The following principle of Atheism I call the First Principle of Atheism, because it is unarguable true and the remainder of Atheist behaviors and principles are subsidiary to it. The remaining principles might not be numerically identifiable in the sense that this one is, and they will have names instead.
Today's principle of Atheism:
FIRST PRINCIPLE OF ATHEISM:
Atheism is a VOID, intellectually and morally.
This seems hardly arguable given that many Atheists declare the relief of total freedom that Atheism has given them - freedom from onerous absolutes, rules and authority (1). This VOID or hole is created solely by rejection, commonly of the nature of rebellion, and commonly is adopted in juvenile years of poor intellectual and cortex development coupled with raging hormones and personal emotional turmoil.
After the VOID is adopted, Atheists find themselves totally free to create their own truths to backfill the hole. In essence, the Atheist is enabled to fill the hole totally with himself, and his own personal desires. So Atheism is completely self-focused and narcissistic. This is not to say that all narcissists are Atheist, nor that all Atheists meet the clinical definitions of narcissism. But the first principle of Atheism opens the pathway to narcissism and many take that path.
Intellectually, the Atheist is free to claim logic as a basis for his worldview and simultaneously refuse to provide that logic in a disciplined deductive argument. This indicates an inherent non-coherent irrationality (2) which is traceable to the initial First Principle of Atheism. The Atheist, however, considers his own thought process to be the ultimate in logic, even superceding long established disciplined deductive processes going clear back to Aristotle. Thus the Atheist's self image is that he is the superior intellect, far superior to those who use established disciplined deductive processes.
Morally, the Atheist is free to design his own morals, which will be compatible with the inclinations and personal proclivities of the individual Atheist. Since his moral system is compatible with his behaviors and desires, then the Atheist is "moral" by tautology: he cannot fail. In addition, the Atheist can change his moral basis at any time, without a moment's notice. So the Atheist considers himself totally moral, well beyond the morality of the Other.
Psychologically, the Atheist VOID allows the Atheist to consider himself superior in all the ways that matter. He is so superior that he can become a savior for the poor benighted masses, whether they want it or not, need it or not. Narcissism reigns.
In addition, contrary information jeapardizing the messiah status cannot be tolerated, and if it cannot be destroyed using the Atheist's proprietary logic, then it must be ridiculed, to demonstrate its inferiority. If ridicule of the information is not sufficient to defeat it, then the next tier is attacking the opponent directly, using faux moral and/or personal attacks.
NEXT: The Weaponized Anti-morality Principle.
Notes:
(1) Unless that authority can materially punish them.
(2) When viewed from the perspective of traditional disciplined deductive logic, based on form structure and first principles.
30 comments:
This a great parody of the extent to which Fundamentalist Christians need to twist logic into pretzels to portray non-belief in man made deities as a "religion." Comedy gold!
That seems clear enough. They can maintain two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time, despite the inherent contradiction, because they jump from one to the other whenever it's convenient or necessary to maintain their worldview. Either idea can be denied, then affirmed ten minutes later if the need is there.
Have I got that right?
Their tools of choice *appear* to be logic and reason. But they consistently violate 'conventional' logic with irrational statements that are so, because they say they are so.
Their actual tools of choice are emotional in nature - ridicule, personal attacks, and flat out denial. They cycle between these techniques,. leaving folks frustrated over, essentially, Nothing. The Nothing of the VOID.
Good so far?
Finally, this all appears to be driven by ego. The claim to intellectual and moral superiority, the denial that there is anything or Anyone outside of themselves to which they might owe allegiance, obediance or even existence... that's self-worship.
So... if you can't beat them verbally and you can't knock their teeth down their throat, what's left? It sounds like they get to do whatever they want, as long as no 'controlling legal authority' catches them at it. In fact, sometimes it seems to me like their goal is to *become* the 'controlling legal authority'.
bj edwards demonstrates how Atheists use ridicule rather than to refute. He makes no attempt to suggest anything other than that the hated fundamentalist Christian cannot possibly understand the elite Atheist. There is no contrary suggestion or logic being given, only ridicule.
Ridicule is an Atheist principle which will be addressed in an upcoming post. It is used because they have nothing else to offer, yet they must attack somehow.
Steven,
Yes. So far, so good and there's more to come.
Stan, if you want to see another example of what you're talking about go to the Unequally Yoked blog.
Post called Darren the Humanist Explains it All to You
I read BJ's comment again. It reminds me of that cafeteria chase analogy again. He doesn't bother actually refuting your statements
[The skinny Goth kid who's been taunting you at school flicks a piece of pie into your face. You jump up to confront him. He could actually stand his ground, face you and maybe fight you - perhaps to lose].
Instead, BJ merely makes a snide comment of his own - it doesn't have to make sense, or be backed by anything more than 'because I said so' - and tosses it on the blog.
[The skinny kid chooses to run away, and pulls chairs into your way as you chase him through the school cafeteria. While it's not much of an energy investment for him, *you* have to spend prodigious effort to jump over or around the chairs if you want to catch him. Even if you do, there's no guarantee you'll catch him. He has slowed you down too much.]
The similarity? Neither will ever actually confront you like a man, using reason like an adult. They want to take their cheap shots and run. They act as though they are proving something to the world but they are actually shoring themselves up.
They are still kids. Their existence as children in adult bodies precludes accountability and depends utterly on support by others (usually the tolerant society they spend so much time trying to undermine).
I recall CS Lewis rejected materialism because following it meant, eventually, undermining reason itself (by claiming that rational mind is just an unintended byproduct of aimless evolution) and thus, anything we might think up (including Materialism) was an inevitable product of our bodies - like gas or sweat. You could call it a lot of things, but True was never one of them.
But if your statements are true about Atheism, 'Truth' is whatever they say it is, whenever they want to, and can change willy-nilly. They *claim* reason, but like all their statements, it's true only because *they* say so - no supporting evidence. Demanding supporting evidence is just falling right into that merry chase through the cafeteria.
If they didn't fancy themselves a political force, I would do what I've always done with them - ignored them. Their philosophy boils down to self-worship and, in the end, it's corrupting. I just let 'em rot. If they are indeed smarter than me (and many are), that will soon change (Lance Armstrong is a perfect example).
No wonder they hate and reject all authority. No wonder they are determined to destroy any objective standard whatever. Like some (not all) kids, they hate anything that says 'No'. No matter what the reason. That this eternal rejection will destroy *them* in the end is almost beside the point - the point being *they did it their way*. No matter they take down civilization with them, they will do *what they will*.
Like a lot of very young children, and spoiled ones, at that.
Ah, the battle cry of the ego. Its struggle to dominate all other Selves never ends - but some (atheists) throw in the towel very early in the game.
Stan, do you think atheists try to convert others? Or do they just try to justify their illogical convictions, while speaking to others?
Also, would you consider atheists sociopaths?
Lol XD. I never realized just how committed atheists are.
Anonymous,
Welcome, and please choose a moniker. I can't know which "anonymous" I'm speaking to, thanks.
It is apparent that self-justification is very important to the Atheist, who seems highly likely to be a narcissist, possibly with Aspberger's, and other issues in the mix. So it is likely that the Atheist wants recognition that he is right in every way. Some obviously do want conversions, such as Dawkins who created Atheist summer camps for kids.
My psychologist friend says that narcissism is virtually untreatable because the narcissist doesn't recognize that he has a problem and claims that everyone else has the problem, not him: he is perfect just as he is. This fits with the Atheist inability to admit to logic errors in their arguments.
Sociopathy has been removed from the DSM and is now delegated to a collection of sub-issues.
"Sociopathy"? It's amusing that a guy who hasn't proven he's not mentally ill is taking it upon himself to teach others about mental illness. It was called "sociopathy" in the 1950's. It's been "antisocial personality disorder" for decades.
When are you going to get your "professional sanity assessment"?
Klein,
Do you have something logical to contribute? Or are you merely engaging in chigger type irritations?
Your analogy is false as has been demonstrated, and you have not refuted that. However, your obstinant adherance to it demonstrates the Atheist necessity of clinging to fallacies in the face of logic-based refutations.
There is no index reference in DSM-IV for sociopathy; however, the Mayo Clinic refers to sociopathy as a severe form of antisocial personality disorder, an aggravated or exaggerated subset, not the entire set.
The analyses which I gave come from a friend, a PhD in psychology, licensed in two states, with whom I have discussed Atheists and Atheism.
@Klein: aaaannd another chair gets pulled in front of Stan. Funny, it looks just like the last one.
Funny, isn't it, how they just make up some goofy accusation and when you decline to participate in their nonsense, they act as though they'd proven something. Danged if you do, danged if you don't.
So you've never actually met an atheist then?
Anonymous,
Shed your cowardice and choose a moniker... unless you are a drive-by troll, which is most likely.
You have made an ignorant accusation, one which contributes only to the affirmation of your inabitlity to make a rational, logical argument.
If you cannot make a decent argument, then you should go back to the Atheist sites which accommodate such things.
I don't think my accusation is ignorant at all because by the sound of your blog post here it sounds like you've never met an atheist before. You can feel free to prove me wrong. Otherwise you can keep writing stupid posts about people you have obviously never really spoken to and have gotten to know. You sound ignorant of people who are different from yourself.
This blog contains over five years of conversations containing thousands of comments and conversations with Atheists, which you are free to read. You, like many Atheists, seem to think that you represent all Atheists. I suspect that you lead a sheltered existence yourself, giving you a compromised viewpoint based on your self-perception which you want to extend to all Atheists.
You are making the exact Atheist fallacious dialectic which comes from the Atheist intellectual VOID: you make charges which are unaccompanied by evidence. If you want to make rational argumentation, then provide evidence of the total benign demeanor of all Atheists. When you do so, it will be considered, and contrary evidence will be provided.
The actual fact here is that you want criticism of Atheists and Atheism to stop; your only case is a charge against me, not a charge against the case I make. That is Ad Hominem and irrational.
Make an actual case; use evidence and disciplined deductive logic. Otherwise you have nothing to contribute.
Your funny as hell man do you understand how insane you sound?
The evidence is right in what your saying your too stupid to realize it.
I'm fully well aware that I don't represent all atheist. You on the other hand seem to want to lump all atheist into some kind of black and white way of thinking and dehumanize them. Which is a really disgusting thing to do.
I'm not here to try and change you cause personally I don't really care what you think. I'm just trying to point out that your and idiot.
By the way atheist isn't capitalized moron. It's an adjective and not a proper noun so you don't capitalize it.
Atheism is a position on religious issues, and is a religion of negation in its own right; it should be capitalized just like Islam, etc. regardless of what Atheists claim.
"Atheist" is not merely an adjective, it is also a noun. And it is spelled you're, when you mean the contraction. But this says it all in your statement:
"your and idiot."
You will not be commenting here in the future, since you do not think or argue at the level required.
Atheism is not a religion, it is a philosophical viewpoint, so therefore it should not be capitalized.
Atheism is the Cult of Self, developed in the Atheist VOID, the rejection of all absolutes which allows the Atheist the freedom of anarchical thinking and beliefs. Having rejected truth, the Atheist exists in an environment of narcissistic self-anointed elitism, believing that this has endowed him with superior intellect and morality. The Atheist intellect is self-developed and in no way resembles the logical intellect of the Atheist’s inferiors who subject themselves to the external rules of disciplined deductive logic and rational thought. The Atheist morality is self-developed around the Atheist’s personal proclivities for behavior and is therefore a set of descriptions of his behaviors; this renders the Atheist tautologically “moral” without any effort at all, and gives the benefit of being changeable at a moment’s notice to fit any changes to his behavior which he wishes to make. Thus the Atheist's intellectual process and morality are both transient and ungrounded, rendering them irrational and without actual moral principles.
Atheism, the Cult of Self, has all the characteristics of religion, including blind belief in premises which the Atheist cannot prove: material existence is all there is; there is no creating agency with an intellect. Atheists believe they are the only ones with truth, yet they do not believe that there is truth. Hence, Atheism – the Cult of Self – is internally self-contradictory and irrational.
And Atheism is not a philosophy, it is purely denialist, rejectionist, radical skepticism at the beginning; this enables the entry into the intellectual and moral Atheist VOID, and the anarchic intellectual and moral freedom which Atheists cherish.
"Atheism is the Cult of Self,"
No it's not.
You give too much power to this word atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God, or Gods. That's all it is.
"developed in the Atheist VOID, the rejection of all absolutes which allows the Atheist the freedom of anarchical thinking and beliefs."
There's nothing wrong with rejecting absolutes since nothing is in black and white. If this is how the atheist thinks then it makes the atheist more sympathetic to both sides instead of claiming everything that is different from them is evil.
" Having rejected truth,"
What truth?
"the Atheist exists in an environment of narcissistic self-anointed elitism, believing that this has endowed him with superior intellect and morality."
Morality is subjective, what is good for one culture may seem bad or strange to another. No one morality is superior to another.
"The Atheist intellect is self-developed and in no way resembles the logical intellect of the Atheist’s inferiors who subject themselves to the external rules of disciplined deductive logic and rational thought."
Who are the atheist's inferiors? There are smart and stupid atheists out there just like there are smart and stupid theists.
"The Atheist morality is self-developed around the Atheist’s personal proclivities for behavior and is therefore a set of descriptions of his behaviors; this renders the Atheist tautologically “moral” without any effort at all, and gives the benefit of being changeable at a moment’s notice to fit any changes to his behavior which he wishes to make. Thus the Atheist's intellectual process and morality are both transient and ungrounded, rendering them irrational and without actual moral principles."
That's a pretty nice Strawman you set up there *clap clap clap* Come back to me when you've actually talked to an atheist about their morals.
"Atheism, the Cult of Self, has all the characteristics of religion, including blind belief in premises which the Atheist cannot prove: material existence is all there is; there is no creating agency with an intellect."
Once again you give this word atheism too much power. It is just the lack of belief in a God. It is not a religion because there is not belief in it. There are no religious tenants to follow or religious rituals. It is a way of thinking. Just like theism is a way of thinking. There are atheistic religions such as Jainism, and Buddhism which follow certain tenants and traditions but don't believe in a God. Atheism is just the lack of a belief in a God.
"Atheists believe they are the only ones with truth, yet they do not believe that there is truth. Hence, Atheism – the Cult of Self – is internally self-contradictory and irrational."
I seem to recall the theists as the ones who claim they have the truth? The atheist claims to not know what the truth is that is why they search for rational ways to explain it instead of taking something on blind belief. What is the truth?
" And Atheism is not a philosophy, it is purely denialist, rejectionist, radical skepticism at the beginning; this enables the entry into the intellectual and moral Atheist VOID, and the anarchic intellectual and moral freedom which Atheists cherish."
Well I can see you've already made up your mind on what you think an atheist is so there is no reasoning with you, since you can't reason with someone who doesn't see reason.
“No it's not.
You give too much power to this word atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God, or Gods. That's all it is.
You, then, are denying the actual, observable, necessary consequences of Atheism, in exchange for a fundamentalist position. Atheism not only is not a “lack of belief”, it is a firm position which is taken without any evidence of any sort in its defense. It is a conclusion without premises, without grounding in anything valid or true, and as such it generates consequences for its blind belief.
” There's nothing wrong with rejecting absolutes since nothing is in black and white. If this is how the atheist thinks then it makes the atheist more sympathetic to both sides instead of claiming everything that is different from them is evil.”
The claim “nothing is black and white” is self-refuting, in the form “it is true that there is no truth”.
Sympathetic? Then you are isolated from the Atheists who are dominating the internet, filing lawsuits intended to bankrupt small organizations, and demanding an entirely Atheist (euphemistically, “secular”) government (without truth or principles). Read Dawkins’ latest tweets, or any of PZ Meyers attacks. Follow FFRC and its attacks on small governments. Read Hitchens on how religion poisons everything. There is too much to list for you.
And you are agreeing that you have no absolute grounding for yourself. This is the basis upon which Atheists are not trusted: they have no fixed principles for their behaviors, much less for their beliefs. Further, without grounding, Atheist logic is predicated in either circularity or infinite regress, since there are no absolute first principles for grounding rationality, and no absolute discipline for deductive determinations.
” What truth?”
Once again confirming the conclusion which was made. There is no truth after the VOID of Atheism has been accessed, and the freedom from all constraint has produced the joyful freedom of anarchic thought and morality.
” Morality is subjective, what is good for one culture may seem bad or strange to another. No one morality is superior to another.”
This is a conclusion without premises; it is a consequence of rejecting absolutes and accepting ungrounded, sliding thinking. It is useful to the Atheist in generating his own personal, uncritical personal morality. Morality cannot be generated by rejecting morality. Subjective morality is part of the Cult of Self: it defines behavior to suit the self, while declaring itself to be moral in every situation.
(continued)
(from above)
” Who are the atheist's inferiors? There are smart and stupid atheists out there just like there are smart and stupid theists.”
Elitism is not a function of intelligence; it is an emotional mindset which is generated within the Atheist community, especially within the isolation of academia, but also on the internet. It is a part of the common Atheist worldview.
” That's a pretty nice Strawman you set up there *clap clap clap* Come back to me when you've actually talked to an atheist about their morals.”
And here you veer into false charges of logical defect without any defense of your charge, and you then attack your opponent by making false assumptions. Ridicule such as this is done without any attempt at refuting the argument being made, and is typical of Atheist deviational rhetoric when running away from an issue. Atheists are by default relativist and consequentialist, then creating their own morality. You have shown no different here.
” Once again you give this word atheism too much power. It is just the lack of belief in a God. It is not a religion because there is not belief in it. There are no religious tenants to follow or religious rituals. It is a way of thinking. Just like theism is a way of thinking. There are atheistic religions such as Jainism, and Buddhism which follow certain tenants and traditions but don't believe in a God. Atheism is just the lack of a belief in a God.”
Your position is false: Atheism is a firm, positive belief that there is no God or gods; your position is commonly put forth as an attempt to avoid having to defend the denial of theist claims with actual arguments and/or empirical evidence. The consequences of Atheism are consequences of a conscious religious denialist decision, which is a decision without premises, and is therefore irrational and without any rational defense. It is based in blind belief, no evidence required or produced.
BTW, Buddha was helped in his original quest by a Hindu god.
(continued)
(from above)
” "Atheists believe they are the only ones with truth, yet they do not believe that there is truth. Hence, Atheism – the Cult of Self – is internally self-contradictory and irrational."
I seem to recall the theists as the ones who claim they have the truth? The atheist claims to not know what the truth is that is why they search for rational ways to explain it instead of taking something on blind belief. What is the truth?”
Because Atheists are default Philosophical Materialists, Atheists demand physical, material proof from theists, but non-coherently cannot provide any such evidence in support of their own positions. And Atheists reject all theist deductive arguments without using actual deductive logic themselves, yet while claiming to be rational. Rather they are emotional denialists, without evidence either logical or material. So Atheists engage in blind belief of a proposition which they cannot support, using any type of knowledge generation.
By denying a priori that there might be some valid propositions which truthfully represent all reality, not just physical, material existence, Atheists poison the well for themselves in the process. And by denying that logic has any value in the pursuit of what might be true, the Atheist guarantees that all discourse just is and has no truth value, at least in his worldview. The denial of truth entails the denial of truth value, which in turn enables all statements to have the same value: none. This applies directly to logic as well as language, and to morality as well as ontology.
” Well I can see you've already made up your mind on what you think an atheist is so there is no reasoning with you, since you can't reason with someone who doesn't see reason.”
Atheist reasoning is without truth value, a point which you make several times. If you wish to make reasoning part of your conversation, then produce a disciplined deductive statement which you can defend in a grounded fashion. If you cannot do that, then reasoning is not the reason you are here.
You know for someone claiming that you have the moral high ground and claiming that atheist are hate filled moralless creatures. It seems like you're the one with all the hate.
You're whole blog is set up on this atheist strawman you've built up personally yourself. You turn this fictional atheist into some sort of un-human creature and then beat it down by labeling it with absolute charges against it. When in reality no one person is the same so you can't label them with absolutes. I haven't seen you look at anything objectively on this site, instead all I see is hate filled rants against this fictional atheist. Wouldn't it just be easier for you to just write "I hate atheists? I don't have a reason for doing so but I hate them." At least you would be honest in that statement.
”You know for someone claiming that you have the moral high ground and claiming that atheist are hate filled moralless creatures. It seems like you're the one with all the hate.”
Your failure to refute anything I have said is duly noted. You have not and cannot deny your own claims (a)not to believe in truth, (b) not to believe in absolutes, and (c) to believe that morals are relative, none with any authority. I have not claimed any moral position for myself, so your claim that I have the moral high ground is fatuous and beside the point. The point is Atheist morality and Atheist intellectual processes. If you wish to make a positive claim regarding Atheist morality and intellectual processes, then make it. But claiming “hate” is an Ad Hominem Abusive, cheap dialectic of the emotion.
”You're whole blog is set up on this atheist strawman you've built up personally yourself. You turn this fictional atheist into some sort of un-human creature and then beat it down by labeling it with absolute charges against it. When in reality no one person is the same so you can't label them with absolutes.”
You have provided no evidence to the contrary. Atheism starts with a VOID of both truth and absolutes; from there it goes to relativistic morality. This you said yourself. There is no strawman except in your form of intellectual processing which is outside the standard rules of deduction. If there is no truth, then there is no possible fallacy either.
” I haven't seen you look at anything objectively on this site, instead all I see is hate filled rants against this fictional atheist.”
There is no question that you cannot refute the concepts which you claim for yourself: no truth, no absolutes, relativist morality. So what you claim as hate is actually just a deduction made using your own claims. The claim of hate is so common amongst AtheoLeftists that it is trite to the point of being meaningless. Making any claim which the Atheist and Atheist Leftist find to be an annoying, revealing truth about their morality and their intellectual process is called “hate”, because that pejorative is the only argument they can make. They cannot refute their own claims, but they can attack the person who reveals their illogic.
”Wouldn't it just be easier for you to just write "I hate atheists? I don't have a reason for doing so but I hate them." At least you would be honest in that statement.”
Still not an argument; still not rational; still just emotional accusations in the absence of rational arguments.
Choose a moniker. I won’t continue with anyone hiding behind the skirts of anonymous.
Everything that I need as proof is seen in your writing. I'm telling you you are coming across as someone who feels superior to an atheist and has to talk down about them. That's how I'm interpreting it. You also assume since I am arguing with you that I am an atheist as well.
The evidence that it is an atheist strawman is because what you describe an atheist as being is just simply not true because nobody is like that. Plus you provide no proof behind these claims you make and they come across as pure observation of someone that you are observing from afar.
I never said there are no truths you said that. When I said there were no absolutes it means there is no good side or bad side. That doesn't mean things aren't true. Just because there are no good sides or bad sides doesn't mean the atheist can't view what is right or wrong. Hot is hot and cold is cold but what is hot for some may not be as hot for others. Morality is brought about through culture, family, and upbringing. We all base our morals off of what we learn in life's experiences. That's why people have different moral values from others.
I really don't see what having a moniker has to do with anything.
But I'm done arguing with you anyway I'm pretty sure, not 100 percent sure but pretty sure you're going to ignore what I say and repeat everything about this atheist strawman you've created. I'm going to go back to reality. You can stay here and hate this strawman.
”The evidence that it is an atheist strawman is because what you describe an atheist as being is just simply not true because nobody is like that.”
You are making a universal statement which you both cannot prove to be the case, and which is easily refuted by reading what Atheists have written in this blog as well as in the general literature. There is plenty of opportunity right here in these pages, collected over half a decade, for you to find out how Atheists behave and think.
”Plus you provide no proof behind these claims you make and they come across as pure observation of someone that you are observing from afar.”
If I were to personalize these observations I doubt that you would like it any better. Your objections are emotionally based, and have no refutations attached to them so far.
”I never said there are no truths you said that.”
That’s correct; you said “what truth?”, which is the same thing. Now you wish to deny your own position, as you see it failing in front of you.
” When I said there were no absolutes it means there is no good side or bad side.”
Yes, no good and no bad; i.e. consequentialist / relativist by default.
”That doesn't mean things aren't true.”
Of course not, I never said otherwise; to conflate good/bad with truth is to conflate ethics/morality with epistemology.
”Just because there are no good sides or bad sides doesn't mean the atheist can't view what is right or wrong.”
This is logically absurd: good = right; bad=wrong… unless you have chosen the typical atheist path of changing the definitions.
” Hot is hot and cold is cold but what is hot for some may not be as hot for others.”’
A concise statement of pure moral relativism; an acceptance of moral deviations for the sake of nothing specific.
”Morality is brought about through culture, family, and upbringing. We all base our morals off of what we learn in life's experiences. That's why people have different moral values from others.”
And therefore you have no actual moral values which are fixed principles, because of this relativism? That fits perfectly. Especially your use of further universal statements for “all people”, a universal which you cannot possibly prove or even know, and which is demonstrably false. And it demonstrates an ignorance of religious values and their influence on the thoughts and behaviors of adherents.
”I really don't see what having a moniker has to do with anything.”
It is pure common courtesy to identify yourself so that we know who we are talking with; otherwise there could be several anonymouses, confusing the conversation.
”But I'm done arguing with you anyway I'm pretty sure, not 100 percent sure but pretty sure you're going to ignore what I say and repeat everything about this atheist strawman you've created. I'm going to go back to reality. You can stay here and hate this strawman.”
You have said nothing which contradicts the characteristics of Atheism that I have observed and written about. In fact, you have agreed that you don’t accept absolutes, but you do accept truth (a non-coherence / internal contradiction – unless your truth is not absolute, in which case it is not actually truth), and you have agreed that all morals are relative (neither black nor white), not being based on anything absolute and thereby not describable with a set of fixed, universal principles. All this is in agreement with the case which I have made.
You have provided more arguments that this actually is the case, not that it is not the case. But for you it is hate that these things are brought to light.
You have confirmed my description of Atheism and Atheist thought quite adequately.
If you wish to change your mind and provide a refutation to any of the above, feel free to provide such evidence as you have.
Post a Comment