Atheism As A Valid Worldview

AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheism As A Valid Worldview

I think we've allowed long enough the absurd idea that Atheism is a valid worldview; from its non sensical view of morality to its inability to make sense of knowledge, rationality, science, how did it ever get so deeply entrenched in our minds. Its destroys the very foundation of civilization. It's too harmful to allow any longer. We should call it out! Who's with me?

AtheismIsNonsense

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:My

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

My reason for mentioning it wasn’t to imply that because it makes metaphysical claims, it is unique or therefore it is valid. Other religions certainly do contain a creation story and so forth; however upon analysis, you find inconsistencies and contradictions between its parts. Any worldview that is atheistic is faced with the same problem. Christianity however is the only worldview that is rational. It’s logical, consistent, and internally coherent. If any one has a problem with Christianity, it’s not because it’s not logical or internally incoherent. It’s personally disliked. The atheist criticizes Christianity because he’s ignorant of its philosophical claims and/or of his own worldview’s claims or he personally dislikes or personally disagrees with Christianity; not because it is irrational or internally incoherent.

For someone who has a worldview that is internal incoherent, that personal should not be in a position to criticize one that is perfectly coherent. If you disagree with the claim that the Christian worldview is internally incoherent, explain how it is. Does its metaphysical (the nature of reality) claims clash with its claims of knowledge (how we know what we know) or with its claims of morality (how we should live our lives)? Are any of the parts internally contradictory?

I’m so certain that one will find inconsistencies and contradictions within any worldview that is not the Biblical Christian worldview

Now I know that making the claim that all other worldviews are internal incoherent doesn’t make it so, that is why I’m interested in knowing where you’re coming from with your criticisms against Christianity.

1) What is internally inconsistent about not believing in any Gods?

2) In philosophical discourse, the theist is making the positive claim and thus, holds the burden of proof. If the existence of God cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, then the default position is agnostic atheism. Can you prove that your God exists?

3) Since you have made the offer, I'll attempt to find inconsistencies in your worldview. However, to get a better feel of what you believe, I'll first pose some questions.

What denomination are you? Baptist? Lutheran? Protestant? Catholic? Pentecostal? Non-denominational?

Are you a theistic evolutionist or a Creationist? Do you accept the Big Bang theory? How old do you believe the Earth to be? The universe? In general, do you support the scientific method and acknowledge its contributions to humanity? 

Is your God multiple omni, i.e., omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent?   

Do you have a literal interpretation of Genesis? Do you hold a literal interpretation of the rest of the Bible, including, but not limited to, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Job, and Revelations? In general, do you think that the Bible is perfect or that it is inspired by God, but contains errors because it is written by men? 

Do you believe in the mainstream Christian version of hell, as in, fire and brimstone eternal torture?

Do you think faith is necessary or required to believe in God? If not, prove that God exists,. If so, what is its role and/or what purpose does it serve?

Quote:
Does your worldview allow for rational discourse or argumentation?

Yes.

Quote:
Can it make sense of morality?

What do you mean by "make sense of?"

Quote:
According to your respective worldviews, which happen to be atheistic, was Hitler & the German people wrong for killing the Jews & “genetically inferior” peoples?

Yes.

 

[mod edit for odd persistent bold effect]

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Faithbuster
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-04-09
User is offlineOffline
You seem to think you have

You seem to think you have it nailed on the morality issue and harp on it endlessly.  Let me break it down for you: Even if there is no absolute standard for morals outside of human experience, that does not render our view of morality meaningless.  BobSpence nailed it when he said " true morality, which is based on minimising actual harm and maximising positive aspects our existence, ie , ultimately our own shared nature"

Because we humans have a shared nature, we (the vast majority of us) can agree on certain precepts, such as it is bad to murder, and it is good to help the needy.  The most basic of moral laws have been codified since the Code of Hammurabi - which substantially predated the ten commandments.  When you make statements like -

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 The logical conclusion of atheism is rape, theft, war for conquest, and such. I mean if I have the power and no one's there to stand in my way, I should go for all the gusto. I have no obligation to further the human race or make others happy (I only have one life to live) and there's no God to punish me in this life or in the imaginary life to come-to send me to eternal damnation for my "sins" (oops I mean my moral neutral behavior).

it only shows your utter lack of grasp of the topic.  According to your position you would be absolutely unable to fathom why an atheist could be justified in calling you evil if you, say, intentionally killed child.  I suspect you aren't reaching these conclusions through your own independent thought but rather are parroting back something you've read or heard elsewhere.  Suffice it to say the above claim you make is rubbish.  There is a whole chapter on the topic in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.  Needless to say, I recommend you read it.

Let me repeat it again for emphasis - We can arrive at moral standards through shared experience.  An external absolute is not necessary.  The key is that we arrive at this through a majority process.  Some persons of course commit crimes and murder without feeling they have done wrong - but the majority, ie society at large, holds them responsible.  You seem to think this is wholly without a shred of merit. 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum

Welcome to the forum Faithbuster!

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Faithbuster
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Now you have got me going,

Now you have got me going, for I do enjoy this topic.  It is fascinating.

Einstein said:

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual and I consider ethics
to be an exclusively human concern with no supernatural authority behind it."

I agree with Albert fully on this.  Right and wrong, good and evil - these are concepts, not objects.  You may think I'm conceding a point, but you are apparently thinking that only objective values have any sort of valid meaning.  My point is that, as above, morality is still very real to us as humans and has real meaning - for we are the ones who give it meaning, not god.

Just because someone does not believe in absolute morality does not mean he cannot be passionately and powerfully devoted to a set of moral principles. And a person thinking the word "evil" has no factual meaning does not imply that she would have no objection, for instance, to priests abusing children.  Really man, the opinion you stated before about atheism leading to anarchy and rape is so naive and shallow it boggles me that there are still people who believe it is a sound objection!

In fact, I would argue that your position is morally meaningless, for the christian has moral rules foisted upon him and only has the choice to obey or disobey.  Your actions then, can only be described as obedient or disobedient; mere obedience, however, cannot be morality. We need the ability to choose what to do and to choose or intuit the moral action.  That is absent in your worldview of moral absolutes.   


Faithbuster
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-04-09
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Welcome

butterbattle wrote:

Welcome to the forum Faithbuster!

well you can thank the thread-starting troll for bringing me out of the woodwork!  Even I couldn't let such nonsense go uncontested.

 

that's a great video find butterbattle - sometimes people need to have it spelled out with pictures


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Christianity however is the only worldview that is rational. It’s logical, consistent, and internally coherent.

So ... after Jesus' birth, where did Mary and Joseph go?

 

Matthew 2:14 wrote:

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.

Luke 2:39 wrote:

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Did they go to Israel or Egypt? That's not consistent.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If any one has a problem with Christianity, it’s not because it’s not logical or internally incoherent. It’s personally disliked. The atheist criticizes Christianity because he’s ignorant of its philosophical claims and/or of his own worldview’s claims or he personally dislikes or personally disagrees with Christianity; not because it is irrational or internally incoherent.

Hey, it could be a little from column A and a little from column B, let's be honest. 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Does its metaphysical (the nature of reality) claims clash with its claims of knowledge (how we know what we know) or with its claims of morality (how we should live our lives)? Are any of the parts internally contradictory?

But those are all different questions, so it would be irrelevant. Does any epistemology "clash" with an ethics? That's convoluted and confusing. What the Bible says is that for a certain period of time, the laws of physics were mutable at the whim of someone claiming to be the son of God. That's inconsistent with the truly consistent laws of physics.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Now I know that making the claim that all other worldviews are internal incoherent doesn’t make it so, that is why I’m interested in knowing where you’re coming from with your criticisms against Christianity.

My objection is to supernaturalism in general. It's irrelevant to me that you represent a Christian view, or a Mithraic view, or whatever.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Does your worldview allow for rational discourse or argumentation?

Of course! You're in a forum, where we're all participating in rational discourse and argumentation! It's baffling that you would ask the question when you're actually participating in the process.

As for morality, I've answered twice that in the absence of an absolute morality, a society can still come up with an ethical system. So that even though the Old Testament recommends slavery, modern man can decide to ignore that in favour of freedom.

As for the Hitler question, of course it's abhorrent that he would round up people to kill them. That's a stupid question. There's no need for an absolute rule book to find that terrible.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO FaithBuster #52 and #54

 

Faithbuster wrote:

You seem to think you have it nailed on the morality issue and harp on it endlessly.  Let me break it down for you: Even if there is no absolute standard for morals outside of human experience, that does not render our view of morality meaningless.  BobSpence nailed it when he said " true morality, which is based on minimising actual harm and maximising positive aspects our existence, ie , ultimately our own shared nature"

Because we humans have a shared nature, we (the vast majority of us) can agree on certain precepts, such as it is bad to murder, and it is good to help the needy.  The most basic of moral laws have been codified since the Code of Hammurabi - which substantially predated the ten commandments.  When you make statements like -

it only shows your utter lack of grasp of the topic.  According to your position you would be absolutely unable to fathom why an atheist could be justified in calling you evil if you, say, intentionally killed child.  I suspect you aren't reaching these conclusions through your own independent thought but rather are parroting back something you've read or heard elsewhere.  Suffice it to say the above claim you make is rubbish.  There is a whole chapter on the topic in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.  Needless to say, I recommend you read it.

Let me repeat it again for emphasis - We can arrive at moral standards through shared experience.  An external absolute is not necessary.  The key is that we arrive at this through a majority process.  Some persons of course commit crimes and murder without feeling they have done wrong - but the majority, ie society at large, holds them responsible.  You seem to think this is wholly without a shred of merit.

Faithbuster the scripture commands us to answer the fool according to his folly, less he be wise in his own conceit. I am answering you as an Atheist OUGHT to answer. I want to point out to you and every atheist who claims a morality that is not absolute, that it is logically inconsistent with atheistic presuppositions and that it's futile and ridiculous. I know as a Christian why I should not commit immorality, because I have a standard to judge by, one that transcends human opinions, desires, or human consensus. Atheist do not.

Answer the fool according to his folly, less he be wise in his own conceit

You've simply stipulated a standard. The Utilitarian standard. But it doesn't make it true to simply announce it. Why in an atheistic universe must we follow that standard? Hilter thought advancing the human race through eugenics was the greater good and I’m sure that made him happy. Why should Hilter give up his happiness for the happiness of his victims? You give an answer, but it’s totally arbitrary. There's no consequence after death, only one life to live, if you have the power to enforce your will, what obligation do you have to listen to majority consensus? Hitler thought so and went for it, fortunately for us, the "good" guys out muscled him.

But please read my comments more carefully, because I try to cover many of the objections you might have.

PLEASE, DO NOT BE SO DULL MINDED AS TO MISINTERPRET WHAT I'M SAYING. GOOD, EVIL, RIGHT AND WRONG IS MEANINGFUL TO ME AND TO EVERYONE ON PLANET EARTH. THE PROBLEM WITH ATHEISM IS IF WE BELIEVED IN HOW MORALITY IS DERIVED AS YOU DO (IT BEING SUBJECTIVE AND RELATIVE TO ONE'S SITUATION, UPBRINGING, OR WHAT HAVE YOU) WE WOULD HAVE MANY HITLERS AND GANGSTERS WHO THINK THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND HAVE THEIR OWN LAW THAT THEY LIVE BY. ITS FUNNY HOW YOU ARE SO FOOLISH TO NOT EVEN SEE THAT. STANDARDS OF MORALITY CAN BE AS MANY AS THEIR ARE INDIVIDUALS IN AN ATHEIST UNIVERSE. LUCKY FOR YOU ATHEISM IS NOT TRUE AND CHRISTIAN THEISM IS, THAT IS WHY MORALITY HAS REAL MEANING FOR US

 

By the Way are you an atomistic atheist?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Please define what exactly

Please define what exactly you mean when you say morality?  I think Bob has, but not sure the original poster has.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Now I have time.

Now I have time. Smiling

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Still Dodging!!!

Material is what can be experienced with the basic senses. (Touch, Taste, Sight, Smell, Sound). Composed of atoms. Atomistic.

Immaterial cannot be experienced by the basic senses; it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I doubt very much that you intended to make this so pathetically easy, but you did, so I'm happy.

By your argument and definition of immaterial, infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths are immaterial. And yet, we have developed technology to percieve them, so we know they exist. We have developed technology to see in every wavelength that exists. To hear at every frequency that exists. So your definition of the immaterial has been proven and observed to be material. Your god has not, and has never been observed despite our perception capabilities out performing our physical capabilities, and therefore doesn't exist.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Still Dodging!!!

Still Projecting!!!

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I would've thought by placing the word in quotations, you would get the hint that I'm be sarcastic. Christians like to call atheism a religion because of the blind faith that is required to believe in it (according to how atheist's describe theists).

Blind faith would be required to BELIEVE in atheism, if atheism was something to believe in. But it's not something to believe in, it's a lack of belief.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Still Dodging!!!

Still Projecting!!!

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

What kind of answer is that you're giving. I am convinced now that are cannot defend your atheism. You're like a 5 year old giving me a "I know you are but what am I"'ish response.

That needs some work. Here:

Quote:

What kind of answer am I giving? I am convinced now that I cannot defend my theism. I'm like a 5 year old giving you a "I know you are but what am I"ish response.

Fixed.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

As clever as you might think your answer is, it's not, it hides your insecurity in the answers that you know atheists always respond with, which make no sense and are totally irrational and incoherent.

Your entire argument is based on a false position that you created in order to destroy it, and has absolutely no impact or even suggestive influence on reality. This logical failure is defined as a Straw Man Fallacy.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Let's talk about morality. Explain atheistic morality and I don't mean what you think is right or wrong, good or evil. I'm asking can right or wrong, good or evil even exist in an atheistic universe? I want you to think long and hard about it, make sure you know the implications of whatever answer you give us.

 

Until tomorrow or possibly tonight. Ciao!

Good and evil are subjective. They do not and can not exist objectively. The ultimate proof of this is shown via differing moralities in different cultures and species.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

There is ample evidence for God's existence. The fact that we're engaging in intelligent conversation, make moral choices, think and operate scientifically are all evidences of God's existence.

No, that would be evidence for our own existance and capacity to form morals and to think. Not the existance of your invisible friend.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

What is not intelligent is ignoring having to explain the foundations for rationality, how we know what we know, and how we should live our lives.

Ridiculous. We don't have to explain the foundation of existance and everything it leads to in order to invalidate your god or go on with our lives. You are adding to all of these questions merely by positing a god in the first place. Occam's Razor owns you, your friends, and your god.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  Atheists ignore all of that and say, you don't have to know that, cause I'm being rational (but not in this situation), I'm doing science, I'm making moral judgments, so I don't have to explain it, but all the while they demand that you have a quantitative and qualitative answer for anything in order to believe or think it's true. I don't know how you find coherency in that.

Because you aren't coherant, you are incapable of percieving coherancy in others. It is a flaw in yourself that you project onto us.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Have you proven that only things that can be quantitatively and/or qualitatively measured exist or have significance?

Why do we have to? We're quite happy knowing that we don't know everything. Maybe a future generation will. I'd almost like to be around to see it, just in order to see if religion could survive in such a scenario, and if it could, how.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Can you explain the existence of morality, knowledge, or logic or how they can exist in an atheistic universe?

Our morality is thanks to 4.5 billion years of evolution on Earth, and an additional 11 odd billion years of cosmic progression. Knowledge simply is. Logic simply is. They exist because they exist. Much like 1+1 always equals 2.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

As a Christian I can explain these things,

No, but you can make up explanations that do absolutely nothing for our understanding of reality, and you are doing so.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  I can make sense of my experience as a human being, why I make moral judgments, conduct scientific experiments, and think coherently (rationally).

My argument against atheists is that you can't.

You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are projecting your own failing in this area onto us.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
So my challenge to you is explain how morality for starters is even possible in an atheistic universe. Not what you think is right or wrong, good or evil, but how can right or wrong, good or evil exist.

My challenge to you is to become coherant and start thinking critically, so you can stop making a fool of yourself.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

And please, stop referring to science as if only atheist have exclusive rights to it.

Noone ever said that any group has exclusive rights to science. You're projecting and lying again.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I will grant that Atheist have more drive and have achieved more in this field than even Christians have (referring to scientific inventions and the sort) because money is a mighty motivator.

I'm not actually sure this is true, and since it has nothing to do with anything, I'm not going to bother with it.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  

what you write:

"complexity is known to arise from less complex systems"

 

Is this always the case with everything in every category.

That's a loaded question that again shows your ignorance of science in multiple fields.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  

"In the absence of any evidence for God, and the FACT that the concept actually introduces an idea which is itself actually complicates and contradicts our observations of the Universe"

 

How so? saying so doesn't make it so.

No logic medal for you.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  

"Postulating the existence of an invisible super-being which can magic a whole Universe into existence by just thinking about it, is just primitive ignorance."

 

I have a better answer than this "everything came from nothing!"

That's exactly what your argument is. We simply don't know how existance came to be, and we aren't as arrogant as you are in our lack of knowledge. You claim you know even though you don't, while we simply claim we don't know.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  

"Postulating the existence of an invisible super-being which can magic a whole Universe into existence by just thinking about it, is just primitive ignorance."

 

I'd love to hear the atheist's answer to the origin of the universe.

Once we've found out that the universe has an origin, and we've found out what that origin is, we'll let you know. Until then, we're not going to lie to you about it. But of course, you have no problem lying to us.

I might take apart the rest of the posts you made later, if I get bored enough.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Faithbuster
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-04-09
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote: I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 I know as a Christian why I should not commit immorality, because I have a standard to judge by, one that transcends human opinions, desires, or human consensus. Atheist do not.

This is part of the point I was trying to make earlier.  You are stating that you do not commit immorality because it is God's law (your standard to judge by).  In this case you are in effect saying that you are only moral because you are commanded to be so, not because you actually want or understand what it is to be moral.  As an atheist I believe we are autonomous agents and have the right and the obligation to determine moral standards through shared experience and empathy.  Of these two methods of arriving at moral judgement one is far more rich and deeper than the other.

Is it not cowardly and disingenuous to suggest that we behave only out of fear of divine retribution? That without God's law we would degenerate into wholesale anarchy?  That line of thought is rubbish, but I give you credit for asking the atheist to invalidate it logically.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Hilter thought advancing the human race through eugenics was the greater good and I’m sure that made him happy. Why should Hilter give up his happiness for the happiness of his victims? You give an answer, but it’s totally arbitrary. There's no consequence after death, only one life to live, if you have the power to enforce your will, what obligation do you have to listen to majority consensus?

You mention Hitler several times now.  One thing you should know is that Hitler never claimed to be atheist, and claimed christian belief by several sources.  Whether he was actually atheist or not is unknown, but we'll assume he was for the purposes of your example.  My initial response was that Hitler was a tyrant, and one of the sociopathic types I mentioned that cannot recognize their own actions as what we consider evil.  It is unforntunate that he gained power and could not be opposed by the majority standard for so long, but eventually he was defeated and laid low by others that recognized his actions as evil.  Society's moral system, arbitrary as it is, restored the peace and stopped the wrongdoing. 

However again I mention that it is not established, at all, that he was ever an atheist, and hence there is nothing to suggest he had no belief in divine judgement.  However, by the scriptures, you God would still allow for his complete forgiveness if he chose, and for all we know he could have accepted the lord Jesus as his savior in that bunker and be in heaven right now.  How fucked up is that?

I grant I probably haven't directly addressed your question and sidestepped it to some degree.  I'll post back when I have more time and be more direct.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Religion is the 'world-view'

Religion is the 'world-view' which has no basis for actual morality, based as it is on the requirement for adherence to pronouncements claimed to be from a hypothetical God which cannot be unambiguosly perceived.

This allows 'moral actions' to be defined to be whatever the person claiming to speak for God thinks he has been told by God, without reference to any actual objective guidelines such as the amount of suffering or pain they may cause to actual affected persons, as well as defining all sorts of mundane and utterly harmless activities as 'wrong', like working on the Sabbath.

It has allowed people to severely damage the health of, or actually kill, their children when they perceive it as preferable to 'allowing' them to continue on a path contradicting some religious edict, and inspired laws which allows them to get away with such acts if they can  justify it from their religious beliefs.

Religious 'morality' severs the vital connection between our moral sense and our native senses of fairness, empathy, and compassion.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Oh and Welcome to the

Oh and Welcome to the forums, Faithbuster!

I like your style.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply to Magus #58

Magus, I'm only one person so I can't respond to every post. I mentioned in my other posts that I don't want to know the standards of morality that atheists have but how they are derived. Faithbuster wrote We can arrive at moral standards through shared experience.  An external absolute is not necessary.  The key is that we arrive at this through a majority process.

Maybe Bob' answer may be similar. I can't see how they wouldn't be.

Please read my posts for the problem associated with utilitarian type ethics.

Morality is the way in which we we live our lives. How those standards of conduct are derived is what I'm asking for.

In the Biblical worldview These standards are given by the Divine Law Giver, they are specific to humans. The standard is universal, objective, not subjective and relativistic to a group of people, society, nation, or what have you.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Please take your own advice

Please take your own advice and read how every single thing you've said has been refuted ad absurdum. You're just repeating the same tired shit we already slapped down.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Still Dodging!!!

Material is what can be experienced with the basic senses. (Touch, Taste, Sight, Smell, Sound). Composed of atoms. Atomistic.

Immaterial cannot be experienced by the basic senses; it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Vastet wrote:

I doubt very much that you intended to make this so pathetically easy, but you did, so I'm happy.

By your argument and definition of immaterial, infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths are immaterial. And yet, we have developed technology to percieve them, so we know they exist. We have developed technology to see in every wavelength that exists. To hear at every frequency that exists. So your definition of the immaterial has been proven and observed to be material. Your god has not, and has never been observed despite our perception capabilities out performing our physical capabilities, and therefore doesn't exist.

 

Vastet, I just wanted to comment on this, I think it's FUNNY. When I sit out under the sun for example, I feel the heat of the sun's rays, some of the UV rays are "cooking" my skin, giving me a tan. I don't know about you but I would say that I'm sensing it. In fact it can be measured and reproduced so how does it fall under my definition of Immaterial?

I may respond to your other other comments. But if you can read my other posts for answers that I may not have directly addressed to you. I'm only one person in this thread.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Vastet, I just wanted to comment on this, I think it's FUNNY. When I sit out under the sun for example, I feel the heat of the sun's rays, some of the UV rays are "cooking" my skin, giving me a tan. I don't know about you but I would say that I'm sensing it. In fact it can be measured and reproduced so how does it fall under my definition of Immaterial?

 

I just love how you ignore sound frequencies, contributing to your self ownage example #1. No further effort necessary.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'Existence' either always

'Existence' either always existed, or came from non-existence.

If 'something' always existed, no 'creator' required.

If it came into existence spontaneously, then again no need for a 'creator'.

All the above applies to the TOTALITY of what exists, including any imagined 'God', by definition.

It is a total logical contradiction to propose the existence of something outside the totality of what exists.

So God as ultimate creator is a non-sequiter. It is worse that irrational - it is a logical fallacy. IOW, Theism is intrinsically NONSENSE.

Once 'something' exists, there is no logical problem with emergence of increasingly complex entities, structures or processes, even perhaps a very powerful conscious being, but infinite and perfect are logically incoherent as applied to actual real entities.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Vastet, I just wanted to comment on this, I think it's FUNNY. When I sit out under the sun for example, I feel the heat of the sun's rays, some of the UV rays are "cooking" my skin, giving me a tan. I don't know about you but I would say that I'm sensing it. In fact it can be measured and reproduced so how does it fall under my definition of Immaterial?

 

I just love how you ignore sound frequencies, contributing to your self ownage example #1. No further effort necessary.

And yet, I feel like putting in a bit more.

You started by referring to OUR senses, you brainless twit. NOT what technology has done to improve them(ie: measuring UV, and reproducing it, something that CANNOT be done without technology that only recently came about). So you self owned twice over in the same response, in two different directions. How pathetically amusing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply to Faithbuster #60

FaithBuster Wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 I know as a Christian why I should not commit immorality, because I have a standard to judge by, one that transcends human opinions, desires, or human consensus. Atheist do not.

FaithBuster:

This is part of the point I was trying to make earlier.  You are stating that you do not commit immorality because it is God's law (your standard to judge by).  In this case you are in effect saying that you are only moral because you are commanded to be so, not because you actually want or understand what it is to be moral.  As an atheist I believe we are autonomous agents and have the right and the obligation to determine moral standards through shared experience and empathy.  Of these two methods of arriving at moral judgement one is far more rich and deeper than the other.

Is it not cowardly and disingenuous to suggest that we behave only out of fear of divine retribution? That without God's law we would degenerate into wholesale anarchy?  That line of thought is rubbish, but I give you credit for asking the atheist to invalidate it logically.

 

I apologize for putting the two thoughts in the same statement. I meant to say that I know as a Christian I should not commit immorality because I'm created in God's image and God is to be feared. It even says in the Bible. (But that fear turns to love for him and humans because if you love God and man is made in the image of God, you will love your neighbor also). Now second thought was this, my standard by which I know what is wrong and what is right is superior to the morality that atheists come up with because it transcends human opinions, desires, or human consensus; my standard is absolute. I won't be right tomorrow, but wrong today, or vice versa. What's considered evil tomorrow might be called good today.

If I were an Atheist and I believed that might makes right, that man is an evolved animal (evolved meaning having the ability to reason and rationalize) and I believed that I had only this life to live. I would go for all the gusto. Make my own laws. Do what was right in my own eyes if I had the power, ability to get away with crimes, because it would be cowardly and disingenuous of me to suppress my desires and urges for some imaginary thing call morality or honor or love. In atomistic atheism it's just matter in motion. I'm sure that many people who commit such crimes rationalize this way if they're atheists and it would be totally logical in an atheistic universe.

 

Faithbuster wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Hilter thought advancing the human race through eugenics was the greater good and I’m sure that made him happy. Why should Hilter give up his happiness for the happiness of his victims? You give an answer, but it’s totally arbitrary. There's no consequence after death, only one life to live, if you have the power to enforce your will, what obligation do you have to listen to majority consensus?

You mention Hitler several times now.  One thing you should know is that Hitler never claimed to be atheist, and claimed christian belief by several sources.  Whether he was actually atheist or not is unknown, but we'll assume he was for the purposes of your example.  My initial response was that Hitler was a tyrant, and one of the sociopathic types I mentioned that cannot recognize their own actions as what we consider evil.  It is unforntunate that he gained power and could not be opposed by the majority standard for so long, but eventually he was defeated and laid low by others that recognized his actions as evil.  Society's moral system, arbitrary as it is, restored the peace and stopped the wrongdoing. 

However again I mention that it is not established, at all, that he was ever an atheist, and hence there is nothing to suggest he had no belief in divine judgement.  However, by the scriptures, you God would still allow for his complete forgiveness if he chose, and for all we know he could have accepted the lord Jesus as his savior in that bunker and be in heaven right now.  How fucked up is that?

I grant I probably haven't directly addressed your question and sidestepped it to some degree.  I'll post back when I have more time and be more direct.

 

Hitler praised Darwin and his form of eugenics was the consequence of embracing his theory. Hitler by far was not a Christian, how can one read the Bible and think he was a Christian. I could call myself a Neo Nazi, but I think my behavior would betray me. You get the idea.

And you know what if he had truly repented and believed the Gospel even right before God, he would've been saved. And just so you know people go to hell for their sins and for no other reason.

I'll close by saying that I'm happy that you're honest enough to say atheistic morality is arbitrary.

 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO VASTET

I guess you didn't like me pointing out your little error there about UV rays.

Anyhow, no one here has refuted me. I got one of you to say that your morality is arbitrary. Now is it a good thing or a bad thing to be arbitrary?

If you read all of your answers collectively, your answer basically boils down to this. I'm doing science, I'm being rational (not in this argument), I make moral judgments, I'm an atheist and I don't have to know why I do the things I do, so atheism must be true.

If Christians argued in similar fashion, I wonder if you would give us the same courtesy.

It would go something like this:

I'm doing science, I'm being rational, I make moral judgments, I'm a Christian and I could but I don't want to give an account for the things I do as a human being, so Christianity must be true.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
I"M SENSING IT

This is a quote:

"I feel the heat of the sun's rays, some of the UV rays are "cooking" my skin, giving me a tan. I don't know about you but I would say that I'm sensing it"

(italicized for emphasis)

I only added the other part to imply that the immaterial cannot be measured or reproduced by material means.

It's like the soul of man. I don't think you believe that man has a soul or spirit. But one wouldn't be able to measure it or reproduce it via material means. God "breathes" into every man and woman the "the breath of life".

 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I guess you didn't like me pointing out your little error there about UV rays.

Actually, I made no error. You just don't have the intellect or the education to point it out to you.

I guess you didn't like me pointing out your lack of response to sound frequencies either. Something you probably do have the education to understand.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Anyhow, no one here has refuted me.

Everyone has refuted you.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 I got one of you to say that your morality is arbitrary. Now is it a good thing or a bad thing to be arbitrary?

That would be subjective.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

If you read all of your answers collectively, your answer basically boils down to this. I'm doing science, I'm being rational (not in this argument), I make moral judgments, I'm an atheist and I don't have to know why I do the things I do, so atheism must be true.

Which clearly spells out yet again that you aren't paying attention.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

If Christians argued in similar fashion, I wonder if you would give us the same courtesy.

Amazingly, that is exactly how christians argue, and how you are arguing, but you haven't the intellect to realize it.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It would go something like this:

I'm doing science, I'm being rational, I make moral judgments, I'm a Christian and I could but I don't want to give an account for the things I do as a human being, so Christianity must be true.

You are starting to bore me. But not yet enough to stop me from throwing your stupidity in your face.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO BobSpence1 #67

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Existence' either always existed, or came from non-existence.

It is a total logical contradiction to propose the existence of something outside the totality of what exists.

Once 'something' exists, there is no logical problem with emergence of increasingly complex entities, structures or processes, even perhaps a very powerful conscious being, but infinite and perfect are logically incoherent as applied to actual real entities.

 

Bob is really something. He knows the limits of what's possible. Is he omniscient? Has he conducted some experiment in the laboratory or out in the field to arrive at this conclusion. Wow!

 

Honestly for us to know the things Bob claims to know, we would have to be omniscient or know someone who is and for that someone to communicate this truth to us. Christians know someone who's omniscient and has revealed himself and truth and knowledge to us. He's the Christian God. Amen

Bob you go ahead and make your absolute claims. (btw I think one of you early in the first page claimed that we would not know anything 100% even after 1000's of years)

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Correction of Gross Error

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 When I sit out under the sun for example, I feel the heat of the sun's rays, some of the UV rays are "cooking" my skin, giving me a tan. I don't know about you but I would say that I'm sensing it. In fact it can be measured and reproduced so how does it fall under my definition of Immaterial?

You clearly need an education about the effect of the Sun on the skin.

1)You feel heat because of the infrared spectrum not UV.

2)UVA and UVB do not cook the skin. Tanning in no way involves cooking.

As the owner of several tanning salons for over 15 years I have heard  this sort of stupidity in multiple ways including the urban legend of how a woman cooked her insides.

The Sun and tanning beds are not microwaves to your skin.

For more on the real aspects on tanning please go to: http://www.tanningtruth.com/

Thanks,

Now back to your regularly scheduled confused statements.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:This

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

This is a quote:

"I feel the heat of the sun's rays, some of the UV rays are "cooking" my skin, giving me a tan. I don't know about you but I would say that I'm sensing it"

(italicized for emphasis)

I only added the other part to imply that the immaterial cannot be measured or reproduced by material means.

It's like the soul of man. I don't think you believe that man has a soul or spirit. But one wouldn't be able to measure it or reproduce it via material means. God "breathes" into every man and woman the "the breath of life".

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

In fact it can be measured and reproduced

Gee. How do you measure it with your feelings?

This brainless twatwaffle self owns too quickly to bother counting up the death blows.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Existence' either always existed, or came from non-existence.

It is a total logical contradiction to propose the existence of something outside the totality of what exists.

Once 'something' exists, there is no logical problem with emergence of increasingly complex entities, structures or processes, even perhaps a very powerful conscious being, but infinite and perfect are logically incoherent as applied to actual real entities.

 

Bob is really something. He knows the limits of what's possible. Is he omniscient? Has he conducted some experiment in the laboratory or out in the field to arrive at this conclusion. Wow!

 

Honestly for us to know the things Bob claims to know, we would have to be omniscient or know someone who is and for that someone to communicate this truth to us. Christians know someone who's omniscient and has revealed himself and truth and knowledge to us. He's the Christian God. Amen

Bob you go ahead and make your absolute claims. (btw I think one of you early in the first page claimed that we would not know anything 100% even after 1000's of years)

I have made no claims to 100% knowledge of everything, just applied basic logic, a subject you clearly have 0% understanding of.

If 'God' exists, he is by definition part of the TOTALITY of existence, If you don't understand or accept that proposition, then whatever finite amount of knowledge I have is irrelevant - you clearly have very little.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

PLEASE, DO NOT BE SO DULL MINDED AS TO MISINTERPRET WHAT I'M SAYING. GOOD, EVIL, RIGHT AND WRONG IS MEANINGFUL TO ME AND TO EVERYONE ON PLANET EARTH. THE PROBLEM WITH ATHEISM IS IF WE BELIEVED IN HOW MORALITY IS DERIVED AS YOU DO (IT BEING SUBJECTIVE AND RELATIVE TO ONE'S SITUATION, UPBRINGING, OR WHAT HAVE YOU) WE WOULD HAVE MANY HITLERS AND GANGSTERS WHO THINK THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND HAVE THEIR OWN LAW THAT THEY LIVE BY. ITS FUNNY HOW YOU ARE SO FOOLISH TO NOT EVEN SEE THAT. STANDARDS OF MORALITY CAN BE AS MANY AS THEIR ARE INDIVIDUALS IN AN ATHEIST UNIVERSE. LUCKY FOR YOU ATHEISM IS NOT TRUE AND CHRISTIAN THEISM IS, THAT IS WHY MORALITY HAS REAL MEANING FOR US

 

I find it amusing when people state that something can only exist one way, and then are surprised to discover that that's the way it is.  The most common example is the fact that the earth has conditions "perfect" for the development of life, as if they think we all somehow got incredibly lucky to live here.  I suppose they imagine that there are creatures on some other, inhospitable planet shivering and lamenting the fact that they were cursed to live in a place completely unable to support them.

To the "AthiesmIsNonsense" poster, you admit that "good, evil, right and wrong" are meaningful to everyone on planet earth, and yet you should hardly be surprised, as that is the only way the state of affairs could be.  If no one shared common morality, there would only be chaos.  Further, any people with morality that deviates from the norm in a significant way are removed from society, increasing the general level of agreement.  Of course the only society that could survive would be the one with moral rules that foster the growth of society.  In this respect, an atheist society is no different from a theist society.  You may be interested to observe that all societies and religions share a large subset of their moral rules, and those are the ones generally considered the most crucial to society, because they are the most harmful (killing, stealing, etc).  The differences in morals tend to be more related to the comfort and rituals of the people in question (e.g. those related to non-harmful interactions between people), or are related to environmental circumstances.

In addition, it is important to note that the morality you are suggesting (i.e. coming from god) is just as arbitrary as the one you seem to believe atheists follow (i.e. "whatever they want" ), and far more arbitrary than the one they actually do follow (generally some adaptation of a utilitarian scheme).  To follow a set of morality "just because some third party has told you to" doesn't give you any reason to believe that it is any more right than anything else.  And, if there is some reason for god's choices in the creation of morality, then that indicates that there is a rationale for morality separate from god, and so god isn't necessary to form morals in the first place.  Either way, by following rules just because you're told to puts you in exactly the position you claim atheists to be.

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 I have to say I'm feeling

 I have to say I'm feeling like you didn't enjoy my answers, Nonsense. Maybe you didn't know that you're parroting Plato, or that your notions of morality have been covered more than a few times in the past 4,000 years. Maybe you don't know how valid other points of view are because you don't know enough about them. 

Perhaps you missed that history class where they talked about the Enlightenment, and you never had an opportunity to learn about epistemologies. But Plato is where you're getting your ideas of morality. Actually, it's closer to Thomas Aquinas, via Augustine of Hippo, via Plotinus, who got them from Plato. It's a long string of unconfirmed contemplations that have resulted in no solid results.

So, for a third time, I will answer the questions you feel are so damning to the "atheist position"

1. Morality can be, and IS, formed based on the pragmatic concerns of a populace. If there's something in the Bible that's stupid, it doesn't get into the modern moral system. Stoning, slavery, and the wacky punishments for adultery are good examples. If the Bible tells us something, and we know better, how did that happen? It's not magic, humans have a moral sense in terms of their cultural values.

2. There is no superior "theory of knowledge" (=epistemology) to the empirical method in terms of results. Nothing comes close. Hypothesis -> Test -> Falsification. It's simple, specific, and it's repeatable. These days, we even have people who are so good at it that they're professional scientists. By comparison, Christian theology has taught us that we don't know how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin. Wow. Thanks for coming out, theology.

3. Stop with the Hitler. Everyone here finds the Holocaust terrible, and It's not because the Bible tells us to find the Holocaust terrible. I find it odd that you would need guidance on that issue.

"Hmm ... shipping off and gassing of hundreds of thousands -- oh, make that millions -- of people. Well ... I suppose that's bad, but I should really make sure. Where's my copy of The Bible?"

The rest of us can find things morally repugnant on their respective merits, but you have to look it up in a book. That's weird, and kind of scary.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
To the OP, I'm patiently

To the OP, I'm patiently waiting for a response to my questions. Also, using the caps lock......... 

AtheismisNonsense wrote:
Hitler praised Darwin and his form of eugenics was the consequence of embracing his theory. Hitler by far was not a Christian, how can one read the Bible and think he was a Christian. I could call myself a Neo Nazi, but I think my behavior would betray me. You get the idea.

I am not sure whether Hitler was Christian, but he was certainly a theist.

Also, evolution is a biological theory and thus, has no weight in human society. Any attempted application of it would be a naturalistic fallacy. Furthermore, if the Nazis had asserted that they were a superior race and deserved to be "naturally selected," their claim would be absurd anyways since they had neither come close proving that Aryan's were superior nor had a coherent definition of Aryan in the first place.  

"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed." (Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi) "For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

"Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. i

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them." - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people." - Adolf Hitler, Speech, April 26, 1933

"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

"What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

"In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/nazis.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2008_04.html

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismisNonse: If you were

AtheismisNonse: If you were an atheist, do you honestly think that you would go around raping people?

Yes or No?

If your answer is yes, my follow up question is: what do you think is the reason atheists don't all go around committing crimes?

If your answer is no, my follow up question is: why wouldn't you?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
On morality - basing one's

On morality - basing one's moral rules, or anything else, and thereby claiming you have an absolutely 'true' knowledge of the subject, on the perceived pronouncements of a being infinitely more powerful than us, would require the capability to accurately judge the motives of such a being, so as to be absolutely confident that 'He' was not just playing with us.

Since such a being would have infinite ability to utterly deceive us, this is a far more outlandish claim than anything I or any other atheist has ever claimed.

You and other Theists somehow assume that the being you envisage as God would only ever make true statements, which is pure naive assumption.

There is not even a logical way that a finite, fallible mind could ever be 100% confident that what is felt to be a direct communication from a God is not a simple hallucination or misinterpretation of the limited range of experiences that can be manifest in the human mind.

In short, while science can never really establish anything with 100% certainty, ideas about a God derived purely from internal experience have neglible certainty of actually being more than pure speculation. To insist on anything else would mean you are claiming more than Papal infallibility, which no atheist would dream of claiming.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I think we've allowed long enough the absurd idea that Atheism is a valid worldview;

 

It's an absurd idea to think atheism is a worldview in the first place.  Atheism a lack of belief in the claims of theists regarding theism. That's it.  Nothing else is implied.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:1) What

butterbattle wrote:


1) What is internally inconsistent about not believing in any Gods?

Bingo.

 

Everything else is off topic. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 

For someone who has a worldview that is internal incoherent, that personal should not be in a position to criticize one that is perfectly coherent. 

Your 'worldview' is completely incoherent. The very basic terms "god" and 'supernatural" are incoherent.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/quotgodquot_incoherent_term

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

 

You commit the fallacy of stealing the concept (from naturalism) with every supposed utterance from your 'worldview"

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey, todangst, it's great to

Hey, todangst, it's great to have you rejoining the fray!

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Hey,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Hey, todangst, it's great to have you rejoining the fray!

Hey, one of my favorite posters!

 

Good to see you too, Bob.  It seems my old essays can still be simply cut and pasted into these new threads.

 

How are things here? I hear Rook isn't around anymore. Any other big changes?

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:It seems my

todangst wrote:

It seems my old essays can still be simply cut and pasted into these new threads.

Yeah, that's pretty much the long and the short of it. I've borrowed copiously from your treatment of the supernatural as incoherent, but find that I usually have to summarize it in a paragraph, or only allude to the concepts. Otherwise, it's too much for our friends holding up the neoplatonic standard.

Good to have you back.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
One opponent at a time please

I was pretty busy this weekend, so I didn't respond after my last post. If it OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, we think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I was pretty busy this weekend, so I didn't respond after my last post. If it OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, we think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

In other words, you'd rather be defeated in detail than annihilated in one fell swoop?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Xagzan
Xagzan's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2009-04-09
User is offlineOffline
I agree (my 3rd post yay)

todangst wrote:

butterbattle wrote:


 

1) What is internally inconsistent about not believing in any Gods?
Bingo. Everything else is off topic. 

And this is the truth. There is nothing that humans have learned through science that is inconsistent with the observed laws of the universe. The concept of a god, however, as not only a male being, but also an immaterial one who exists outside of space/time and exhibits a certain form of telepathy and even telekinesis upon the material world (i.e. the flood), and the existence of whom is somehow known to people who simultaneously claim that God cannot BE known (if nothing about him can be known, that includes his existence), now THAT goes against pretty much everything that has been observed realistically in the universe by people who didn't resort to making up fairy tales just because they were arrogantly dissatisfied with their lack of total knowledge.

 

Yet this user/possible troll? has yet to present any valid observable realistic points. Let alone ones that can actually be defended against scrutiny.  And if he lacks the knowledge to do so, even so, he has not even presented points OTHERS have made that might try to support his opinion (though I have no doubt someone here would be able to tear any silly "god definitely exists because___" with relative ease).

 

Since he has failed to do so, everything he says is just repetition of the same baseless and evidenceless points. Which is why, and I loved this quote from the list on the forums here, he's basically a pigeon playing chess, knocking over the pieces and crapping on the board and still maintaining victory.

 

Although, this fellow does have a curious opinion of "atheist morality." To that I would simply say: Concerning theists who claim that with God, there is no morality--I ask is there any greater model of humans with such a natural hatred towards others?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I was pretty busy this weekend, so I didn't respond after my last post. If it OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, we think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

 

You can really save yourself time if you just concede that a lack of belief isn't a worldview.  Its a pretty basic blunder on your part, concede it, and you can move on.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Xagzan
Xagzan's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2009-04-09
User is offlineOffline
I think he's

todangst wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I was pretty busy this weekend, so I didn't respond after my last post. If it OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, we think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

 

You can really save yourself time if you just concede that a lack of belief isn't a worldview.  Its a pretty basic blunder on your part, concede it, and you can move on.

 

I think he's assuming that because a person doubts the existence of a god, that they also must necessarily, or at least usually do, believe certain other things about other aspects of life, due to being influenced by the opinion that there is no god. Like, humans are worthless and survival of the fittest is moral. And that all those together are his "atheist worldview."

 

Which is horse**** but whaddya gonna do


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Xagzan wrote: I think he's

Xagzan wrote:

 

I think he's assuming that because a person doubts the existence of a god, that they also must necessarily, or at least usually do, believe certain other things about other aspects of life, due to being influenced by the opinion that there is no god. Like, humans are worthless and survival of the fittest is moral. And that all those together are his "atheist worldview."

 

Which is horse**** but whaddya gonna do

 

Well, seeing as I agree with your assessment of his blunder, my suggestion on "what to do" is point out his error to him, repeatedly, without allowing him to wander off into side topics.

 

But I can appreciate how easy it is to be sidetracked.

 

 

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 

For someone who has a worldview that is internal incoherent, that personal should not be in a position to criticize one that is perfectly coherent. 

This is a textbook example of projection!

(And a fine example of Poe's law too!)

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Topher

Topher wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 

For someone who has a worldview that is internal incoherent, that personal should not be in a position to criticize one that is perfectly coherent. 

This is a textbook example of projection!

(And a fine example of Poe's law too!)

Precisely. And Projection is one of the key defenses of a theist....   How else could a theist talk straight faced about 'coherence" when they hold to a supernatural belief based on faith?! 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
This is such an unfair

This is such an unfair pre-emptive strike! Here I was waiting for the Grand Message debunking the "worldview" I don't even think I have, and ... well, what's going to be left for me to say if you guys keep hitting the killer points?

Pff.

Jerks.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:This is

HisWillness wrote:

This is such an unfair pre-emptive strike!

There wouldn't be any debate at all if atheists simply insisted that theists provide an ontology for 'the supernatural' before the debate began.

Debate would never get off the ground.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:The

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.

What a strange analogy. Almost no one would profess belief in the Easter Bunny, but millions of people deem themselves to be atheist. What is more striking though, is that belief in the Easter Bunny would be confirmation of a proposition while atheism is non-acceptance of a proposition, so you're comparing a scenario where the defendent is supposedly obviously innocent to one where the defendent is obviously guilty. I don't see a fallacy, but it just feels wrong somehow. Feels like......projection. 

Edit: I don't understand why you wouldn't use an analogy that fits better, with the burden of proof on the other end. You could have said that atheism is like rejecting the existence of...apples or something (horrendously flawed, of course, but everyone other than the OP should get my point).

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:There

todangst wrote:

There wouldn't be any debate at all if atheists simply insisted that theists provide an ontology for 'the supernatural' before the debate began.

Debate would never get off the ground. 

I believe you mean "if atheists simply insisted that theists understand an ontology for 'the supernatural' before the debate began."

Sometimes they provide an ontology, it just happens to be written by our favourite neoplatonists, Augustine and Aquinus. And we all know how sad that is.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:HisWillness

todangst wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

This is such an unfair pre-emptive strike!

There wouldn't be any debate at all if atheists simply insisted that theists provide an ontology for 'the supernatural' before the debate began.

Debate would never get off the ground.

 

But that's no fun. We'd never talk to each other, and they'd be free to propogate.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I was pretty busy this weekend, so I didn't respond after my last post. If it OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, we think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

I was busy this weekend too. Here's a suggestion: Since you think you are being overwhelmed by our numbers (even though the reality is that each of us refuted your suggestion in this topic, and you've failed to defend against any of those refutations), perhaps you can find a few friends who think as you do. Then we can have a free for all.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.