Why do atheists think that religious people are delusional?

Your opinion of the universe is irrelevant, of course.

So this eternal "natural substance" became the universe? How can something eternal change so fundamentally? And surely the singularity was made up of more than one "substance," was it not?

 

Actually no, there really isn't. Please explain how they are different. This is just special pleading.

Uh, some of them, why? How is that relevant?

And something that's eternal has to be perfect? Please show me the logic argument for this claim.

 

We don't know, we likely will never know but since we are here there must have been an event that started it, what was before doesn't matter. However I see no reason we need to plug in a deity to explain it what's wrong with - we don't know but neither do you, the only difference is the deists plugs in an intelligent prime mover and I plug in a "primordial force of natural origin".

I will note however to further pose this issue if the deific force does interact with its creation in a real way then we should be able to scientifically detect this somewhere we can't for example see a black hole itself but can it interacting with its environment a it has object spinning around it at great speed or devouring stellar material as two examples. Surely a supernatural realm would be as hard to hide from our instruments and tools of reason.

 

The issue is settled once you understand that Reality is this almighty force which unfolds instant after instant, constantly and forever continually.

Reality creates the next frame of existence over and over again and again.
Reality is the Creator.

Luke 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him, (which is Reality).

 

The question was 'why do atheist think that religious people are delusional' and the answer is quite simple 'because they are'.
How many 'so called' believers have ever informed themselves ? There are numerous books and articles which clearly show that the Evangelist and Roman catholic church was founded on lies and deception. Paul, or should I say Saul 'the spouter of lies' was a Roman infiltrate who formed
a new religion totally contrary to the original Jerusalem Church and was in fact involved in the murder of James 'the righteous' and brother of Jesus.
They have and still are using their position to exploit the spiritual needs of the public and frankly continue to lie and deceive.
Those who follow blindly are followers of a fools faith invented to control.
I for one am in favour of everyone being able to believe what they want, but that does not mean I do not consider them gullable fools.
What happened to an 'open mind' ? Why do believers shirk their responsibility to find the truth ?
To me it is clear why. Claiming a pathetic superiority and arrogance, claiming we need those charlatans to contact god.
Question is 'HOW DELUDED CAN YOU BE ?
Ps. I was raised Evangelist and now hate the deceivers and money making charlatans, most in the corrupt and screwed up US.

 

Something coming from nothing is illogical and impossible. That's not the case with an eternal Creator, whose perfection allows it to create anything it desires, regardless of whether there was something to begin with.

God created those ingredients (along with the conditions in which they existed), and the rest is history.

Deficiencies and faults are a form of self-destruction. For instance, eternal life is an impossibilty for humans because of our biological imperfections.

 

some were, most though did not what to live in a theocracy

the bible changes between sects, let alone societies

.

.

 

It's not a case of knowing, but that of simple logic. Your theory is straight-up illogical. Mine isn't.

Except that God doesn't submit to the science of humans (which He created).

 

Then where did this god being come from using your argument it ,to, must have had a creator even more perfect and complex and that creator had a creator ... same case at some point deities had to come from nothing as well. I don't see the need for that if it was a material and purely natural process with eternally existing "something" its more plausible since whatever that substance was didn't need to be intelligent it tried to create reality often enough it would eventually get a stable one and here we are.

 

Not the same case. Deities are not physical beings and therefore the rules which you and others apply to the physical does not apply to that which is non-physical. For you to suggest that the rules of physicality do apply to that which is non-physical, goes beyond the scope of science and ventures into the area of 'belief' and 'faith' in something that is not physical. One might now challenge me to prove that spirit is non-physical... pretty easy to accomplish... just ask any Atheist if they have ever seen (implying visual detection) a spirit. You might also want to ask the same group of persons if there is a spiritual realm. Now if the non-theists cannot believe the words of fellow non-theists then they are a lost cause. Their negative responses would/could indicate that the spiritual realm and spirits are not found in the physical realm.

 

It is completely illogical to claim that something can be "more perfect" than something perfect. You can't possibly be better when you are perfect.

Not unless said deity is eternal.

So did this "eternal substance" of yours turn itself into the universe? If so, then it never was eternal. More so, the universe is made up of many different ingredients. Did your "eternal substance" break into individual components? If that's the case, it never was eternal.

As you can see, only God makes logical sense.

 

Okay let me get this straight a perfect being of immense power and intellect without the benefit of a society or means to educate popped out of nothing at some point, I know how humans learn from others and a bulk of sources and even a super genius is not an expert in everything perhaps given many lifetimes its possible but your god-being didn't have a society. You stick a small child on an island with nothing I would kind of bet if the child survived it would be illiterate, not know how to handle society much but would be a wonderful survivalist. God would have been it seems worse off with nothing or did a learning machine of such complexity also pop into existance.

As for the spiritual realm if it interacts with us and that is claimed in every faith, then it should have an impact science could locate and study, and some colleges did have Parapsychology interests in them and I assume by bright people with a scientific focus and they couldn't manage it. I know others tried Nazi Germany and the Soviets had efforts in psychic studies and the occult in various ways. Nothing at least that is considered convincing by mainstream science and they would accept real hard proof. The proof is up to you making the claim right now my own research into this wasn't impressing me and I'm well read in many areas of religion and areas of interest regarding the "psychic and paranormal" you think Atheists are so dumb we don't study this most of us are well versed in it.

 

Except that something eternal does not "pop out of nothing." On the contrary, it always existed. Please review the definition of 'eternal.'

This is your own assumption. Let us see the scientific evidence for Love.

 

This is exactly what special pleading is, Goomba. "Yeah, it's impossible for something to come from nothing, but God can do it!" It's fallacious in nature. You aren't even explainin why you think it's impossible for something to come from nothing, it's simply a presumption on your part.

Again, what is the relevancy here?

All atoms are eternal. Does that make the atom perfect?

 

Is God in nature? If not, then why are you wanting to talk about 'nature'?

All atoms are not eternal. Atoms had to be split in order to cause a nuclear reaction. So those atoms involved in nuclear reactions are not eternal.

 

Once again, I never asserted that God came from nothing. My argument is that He is eternal.

A presumption on my part? No, just simple logic. I wonder if you think that knowledge can come from ignorance.

Wrong; that atoms can neither be created or destroyed does not mean that they are eternal. Please review the definition of eternal.

 

Where in the world do you see me arguing that God came from nothing? Is there some communication problem here, or are you simply not reading my posts? YOU first claimed that the Universe coming from nothing is impossible. Then you claimed God created the universe from nothing. Those two statements directly conflict.

If it's nothing but simple logic, show your argument instead of just claiming its obviousness. And no, knowledge comes from experience.

Eternal means lasting forever. Atoms will forever exist. That's the definition of eternal.

 

My bad. Nevertheless, the two statements are certainly not in conflict. On one hand, you have the illogical scenario of something coming from nothing.

On the other hand, you have God, who is the perfect Creator. Since He is the perfect Creator, He is thus able to create something from nothing. If He isn't able to do so, He is not the perfect Creator.

In the first scenario, you have something popping out of nowhere. In the second, you have a perfect Creator creating as He pleases, with no barriers whatsoever to limit His power of creation. Which of the two is logical? The latter of course.

Show my argument? How exactly do you except me to show you how something can't come from nothing? All one has to do is read up on the definition of both terms.

Eternal does not just mean lasting forever.

 

And 'experience' is personal. Sometimes this can even be called 'personal experience' .... and personal experience can also be called 'empirical data'. Personal experience can also include such things as intuition and the experience of religious affiliation.

 

And again, this is special pleading. You are stating what you claim is a rule, but then go ahead and claim that God can break that rule.

Uh, both. If you can't have something popping out of nowhere, then how does God do it? Again, you're creating a rule and then dismissing it as you please.

How would the dictionary definitions have anything to do with it? Where did God get all of the material he created the Universe out of if NOTHING existed.

That's actually exactly the definition of eternal.

 

It would seem that the physicists are having a problem with the notion of 'nothing'. There appears to be no consensus on how 'nothing' is to be defined. Some in fact are saying that "nothing" just might be 'something'. The mystery rolls on.
http://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

 

It's not a case of rules, but that of logic. God is the eternal and perfect being, and nothing is impossible for him. The "rules" must change when God is part of the picture.

Except that God is not a given in the initial rule. God is able to do it because He is the perfect Creator, and accordingly creates perfectly. Creating perfectly would entail creating something out of nothing. Something coming out of nothing is only possible with God, as His perfect nature allows Him to create as He pleases.

He needn't get them out of anywhere. He is God; all He has to say is "Be," and it is.

Incorrect. For one matter, something eternal has no beginning nor end. This quality cannot be seen in atoms, as atoms did indeed have a beginning. They did not always exist; indeed, they were formed in the early stages of the universe.

 

You are saying that it is a rule of existence that something can't come from nothing.

Bingo, and now you're admitting that you're creating rules and then creating an exception to those rules. If one exception can exist, I see no reason why others can't as well.

[quote[Except that God is not a given in the initial rule. God is able to do it because He is the perfect Creator, and accordingly creates perfectly. Creating perfectly would entail creating something out of nothing.[/quote]

How? It is not inherent in the word "perfection", nor is it inherent in any other aspect of a creator.

You continue to talk about logic, and yet you blatantly are using a logical fallacy as the basis of your argument. It's specious at best, bud.

Uh huh.

I apologize, let's start smaller then. Energy and matter. Energy and matter always have been and forever will be.

 

Let me shift this to is the deity you worship deserving of your worship by its demonstrated nature.

This should be simple if you read the Bible for Christians or the Torah for Muslims or the Torah for Jews etc. does the divine forces you profess to honor deserve your worship is it a moral being or are they moral beings?

I can't prove god exists or disprove it but I would make a clear case if you are following the deity in the book or books or oral traditions etc. and the deity is immoral then you making excuses for and worshipping that being is delusional. If its a moral being then its good morality will show in said ways and lead to being silly to me but not delusional more like honoring Santa Clause.

I would argue if you worship and support an immoral god or goddess, who is clearly undeserving of that on simple moral grounds of right and wrong then you are delusional for honoring an immoral being no matter how you try to explain it.

So reflect on this if you read your holy book, bad and the good parts, would a rational moral human see it as good if not raised in the cult in question.

As for god being Eternal something can't come from nothing, you cannot logically claim a special case in the case of a god being, its a logical fallacy. So again where did this being come from? Jewish people kept this simple they assume up front he always did as a matter of faith and god is good (questionable) but simple faith isn't logical so why not just say I believe god was always there and its faith and stop trying to argue origins since most Agnostic Atheists like me would say we don't know how it all began but it doesn't matter we are clearly here.

 

Did I say my rule was absolute?

It's not an exception, but a logical necessity that arises when the present conditions are met with a force that is inherently capable of defying the rules.

For instance, consider an organization wherein one of its rules is that employees cannot eat while on the clock. Let's say that- one day- the owner of said establishment allowed certain employees to eat while on the job.

Does the above example show a case of special pleading? No, it's just that the original rule was never absolute. Indeed, in this case, the absolute trumped the rule.

God is the absolute.

The problem here is that you are looking at both terms individually.

You are premature in your conclusions.

Indeed.

Ah, but something eternal does not just last forever. It is changeless as well, and both energy and matter change.