.
  b. The state of being deluded.
  2.a. A false belief or opinion:labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  b. Psychiatry A false belief or perception that is a manifestation of a mental illness:delusions of persecution.

You will note that I highlighted the 1. definitions, because language is of course defined by popular opinion, and by long standing convention, the first cite in a dictionary is the one that the editors not only believe to be true, but also the one that seems to be unanimously accepted by the vast majority of the population.

The fact that each 1. definition seemed to either directly state , or at least invoke , holding beliefs that are in direct, and blatant contradiction to all known understanding of the nature of reality, is fairly conclusive, and this is certainly what is done with religious beliefs. They are often utterly indefensible,by any definition. And yet such beliefs are still defended, vigorously, no less ... delusional, do you think?

["¦] hehe, well I never said my beliefs were of sound logic. I just do not see how it makes me delusional. If there is a creator I doubt it is anything like the religions of the world portray it. So I am not sure what the makes me, theist or whatever? ["¦]

Human beings as a whole are very rarely of 'sound logic'. However, as we have now established, no one will be called 'delusional', unless your beliefs contradict reality. And not otherwise. I don't think anyone in this thread has called you 'delusional'. You keep on saying 'I don't see how it makes me delusional', as if to imply that someone has pointed at you and called you delusional, personally. We have not. So I don't really understand the apparent defensive stance you appear to be taking ... Also, to answer the last question, you are probably either a deist or a pantheist. Deism, by all accounts, judging from the descriptions of a creator that you yourself have given.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I really don't think that someone is delusional if they have a belief in a vague concept of a creator. I can't, for the life of me,

see why a creator is necessary, but I don't have any problems with deists. I'm even fine with religious people if they will

meet me in the middle and agree that we just aren't sure about some things. Absolute certainty is what I truly have an

issue with; that being said some of these internet atheists-so called 'freethinkers'- really bother me.

 

[Dean]

I really don't think that someone is delusional if they have a belief in a vague concept of a creator. I can't, for the life of me,

see why a creator is necessary, but I don't have any problems with deists. I'm even fine with religious people if they will

meet me in the middle and agree that we just aren't sure about some things. Absolute certainty is what I truly have an

issue with; that being said some of these internet atheists-so called 'freethinkers'- really bother me.

The problem with deism is its potential to become so vague and ill-defined that no-one even knows what Deist X means by "creator". Because while 'God' is a fairly well defined term, "creator" isn't, as such. It could have very, very many meanings. Of course, such concepts can also become vague, like in the above example, to such an extent that you can't even scrutinize the concept, i.e. it's so shapeless and undefined that it eludes all measure (using the term 'measurement' very loosely here).

In other words, it can become so immune to attack (because of how "unknown" the concept is to us), that it becomes indefensible for that very reason. As for that last part, yes, indeed. A truly critical mind operates more within doubt than within certainties. However, claims that are demonstrably false, such as appeals to the complexity of life and of the universe, can be criticized. Also, I have to ask; was this post directed at anyone in particular? Tuxbox? Unwardil? Me?

 

[tuxbox]

Hey there Dean,

My original post was not meant to accuse anyone in this group of personally singling me out as being delusional or to play victim. I considered myself a theist before this post and was just curious as to why some people would label me as delusional. My definition of delusional is not the same as yours. When I hear delusional I think of a person saying, "I never leave the house because if I walk outside gravity will stop working and I will be flung into space." So for me at least, someone who believes in a god or a creator does fit that definition. While I do believe most religious people are unreasonable, I would still not give them that label.

Why cannot I escape the feeling that the undoubtedly superb reasoning you will surely present in this post will further accentuate those anti-theistic undertones ?

What makes you think that a creatoral agency or agencies,such as God(s),are any more credible explanations for your allegedly (naturalistically) inexplicable experiences than any other explanation?

I am not claiming my beliefs are more credible. And as far as why I believe a creator makes sense is mainly due to my understanding of "cause and effect", personal observations of life, the world around me and the complexities of the universe. How did the laws of the universe form from nothing (as far as we know)? What causes atoms to form? What causes some atoms to form inorganic material, while others form organic material? How did simple life arise from those formations and then evolve into more complex life and why? The complexities of the human body alone amazes me and I am in awe. Everything we are from the subatomic level all the way up to our consciousness is mind blowing and I just find it hard to believe it was just an accident. Do not get me wrong, I sleep fine at night knowing that when I die there is a very good possibility all of this was just by chance and I will cease to exist.

Since atheism is no more encompassing to the rest of a particular atheist's belief system, than the simple fact that they hold no belief in a God or gods, what exactly would constitute an "atheist view" in your mind?

I mean a naturalist view when I say "atheist view". For me the two a synonymous.

You are making claims (plausible or not); based on unfounded a priori assumptions that you haven't properly explained.

I did not go into great detail on my ghost experience as I viewed it as a waste of time, because I cannot prove to anyone in this forum that they actually occurred. No one in this forum knows me in real life and far as you all know I am lying through my teeth.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Hey there Dean,

My original post was not meant to accuse anyone in this group of personally singling me out as being delusional or to play victim. I considered myself a theist before this post and was just curious as to why some people would label me as delusional. My definition of delusional is not the same as yours. When I hear delusional I think of a person saying, "I never leave the house because if I walk outside gravity will stop working and I will be flung into space." So for me at least, someone who believes in a god or a creator does fit that definition. While I do believe most religious people are unreasonable, I would still not give them that label.

Why cannot I escape the feeling that the undoubtedly superb reasoning you will surely present in this post will further accentuate those anti-theistic undertones ?

What makes you think that a creatoral agency or agencies,such as God(s),are any more credible explanations for your allegedly (naturalistically) inexplicable experiences than any other explanation?

I am not claiming my beliefs are more credible. And as far as why I believe a creator makes sense is mainly due to my understanding of "cause and effect", personal observations of life, the world around me and the complexities of the universe. How did the laws of the universe form from nothing (as far as we know)? What causes atoms to form? What causes some atoms to form inorganic material, while others form organic material? How did simple life arise from those formations and then evolve into more complex life and why? The complexities of the human body alone amazes me and I am in awe. Everything we are from the subatomic level all the way up to our consciousness is mind blowing and I just find it hard to believe it was just an accident. Do not get me wrong, I sleep fine at night knowing that when I die there is a very good possibility all of this was just by chance and I will cease to exist.

Since atheism is no more encompassing to the rest of a particular atheist's belief system, than the simple fact that they hold no belief in a God or gods, what exactly would constitute an "atheist view" in your mind?

I mean a naturalist view when I say "atheist view". For me the two a synonymous.

You are making claims (plausible or not); based on unfounded a priori assumptions that you haven't properly explained.

I did not go into great detail on my ghost experience as I viewed it as a waste of time, because I cannot prove to anyone in this forum that they actually occurred. No one in this forum knows me in real life and far as you all know I am lying through my teeth.

You may see the naturalist view and the atheist view as synonymous, but that doesn't change the fact that.. well... they're not. Sorry.

 

[Dean]

Hey there Dean,

My original post was not meant to accuse anyone in this group of personally singling me out as being delusional or to play victim. I considered myself a theist before this post and was just curious as to why some people would label me as delusional. My definition of delusional is not the same as yours. When I hear delusional I think of a person saying, "I never leave the house because if I walk outside gravity will stop working and I will be flung into space." So for me at least, someone who believes in a god or a creator does fit that definition. While I do believe most religious people are unreasonable, I would still not give them that label. ["¦]

I don't have any intention of being condescending, but I have to assume that when you said "does", you must have meant 'doesn't', simply because if not, it would be in direct contradiction to everything you have previously said, and thus I don't see how it can make sense otherwise. Using this definition, I agree. Although admittedly, I suppose it's also possible that you could find religious people who have such obvious delusions, or something in a similar manner to the example you gave. Even if I believe that a person with certain beliefs is delusional, I doubt I would call them that as such, simply because (as I said earlier in this thread), it's rather unhelpful, and it's pretty hard to maintain a dialogue with someone once you've given them such a (rather inflammatory) label.

["¦]

["¦] Why cannot I escape the feeling that the undoubtedly superb reasoning you will surely present in this post will further accentuate those anti-theistic undertones ? ["¦]

["¦]

Heh. I could quite easily have let this go, because it's really sort-of irrelevant, and I don't wish to nitpick your writing. But I have to ask: why didn't you just use the " " emoticon? Especially since you've already used it in a previous post in this thread. :|

(Emphasis added)

["¦]I am not claiming my beliefs are more credible. And as far as why I believe a creator makes sense is mainly due to my understanding of "cause and effect", personal observations of life, the world around me and the complexities of the universe. How did the laws of the universe form from nothing (as far as we know)? What causes atoms to form? What causes some atoms to form inorganic material, while others form organic material? How did simple life arise from those formations and then evolve into more complex life and why? The complexities of the human body alone amazes me and I am in awe. Everything we are from the subatomic level all the way up to our consciousness is mind blowing and I just find it hard to believe it was just an accident. Do not get me wrong, I sleep fine at night knowing that when I die there is a very good possibility all of this was just by chance and I will cease to exist. ["¦]

• 1.) You may be interested to know that it's thought the laws of nature, as well as the 4 major forces, i.e. the strong and weak nuclear forces, and Gravity / Electromagnetism, were once part of one whole, at the time of the Big Bang, and for the time (very) briefly after it. It should be noted that theories regarding the existence of the "material" (actually just energy) that caused the Big Bang itself, and how, and why it happened, are still in their infancy. Look up 'superforce physics' if you're interested. However, it's also worth noting that we may arrive at a point where we may be incapable of knowing what caused the initial expansion of the universe. To be honest, the really truthful and credible answer is that we don't yet know, and may not ever be able to, but I cannot see this vacuum of knowledge as any reason to assume a creator, be it supernatural or otherwise.
  
  
  2.) As far as we know, the first 'atoms' formed from subatomic particles that 'condensed', when the universe began to cool after the initial expansion of spacetime, from energy. Remember, we know from Einstein (i.e. E = MC[sup]2[/sup]) that matter is in fact just a very odd kind of energy, one that has lost its inertial properties, and developed the properties we associate with "stuff", and thus this model of reality is consistent with what we've learned from physics and mathematics over the last 70-80 years or so... and it's also worth remembering that the universe itself was one f'en teeming with oddities that we are struggling to find today, such as antiparticles. According to the symmetrical models of modern physics, all particles have a corresponding anti-particle. Some technological Utopians dreaming of whizzing off in their space capsules even think that we could use antimatter as a means of propulsion. But sadly, the evidence suggests that to create a single gram of the stuff would cost approx. 100[sup]18[/sup] dollars, and take many billions of years. So there are still many kinks to be worked out in physics, but none of them need be plugged with an appeal to the supernatural ...
  
  
  3.) I've already given you a coherent explanation of biological evolution, and why it is not proof of anything other than ... biological evolution, and it does not "prove" God(s) or creators as such. And as for organic and inorganic matter, the distinction between the two isn't really clearly defined. To my knowledge of biochemistry "natural", or "organic" compounds are formed by living organisms, e.g. plants in photosynthesis are a pretty good example. While so-called 'inorganic' ones are produced artificially.

["¦]

["¦]Since atheism is no more encompassing to the rest of a particular atheist's belief system, than the simple fact that they hold no belief in a God or gods, what exactly would constitute an "atheist view" in your mind? ["¦]

I mean a naturalist view when I say "atheist view". For me the two a synonymous. ["¦]

While that nifty bugger CosmicJoghurt (joke ), has clearly beaten me to this point, I cannot really do much other than repeat his statement. They are not synonymous terms. They are really not. Sure, it's quite likely that the overwhelming majority of people who call themselves atheists (including those on this forum) DO hold a naturalistic outlook of some sort, with no supernatural elements, and I am certainly one of them ... but not all of them do! And so, this definition cannot be adequate. I can understand your definition of "delusional", but you really can't invent your own definitions for words that have long and well-established usages, such as the distinctions between atheism and metaphysical naturalism.

["¦] I did not go into great detail on my ghost experience as I viewed it as a waste of time, because I cannot prove to anyone in this forum that they actually occurred. No one in this forum knows me in real life and far as you all know I am lying through my teeth.

Actually, that's quite beside the point. Whether or not your experiences are true is irrelevant. We can still criticize the argument you are making per se. We can, because: as you said in your own post (implicitly); you are not the only one who has had (or claims to have had) such experiences, and as such, we might as well address such claims, because they're made by lots of people. Not just you.

 

[Laurens]

With regards to the stick insect, it is obvious that being well camouflaged is a survival advantage - we see many examples of it in nature. We even see more startling examples of insects developing eye-like markings on their wings in order to scare predators.

So think of the ancestor to the stick insect wandering along the woodland floor. There might conceivably arise a variation, which causes them to blend in to the backdrop a little more than others in the population. This allele only needs a small advantage (even a 1% advantage can have a big effect over time), so that this allele becomes frequent in the population. Over time the whole population would become more blended with the background. Suppose then that variation arises that causes the insect to be slightly longer and more twig-like than the others in the population - making it even more camouflaged - this trait will then spread in the population. At the same time the predators might be getting better and better at spotting them, so there remains a strong selection pressure in favour of being excellently camouflaged. Over time adaptations towards looking more and more stick-like will accumulate and you end up with something that looks remarkably like a twig. There is no reason to suppose that this explanation is lacking, although it might not be exactly the way it happened...

 

[televator]

I'd call a theist delusional, sure. I do it all the time. I don't think I've had that kind of necessity toward a deist though... Delusional people are usually far more specific in the details of their delusion.

Also, I don't see the problems with not having all the answers. It's called "honesty." Anything else is arbitrarily shoving "god did it" into the gaps of personal and collective human knowledge. It's a dead end and has absolutely no utility what so ever.

I'm scratching my head about your biological questions. I think the concepts of random mutations going through the grinder of natural selection is fairly easy to grasp at a basic level, but I'm wondering about a fundamental mechanic about your own reasoning. You seem to assert that perceptual randomness = self awareness. I really don't think that assertion, should you choose to stand by it, will go very far without some intangible mystic concepts on your end.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

The problem with deism is its potential to become so vague and ill-defined that no-one even knows what Deist X means by "creator". Because while 'God' is a fairly well defined term, "creator" isn't, as such. It could have very, very many meanings.

You make a good point about the lack of clarity regarding a creator. However, I think that is why I don't have a problem with very many deists. They (at the least the ones I know) don't invent all kinds of stories, they don't apply attributes to their creator the way that religions do. I am certainly not a deist, but I fell in love with Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason.

Also, I have to ask; was this post directed at anyone in particular? Tuxbox? Unwardil? Me?

Nope. I was just putting it out there.

 

[tuxbox]

I don't have any intention of being condescending, but I have to assume that when you said "does", you must have meant 'doesn't', simply because if not, it would be in direct contradiction to everything you have previously said, and thus I don't see how it can make sense otherwise. Using this definition, I agree. Although admittedly, I suppose it's also possible that you could find religious people who have such obvious delusions, or something in a similar manner to the example you gave. Even if I believe that a person with certain beliefs is delusional, I doubt I would call them that as such, simply because (as I said earlier in this thread), it's rather unhelpful, and it's pretty hard to maintain a dialogue with someone once you've given them such a (rather inflammatory) label.

hehe, I speed type through most of my posts and hardly ever read them before I post, but yes I meant "doesn't"

Heh. I could quite easily have let this go, because it's really sort-of irrelevant, and I don't wish to nitpick your writing. But I have to ask: why didn't you just use the " " emoticon? Especially since you've already used it in a previous post in this thread. :|

My grammar and writing skills pretty much suck and for some reason spell check is not working in FF. So I have been writing my comments in OpenOffice. That is why I did not use it.

[

While that nifty bugger CosmicJoghurt (joke ), has clearly beaten me to this point, I cannot really do much other than repeat his statement. They are not synonymous terms. They are really not. Sure, it's quite likely that the overwhelming majority of people who call themselves atheists (including those on this forum) DO hold a naturalistic outlook of some sort, with no supernatural elements, and I am certainly one of them ... but not all of them do! And so, this definition cannot be adequate. I can understand your definition of "delusional", but you really can't invent your own definitions for words that have long and well-established usages, such as the distinctions between atheism and metaphysical naturalism.

lol, touché... my bad.

Actually, that's quite beside the point. Whether or not your experiences are true is irrelevant. We can still criticize the argument you are making per se. We can, because: as you said in your own post (implicitly); you are not the only one who has had (or claims to have had) such experiences, and as such, we might as well address such claims, because they're made by lots of people. Not just you.

Fair enough. I was living in a large house that was converted into an apartment building. The first couple of months I did not noticed anything, but shortly there after I started hearing footsteps and voices when no one else was in the apartment. I just dismissed it as noises coming from downstairs. One night I was awoken by voices and looked around the room and saw a lady and a little girl looking at me. Needless to say I was startled, but that was the only time I actually saw anything. The sound of footsteps and other weird noises continued for months though. One night a friend stayed the night and while I was sleeping the voices woke her up and she saw the lady and little girl, freaked out and left. She told me she would never stay the night again. When my lease was up a decided to move to one of the downstairs apartments to get away from all that crap. A few months later the new tenant knocked on my door and asked me if I ever heard or witnessed anything strange while I lived upstairs. I lied and said no because I really did not feel like having a conversation about it with a stranger.

 

[tuxbox]

I'd call a theist delusional, sure. I do it all the time. I don't think I've had that kind of necessity toward a deist though... Delusional people are usually far more specific in the details of their delusion.

lmao

 

[tuxbox]

You make a good point about the lack of clarity regarding a creator. However, I think that is why I don't have a problem with very many deists. They (at the least the ones I know) don't invent all kinds of stories, they don't apply attributes to their creator the way that religions do. I am certainly not a deist, but I fell in love with Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason.

I freakin dig Thomas Paine.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I must first apologize in advance because what I am about to say will sound offensive and I really do not mean to insult you and I hope you can something out of this, but I just don't have another way to put his.
From just reading the title I would agree with you that it is not fair to paint all theists as delusional, I can understand how people can hold false beliefs (even though I would forward that they are unjustified). However you did not helped your case one bit and in fact you have proven that you are delusional yourself, and I quote:

I will start with my experiences of what some would call ghosts. I have lived in two places where I have witnessed this phenomenon. If I were the only one who had witnessed these events, then I could safely dismiss them as hallucinations, but how do several people at different times hallucinate the same damn thing? Because of these experiences I came to the conclusion that it is possible for there to be an after life of some kind.

Ghosts simply do not exist, they are figment of your imagination. Even you yourself recognize that it maybe hallucinations had it not also happen to other people. I don't think their hallucinations (rather something else much simpler), but your assessment that they are not hallucinations based on popular experience is just wrong, you don't even know what triggered those hallucinations and as far as you are concerned people that live with you work very similar to you and are under the same environmental stimulus as you which makes them more likely to be under the same hallucination as you than anyone else. I would even suggest that fact that has happened in more than one place means that it is following you and has nothing to do with the place, because the problem is you, it always has been in your head.
But as I said I don't think they are hallucinations it something much simpler than that, either because you were influenced by TV or by the micro culture surrounding your immediate family and friends you have come to believe that there could be such a things as ghosts. People around you are telling that they had quite lively and extraordinary experiences, why would they be lying to you? (they don't think they are lying to you), from your perspective Ghosts could be just as real as you and me.
As an example it maybe that one night you hear the boards of your floor screech when the wood gives away to the nail as it contracts to a colder night, "what was that?" "Things that are still don't make noises on their own" (they do but you don't know that), your innate fear of things lurking in the dark kicks in (inherited from your ancestors hunted in the dark), "it maybe a ghost" (in your mind they exist) you start having an adrenaline rush and your survival mechanisms kick in and in doubt it just goes ahead and it assumes that it is indeed a "ghost" (because you rather take action than not do anything and be wrong) and it convinces you that it is, your senses heighten but all that does is to amplify the noise you are taking in as you are desperately trying to find for the ghost (and because of the nature of noise you will find patterns that match, reinforcing the idea, increasing your paranoia). And before you know it (literally) in your head the ghost has become real to you where there is none. If you had seen a movie about demonic possession perhaps you would have seen the devil himself instead of ghosts.
This event will come to pass but others will follow it, a very lively dream about your fears that you cannot quite tell if it was real or not as you are trying to gather your wits as you are waking up, some other vague experiences shared with other people under the same delusions and as they retell they stories they get reinforced (after all you were there with them when it happened, I didn't see it exactly as they are telling it but it all happened so fast that I must have missed it, I was there to so it must have happened, it did happened). And as experience accumulate one after the other you get more and more convinced of ghosts despite the fact that there weren't any, they become real to you. You will tell to your experience to the next generation, you do not think you are lying after all you remember it so vividly that it did happen, and the people listening to you will think "he must be telling the truth, why would be lying? It doesn't look like he is lying", but that won't change the fact that none of it was real.
You have deceived yourself, it was all just an illusion, a self-inflicted illusion. You have come to believe in God because of it, you have changed your life for this illusion. This is the very embodiment of being deluded.
I don't think you are crazy and you are otherwise a very rational person, you don't have more flaws than anyone else, it just happened that the circumstances conspired to give you a very wrong perspective of the world and you shouldn't be ashamed because of that.
As for the other argument "Look at this amazing thing that I can't possibly imagine how could it have come about therefore GOD DONE IT!" is a very old argument from ignorance, it has been addressed countless times in this forum and if you had been here long enough you would be very familiar with it (because it pops up everywhere). And in fact it is not even the reason why you believe in God.

I hope you take the time to read this carefully and compare it against your own experience and how you have come to believe things (perhaps you will learn more about yourself than you think).