Re: I KNEW you' Merkans knew how to fix stuff:

On Apr 24, 4:50 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 24, 10:55 am, David Paste <pasteda...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:









On Apr 24, 12:39 am, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

A "lack of belief in a Divine" is ... a form of *belief*.

No it isn't.

Show me how you *consistently* maintain the absence of any transcendent
source for humanity AND at the same time imbue mankind with transcendent
value.  Hint: You cannot.

Why are you assuming I'm imbuing mankind with any transcendental
value? I'm not. You might be, but I'm not.

Absent a transcendent origin, mankind is nothing
more than a accidental machine and of value no greater or remarkable than
a stone.

If that's your opinion, I feel pretty bad for you man.

Lies! I suspect you are simply parroting something someone else has
told you, or gave you to read. I don't want to accept that you would
have such sloppy thought processes that you think this statement is
robust.

This statement is very well thought and and perfectly true.

No, it's wrong.

Atheists have NO reason to treat others well other than:

1) Inconsistent romanticism, feel gooding,, and other forms
    of existential bilge.

So it's OK for christians (for example) to be kind, but it's not OK
for atheists to be kind? Feel bad for you, man.

2) Utilitarian reasons - it may serve the atheist to treat others
    well as a personal benefit.

OMG! Like, you mean as in a social dynamic way? I hate to break this
to you, but pretty much everyone acts like this, it's often called
'manners'.

But, at the end the of the day, there is absolutely no proscription
against mayhem and murder for the atheist

D'ya wanna bet?! What about the law of the land? Why am I, as an
atheist, not a mass murderer? Oh yes, it's because I might find that
to be abhorrent. Also, do you honestly think that the only reason YOU
aren't murdering people is because of some belief in a divine being
you may have? If so, I... Feel bad for you!

because transcendent morality does not exist.
It is not an accident that the worst butchers in
history were NOT the various churches but *atheists* (Stalin),
occultists (Hitler), and mystics (Hirohito).

Ah, right, so because you've managed to identify one atheist as a mass-
murderer, that's means that all atheists are inherently bad?! So using
your faulty logic, you must be as nightmarish as the Phelps clan. You
know, I think the reason these people did what they did was not
because they were atheists, or mystics, or cultists, but because they
were sociopaths and despots. But, you know, that's just my opinion.

Each of these schools of thought essentially deny an overarching morality to which we all must
hew.

In your opinion.

An atheist has no explanation for the source of the material world.

So?

They may an explanation for some of the *processes*, but the question
of first cause is completely closed off to the atheist.

So?

Theists
may be wrong in their assertion about the source of the physical
world, of course, but their system at least permits them to inspect
the question.

So atheists aren't free to question anything?!

For a consistent atheist, the time-zero mass and
energy components contributing to the Big Bang are simply magical.

Well, maybe so. Perhaps the priest who came up with the idea could
explain it better to me, but I've never really been too concerned
about the origins, not least because it bends my mind.

All systems of belief in anything (including science) start with one or
more unprovable premises.

What?! You clearly don't understand science.

I'm afraid it is you that does not understand science.

Wrong.Your ignorance of the subject belies your words.

All systems claiming knowledge start with unprovable premises.

Absolute crap.

1) Atheism as a movement is horribly inconsistent because it
    denies a transcendent basis for morality and then tries
    to gin up a moral code.

You're assuming that morals / ethics are only possible with a divine
presence.

2) Consistent atheism leads to a reductionist version of
    mankind wherein we are just accidental machines

Accidental?! Why do you say that??

    thus there's no need for any normative moral code.

Crap.

3) The idea that everything sprang magically into place
    without any design or author is at odds with everything
    most of us observe in the world.

Well, sadly that shows more about your understanding of science than
any credible argument you may have. Feel bad for you man, you really
are labouring under misinformation here.

A consistent atheist has no reason to live an ethical life,

BULLSHIT!

You don't.

BULLSHIT!

Beyond your personal utilitarian benefit for living
an ethical life, since there's no God, why bother?

What sort of monster are you?!

What's the
downside if you you're the strongest and can get away with
any manner of mayhem and murder?

Ummm, mob revenge, at a base level. Well, that's one drawback.

Ethics for an atheist is the worst inconsistency of all.

Absolute crap. Insulting crap, at that.

If there's not an overarching
moral code beyond our own perception then anything you
want to do/can get away with/benefits you is just fine.

You are appallingly, insultingly, naive.

The question of the meaning of our lives is the most fundamental
and longest lasting of all human questions.

OK. It may be to some, but it isn't universally.

Atheists typically simply avoid it because they know their system prevents them
from even inspecting the question.

BULLSHIT!

Nope.  I know how to think.  I know lots of atheists.  Most of them
are (thankfully) inconsistent and DO want some kind of moral code.
But the burden lies with you here.

But you keep claiming that atheists don't need a moral code, so the
burden of proof is on you.

You have NO reason to be
ethical and no basis to demand that others be so.

Bollocks.

Your doing so is the height of intellectual inconsistency.

Wrong. It might be inconsistent to you, but that is just you and how
it interacts with your opinions.

Yeah, you keep saying it, but:

1. Atheism is not a religion, and;
2. Is your repetition to try to convince me of your claim, or reassure
yourself?

I am quite happy to admit I don't begin to know the answers to these
questions.

Which questions in particular?

But I am certain of one thing: The atheists are utterly wrong
and have robbed both philosophy and the human experience of all meaning.

Prove your claim!

When you feel compelled to respond in line to twenty questions/
comments, and ask twenty more of your own, isn't it time to get a room
and be BFFs4EVER?

Yeah, you may be right, I'm happy to give it a rest.

what exactly do you feel you are accomplishing?

I'm simply trying to correct the notion that atheism is a religion. It
isn't. That's all.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rays absolutionism and inconsistency will be his undoing
    ...   Evolution is not atheist ... similarity is one observation that supports evolution, ... not all atheists do accept microevolution. ... came into use a fairly long time after Darwin, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Alpha prefix issue....
    ...   Atheists are without theism. ... atheists may be against theism, but by and large, atheists don't oppose ... renouned expert in Greek. ... saying that the alpha prefix means total againstness. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I KNEW you Merkans knew how to fix stuff:
    ...     of existential bilge. ... against mayhem and murder for the atheist ... history were NOT the various churches but *atheists*, ... moral code beyond our own perception then anything you ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: I KNEW you Merkans knew how to fix stuff:
    ...     of existential bilge. ... against mayhem and murder for the atheist ... history were NOT the various churches but *atheists*, ... moral code beyond our own perception then anything you ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Evidence of Satan
    ... Atheist explanation of nature while downgrading the Biblical ... atheists as well. ... 'atheism ideology' would be a belief that God doesn't exist. ...   Your assumption that for the Bible to ...
    (talk.origins)