[Author's note: I recently came across an older challenge to provide ten top questions for Atheists to answer, a challenge which I failed to act on. Some of these have been asked here before. So here is the (first) list of ten+]:
1. Can you prove empirically that there is no creating agent for the universe? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim
2. Can you prove deductively that there is no creating agent for the universe? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim
3. What are your moral principles? List them completely.
4. What makes your moral principles “moral”, rather than personal guidelines? Perhaps you will want to define "moral" from the Atheist viewpoint.
5. What is the source of your morals?
6. What makes that source a “moral authority”, with unquestionable, indubitable ability to determine what is morally Good and what is morally Evil in a purely materialist context, where evolution has caused our existence?
7. Can you empirically prove your morals to be valid for all humans? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim.
8. Why should anyone trust you, or any Atheist? Be specific.
9. Can you prove, empirically, that the incident which is referred to as the Miracle at Lourdes was purely a physical phenomenon? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim.
10. Are your political leanings toward the Left? If so explain why in detail (i.e., "Yes, because....)
11. At what age did you become an Atheist? What is your current age?
26 comments:
No takers, Stan?
Now there's a shock.
Not sure why the the typo exists as question 1 and 2 is the same. answer to question nr.3 Do you believe that man can not exist without god given rules, its a myth. Just look at children play, rules are implemented by them. morals are just rules.
Read more here:
http://vryepoltergees.blogspot.com/2013/09/are-we-born-evil.html
Its also easy to say no takers if the content of submissions needs to be aproved.
I'll answer your questions after you show that any gods (note that's ANY gods, not just your favorite pet deities) exist. Empirical evidence only. "I've got faith" doesn't cut it.
Can't do it, can you?
anonymous,
You don't know the difference between the term "empirical" and the term "deductive"?
And you did not answer the question for number three, did you? The point is made by yourself: Atheists just make up their own rules to suit themselves.
That's why no one can trust Atheists: they can change their rules when the current set of rules become inconvenient. Even many Atheists don't trust Atheists for this very reason. Yet Atheists wonder why they are trusted less than child molesters.
I moderate only to remove trolls whose intent is disruption or who choose to attack me personally (the juvenile option). All other comments are posted.
Michael,
You have exercised the logical failure of Category Error. A god, any god per your request, which exists outside the material universe (having existed before he created the universe) cannot be expected to be found within the universe.
It is futile to search Set [A] to find the elements of Set [!A].
So here you have a logic failure and a mathematics failure, together in your misapplication of "empiricism".
Now I'll give you one more: Empiricism cannot be applied to any application which is outside of its specific purvue: which material testing via experimentation. Non-material claims cannot be tested, and cannot be be verified or falsified using experimentation.
That is three reasons that your objection is false.
Now, go ahead and answer the questions, or admit that you can't answer most of them, and refuse to answer the rest.
See, that is the problem for Atheists: Atheism provides no explanatory power for any issue which is not based on material existence: minerals, space and time. Outside of those boundaries it is hopelessly useless. So Atheists are forced to assume that there are only three dimensions, not the eleven predicted by String Theory, because the Atheist default to Materialism as a basis for ideology becomes radically endangered if there are more than three, into which they cannot see, even a bit, by using only three dimensions to test for the others.
1. Can you prove empirically that there is no creating agent for the universe? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim
No.
2. Can you prove deductively that there is no creating agent for the universe? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim
No.
3. What are your moral principles? List them completely.
That's a bit unreasonable of a request. But, in general, morality is a system by which we get along with others. I'm also a compassionate and empathetic person. I can't be the cause of harm in others without pain to myself. My motivation for getting along with others should be obvious.
4. What makes your moral principles moral, rather than personal guidelines? Perhaps you will want to define "moral" from the Atheist viewpoint.
Morality is a system by which we get along with others. What makes my principles moral is the extent to which I achieve that goal.
5. What is the source of your morals?
Reason motivated by compassion and empathy.
6. What makes that source a moral authority, with unquestionable, indubitable ability to determine what is morally Good and what is morally Evil in a purely materialist context, where evolution has caused our existence?
There is no such authority. And "God" is not such an authority either, since the faithful interpret the will of their gods in multiple ways, even within the same religion. No matter how faithful of a Christian you believe yourself to be, there was another Christian at some time in history who would have tortured you to death for being that kind of Christian.
7. Can you empirically prove your morals to be valid for all humans? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim.
I can't force reason and compassion on all humans, but I believe these are common human values. Civilization has been getting gradually better and better over the centuries by the moral standards I mention above (see, Steven Pinker's recent book Angels of our Better Nature for the complete evidence that this is so), as religion has been on the wane.
8. Why should anyone trust you, or any Atheist? Be specific.
For the same reason anyone should trust you, experience with your character. Religious people are no more trustworthy than atheists. In fact, the percentage of atheists in the prison population is smaller than outside prison. Majority or plurality atheist countries generally have lower crime rates.
9. Can you prove, empirically, that the incident which is referred to as the Miracle at Lourdes was purely a physical phenomenon? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim.
I am so uninterested in "miracles", I wouldn't even bother.
10. Are your political leanings toward the Left? If so explain why in detail (i.e., "Yes, because....)
No. Although, more and more, I find that if I just accept science and reason I'm branded a "leftist". I'm really not any kind of leftist.
11. At what age did you become an Atheist? What is your current age?
It was a gradual process, but I had completely abandoned gods by about age 18. I'm 47. Only 6% of religious people become religious after the age of 14, when the brain is less malleable and people develop reason and skepticism. Religion is a childish thing, for the most part, something best left in childhood.
John,
Thanks for your answers. I do have some questions.
First, given that you do not claim either empirical or deductive reasons for rejecting theist positions, how do you justify your Atheism? In other words, what makes your rejection of theist positions valid?
Second, you give a rough definition for morality from your perspective, but do not give any principles which derive from that perspective. Do you define it further as doing whatever it takes to get along with people? Or perhaps whatever it takes to eliminate harm to other people? These would be both relativist and consequentialist principles.
Next you state this:
” Morality is a system by which we get along with others. What makes my principles moral is the extent to which I achieve that goal.”
This implies that achieving the goal is the definition of “moral”. That appears to be purely consequentialist, with the objective being “getting along”. Is that correct?
The source of your moral objective is “Reason motivated by compassion and empathy.” How would you deduce the complexity of a moral response to the rapist of your wife or daughter? Would you expect everyone to deduce the same response? How do you filter out incorrect and/or emotional responses?
Given your response to moral authority, why should anyone take the morals of anyone else as being valid? Without a common morality based on understandable and commonly accepted principles wouldn’t “getting along” be difficult? Also, you seem to deny that that Judeo-Christianity has well known principles which are outlined biblically, is that the case? The fact that different interpretations have occurred seems to mean to you that there can be no valid principles present. This position complicates the Atheist position of imputing morality to reasoning, since Atheist reasoning is in general contaminated with emotional overtones which are acquired in adolescence, and never relinquished. So Atheist reasoning has much less authority based on that.
Next you make this claim:
” I can't force reason and compassion on all humans, but I believe these are common human values. Civilization has been getting gradually better and better over the centuries by the moral standards I mention above “
Civilization produced the most horrific slaughters (under Atheist regimes) ever encountered on this planet in just the last 100 years. Slavery, including sexual slavery in the USA is increasing, not decreasing. The USA is awash in STDs acquired by sexual irresponsibility. Commitment via marriage is almost eliminated. Personal responsibility is replaced by the responsibility of “society”, or worse, the government. Pregnancies are terminated en masse for parental convenience by killing the preborn. The list is really quite long, and it demonstrates a nation which is now a moral wasteland, including the media and especially politically, of course. Relativism, the lack of specific principles, has an entropic effect on actual morality, it would appear. Relativism is the result of recognizing no moral authority other than the self; it is caustic to society.
(continued below)
Next, your reasons to be trusted are valid. However you ignore the process of comparing an individual’s behaviors to his stated belief system. A Judeo-Christian has a specific behavior structure to which his behavior can be compared. An Atheist has nothing of the sort. So the behaviors of an Atheist must be compared to the expectations of Judeo-Christianity, since there is no benchmark for Atheists. Atheists who do not accept Judeo-Christian ethics will not be able to generate trust. It is not possible for a consequentialist or relativist or pragmatist to be trusted if he behaves according to his belief set. His behaviors will be inconsistent and unpredictable, hence untrustworthy.
Your claims about the prison population have been shown to be based on mismanaged data, if you are using the standard Atheist data. That can be discussed further if you wish.
” Majority or plurality atheist countries generally have lower crime rates.”
Only if you exclude the high crime rate countries such as Russia, and you exclude government crimes against its citizens as in China.
” It was a gradual process, but I had completely abandoned gods by about age 18. I'm 47. Only 6% of religious people become religious after the age of 14, when the brain is less malleable and people develop reason and skepticism. Religion is a childish thing, for the most part, something best left in childhood.”
I seriously doubt your claim of 6%, because older, more mature people frequently take up religion. However, I am open to your source of data, which is what?
Further, the current findings on mental maturation show that the human frontal lobe (rational processing) does not mature until the early twenties, ranging up to the late 20’s. Developing independent reason before the frontal lobe matures is unlikely, as anyone with teenagers can report. I also became an Atheist at the age of 18 and gave it no serious intellectual challenge until 40 years later, when I found that it could not stand up to disciplined rational attack.
Your claim that “religion is a childish thing” is not the case unless you want to believe your own prejudice. And that statement is a prejudice, not a rational deduction. For example, Aquinas was a far superior thinker to any of the New Atheists, who merely rationalize premises to fit their presupposed conclusions. Even Bertrand Russell was a dualist, even though he claimed Atheism (in support of his sexual adventurism and hatred for Absolutes). As for Pinker, I don’t have that book but his others are a sorry array of listing those premises which support his admittedly presupposed Materialist Atheism. There are a number of conversions out of Atheism by respected intellectuals, from Sartre to Einstein to Flew and so on.
I wrote a response, but I really don't feel like dividing it up into chunks acceptable to the comment char limit. If you want to send me an email, I'll send it to you, and you can divide it up and put it in the comments, if you want. Or not.
My email is beartiger@gmail.com.
Stan says: "You have exercised the logical failure of Category Error. A god, any god per your request, which exists outside the material universe (having existed before he created the universe) cannot be expected to be found within the universe."
So you're saying that gods don't exist in the universe. So you're as atheist as I am, because a god which doesn't exist in this universe is the same as a god that doesn't exist at all.
That's one problem with discussing gods with goddists. You folks keep changing your definition of gods to suit whichever argument you're using. If I ask for evidence for gods you brush me off with a vague, deist deity which effectively doesn't exist. But when you're talking amongst yourselves, you're referring to the familiar old geezer with flowing white beard who occasionally answers prayers, decides who wins high school football games, and has an unhealthy fascination with your sex lives.
Michael said,
"So you're saying that gods don't exist in the universe. So you're as atheist as I am, because a god which doesn't exist in this universe is the same as a god that doesn't exist at all."
That can only be considered valid IFF you can prove that material existence is the only existence and that there is no other existence either prior to or in parallel with the material, mass/energy, space/time existence to which we are confined. (This will be difficult for you, considering String Theory, of course, but go ahead).
That proof of the validity of materialism would require material proof, of course (there being only material existence), which would necessarily be empirical for objectivity, so would involve experimental, replicable, falsifiable but not falsified, peer reviewed data (same as Atheists typically require for evidence of a deity).
When that is provided, then it would be possible for you to make that claim, but not before. Failing to provide the proof for the lack of non-material existence would render your comment baseless.
"That's one problem with discussing gods with goddists. You folks keep changing your definition of gods to suit whichever argument you're using. If I ask for evidence for gods you brush me off with a vague, deist deity which effectively doesn't exist. But when you're talking amongst yourselves, you're referring to the familiar old geezer with flowing white beard who occasionally answers prayers, decides who wins high school football games, and has an unhealthy fascination with your sex lives."
You have no idea or knowledge regarding my beliefs beyond that which I have given you, so your characterization is a figment of your imagination and is an intentional dodge which you are using to avoid analyzing the issue which is under discussion.
Further, the basic definition given you here is not controversial amongst monotheists, so your avoidance cannot be legitimately based on that.
If you could perform such an analysis and point to errors, you would do so, but you have not, so obviously you cannot.
So it is obvious that your belief set and resulting worldview is based not on rational deductive processing, but on your emotional reaction, which you have amply demonstrated with your bigoted view of the Other.
Some answers at the link below.
You're welcome to join the conversation at my blog - all welcome.
http://almosteverythingsucks.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/top-ten-apparently-questions-for-atheists/
This post is as relevant as someone complaining that today's Christians are still to be blamed for the Inquisition!
Got it?
T-shirt
"Judeo-Christian" moral principles??? What principles are these? That a raped women should marry her rapist? Slavery is permitted? genital mutilation? Killing of of polytheists and atheists? Slavery, and genocide, the children to be smashed with rocks till they are dead? Human sacrifice of an innocent man on a cross for other people’s sins? Are these the principles you are talking about? Christopher Hitchens had a challenge; Name me one moral statement that a believer can make that a atheist cannot? Now name me one wicked statement that only be uttered by a believer? Nobody has come up with an answer to the former but you can think of plenty for the later.
By the way where does God get his morality from? What is it? How do you know what it is? And what makes it binding?
I am a human being, living in a civilized society. Some of my morality was taught to my by that society and some of it seems to come naturally. So does this make me devoid of any sense of morality?A person without a conscience is a Sociopath. By some estimates that is 1 in every 25 people. Are they all Atheists? Studies show they are not. Nor are Atheists typically Sociopaths.
We find our sense of morality within ourselves. It might be a function of biology, so that we can live together. And yet countless immoral acts have taken place in the name of religion as well as under leaders who oppose religion.
The idea that religion, or one religion in particular, has a monopoly on morality is incredibly naive and thick headed. One has to be severely indoctrinated into a certain dogma to believe something so clearly out of touch with reality.
Consider that many religious people commit adultery. In fact pornography is especially popular online in parts of the world that are the most religious and that includes the Bible Belt. And yet these same people know not to steal or kill.
Midas,
Your accusations against Christians and Christianity are FALSE. Show one Christian who believes those things. If that is your best argument (and Hitchens' as well), then you have a paucity of argumentation. In fact, that corruption is the basis for the hatred which Atheists self-generate in order to sustain their own irrational concepts of a universe-from-nothing; universal coherence and continuity by accident; life-only-from-life-except-First-Life; Life is all-animal and has no meaning therefore: eugenics for useless eaters; the natural intellectual elitism of deniers; abject belief in incoherent Materialism, etc, etc.
"By the way where does God get his morality from? What is it? How do you know what it is? And what makes it binding?"
Which proves only that you have NO permanent, cohesive morality yourself. The issue at this blog is what Atheists believe, and you indicate your belief that there is no morality beyond that which you declare that it is. That makes you the moral authority, the law giver, the god-in-your-own-mind. You obviously are self-elevated above the rest of humanity. And that Atheist tendency places you in the path to totalitarianism, because you, and you alone (with your Atheist cronies) know what is True in a universe which has no Truth.
"I am a human being, living in a civilized society. Some of my morality was taught to my by that society and some of it seems to come naturally. So does this make me devoid of any sense of morality?A person without a conscience is a Sociopath. By some estimates that is 1 in every 25 people. Are they all Atheists? Studies show they are not. Nor are Atheists typically Sociopaths."
Actual studies show otherwise.
"Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths—not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others. The new study is published in the online journal PLOS ONE. "
http://blog.case.edu/think/2016/03/23/the_conflict_between_science_and_religion_lies_in_our_brains
Atheism is not due to an increase in personal beneficial social characteristics, it is due to a reduction.
"We find our sense of morality within ourselves. It might be a function of biology, so that we can live together. And yet countless immoral acts have taken place in the name of religion as well as under leaders who oppose religion."
Atheism has enabled and produced the most violent century the earth has known: the 20th century was dominated by the bloody Atheist attacks on their own societies, with numbers of torture-to-death and outright assassinated topping 150,000,000 Atheist kills. And it's still going on. So your outrage at Christianities failures of many centuries ago belies your lack of outrage at Atheist atrocities still happening. Your Atheism seems to allow for a very tempered consideration of Atheism, while being overwrought at deep historical religions. And I'll bet that you think that Islam is a "Religion of Peace", too, despite the obvious facts to the contrary.
"The idea that religion, or one religion in particular, has a monopoly on morality is incredibly naive and thick headed."
The idea that Atheism is in touch with any morality at all is not naive; it is evil, in and of itself. Because under Atheism, as Nietzsche so aptly illuminated, there is no morality; there is no Good, no Evil; there is no truth; there is no "good" character trait to attempt to acquire; there is only the Atheist VOID, to be backfilled with personal proclivities and lusts. If it be convenient to be cooperative and communal, then that is the morality du jour. If it be convenient to slaughter the dissenters, then THAT is the morality du jour. And that is empirically proven and incontrovertible by honest minds.
"One has to be severely indoctrinated into a certain dogma to believe something so clearly out of touch with reality."
Of course, by "reality" you mean the obviously failed material "reality" of Philosophical Materialism. But if reality expands to "all that exists", then your statement stands, and it refers to Atheism with precision. Atheism cannot prove any of its beliefs: a) no deity; b) Philosophical Materialism; c) universe from nothing; d) universal coherence for no reason; e) Life jumps from minerals to form the common ancestor, complete with its own systems and blueprints.
Atheist dogma is anti-rational from the bottom to the top. It's claims of being the sole possessor of logic and evidence is belied by the total lack of both deductive Aristotelian logical arguments AND total lack of disciplined empirical inductive-deductivo experimental data in its own defense.
So even the basic premise for Atheism is FALSE.
"Consider that many religious people commit adultery. In fact pornography is especially popular online in parts of the world that are the most religious and that includes the Bible Belt. And yet these same people know not to steal or kill."
First, your claims are without data, and are rejected; they are likely just your own subjective take, based on Atheist conversational tid bits.
Second, the existence of a deity in no manner depends upon the behavior of humans. Pointing to the bad behavior of humans merely points to the destined failure of Atheism to produce anything like a fair and just society based on the belief that there is no Good; no evil; no moral principles that are fixed; and most onerously - the intellectual and moral elitism of those who so believe.
You are rationalizing quite a bit. There is not really a belief system called “Atheism”. This is a general term for someone who does not believe. I do not believe what the Abrahamic religions teach.
There are some passages of value in the Bible. I find even more in the teachings of the Buddha, but I am not a Buddhist. The Tao Te Ching strikes me as even more clear, yet I am not a Taoist. The Bhagavad Gita, to me, illustrates through metaphor ideas that resonate for me, but I am not a Hindu.
How is it possible that I have morality then? The society is a mess. On the one hand the Western religious establishment wants to take credit for giving society it’s morals. On the other hand that same establishment condemns the society for being so corrupt. There is a circular argument there. All arguments with deeply indoctrinated people, including some Atheists, tend to be circular.
Why not think for oneself? Why not look within? Why not deeply inquire, even beyond the comfortable conclusions that are already prepared for us by the religious establishment of our culture? What are you so afraid of?
There is one question which matters most on the spiritual path, in my personal experience. That question has nothing to do with an imaginary friend, although I must admit that I sometimes envy those who are able to hijack their own intellects in such a way as to find comfort there. There is one question you must ask yourself – truly, honestly, bravely, thoroughly, deeply.
“Who am I?”
Every direction you turn, that question is waiting for you. You can duck and dodge it and throw the Bible at it, but there it is. It sees you coming a mile away and it waits for you: “Who am I?”
This series of statements boils down to one long 'Nuh uh!'.
It appears to be spillover from the Echo Chambers out there. Midas demonstrates no more reason or ability to use logic than any of the others that come here. Once again we are treated to an individual who bends every experience, his own or that of others, to the high purpose of Denial - specifically, the denial of the truth of Christianity. Everything is relative, everything is subjective, not because it can be reliably demonstrated that this is so in the real world, but because 'Midas says so'.
I will take on just the last part of this screed. The rest has been addressed so many times - with no apparent effect - that one suspects that a strong vein of irrational wishful thinking is at work. Denialism at its best. My personal feeling is that they should all be permitted to go to Hell in their own way. I have no use for them. But my orders insist that what they do and what they are, are two separate things. I am to hate the one and love the other. So here goes....
There is one question which matters most on the spiritual path, in my personal experience.
{It is possible your personal experience has misled you. In fact, as your personal experience is at odds with that of millions of the human race’s best and brightest, it may be highly probable to the point of certainty that your assumptions are wrong.}
That question has nothing to do with an imaginary friend, although I must admit that I sometimes envy those who are able to hijack their own intellects in such a way as to find comfort there.
{Your resorting to expressions of contempt for others’ beliefs (imaginary friend, hijacked intellect) suggests to me that your statement has no basis - other than because (1) you said so because (2) you’re smarter than the rest of us. And there is no proof of (2), especially since the arrogance and pride found behind (1) generally inhibits the ability to reason clearly to a point where it looks like you’re chugging stupid pills.
To quote C. S. Lewis, one of those fellows with an imaginary friend, “The notion that everyone would like Christianity to be true, and therefore all atheists are brave men who have accepted the defeat of all their deepest desires, is simply impudent nonsense.”}
There is one question you must ask yourself – truly, honestly, bravely, thoroughly, deeply.
“Who am I?”
{When you realize that the answer is ‘something dirty, mean and very, very small’, you will begin to assess your true situation with some sort of accuracy.}
Every direction you turn, that question is waiting for you. You can duck and dodge it and throw the Bible at it, but there it is. It sees you coming a mile away and it waits for you: “Who am I?”
{Give me an example of why you think Stan is ducking and dodging the question. Is it because he disagrees with you? You have no more knowledge of him than I do, and I would never suggest such a thing. You claim he is ‘throwing the Bible at it’ but in reality, Stan disavows any connection with any particular brand of faith. He has no religious axe to grind. He has established that atheism and materialism are self-contradictory bunk. So is ‘skepticism’ that is based on ‘because I said so’ and denialism (nuh-uh!), no logic and even less demonstrable fact.
What have you got, besides “because I say so”? Do you really think this place is like the rest of the internet, that you only have to babble at length and in all caps and what you write will magically become true? Even the worst pagans know this life is not ‘all about them’. Your quest to make yourself the measure of all things, and thus, avoid shame, is obvious to anyone with open eyes.
Suppose you are looking for the wrong thing?}
Midas:
I love this part:
”How is it possible that I have morality then? The society is a mess. On the one hand the Western religious establishment wants to take credit for giving society it’s morals. On the other hand that same establishment condemns the society for being so corrupt. There is a circular argument there. All arguments with deeply indoctrinated people, including some Atheists, tend to be circular.”
Let’s discuss circularity. There are only three types of grounding for any argument: infinite regression; circularity; grounding in absolute principles such as the First Principles of Thought.
Circularity occurs when the argument refers (though a chain of premises) back to the authority of the originator of the argument. And in your comments, you are that authority; your arguments are eminently circular, especially your argument for your personal moral conclusions for which you are the authority.
Any moral argument which is not grounded in absolute principles is either circular or an infinite regression. You have chosen principles which fit your personal proclivities and declare that to be moral, which is obviously circular. But it is nothing more than your personal opinion; there is nothing but changeable, volatile tidbits which you declare to be moral, and nothing else. There is no reason for anyone to accept you as a moral authority, much less THE moral authority. Your arrogance is an obvious disclaimer for any actual authority.
”Why not think for oneself? Why not look within? Why not deeply inquire, even beyond the comfortable conclusions that are already prepared for us by the religious establishment of our culture? What are you so afraid of?”
This is maximally arrogant. In assuming that I have not done so you make false assumptions based in your own prejudices. Why do you not question your own assumptions by applying the Aristotelian deductive principles to them, honestly and without preconception? I did that as an Atheist questioning Atheism. What are you afraid of? (You should be afraid if you value both principled logic AND Atheism).
”There is one question which matters most on the spiritual path, in my personal experience. That question has nothing to do with an imaginary friend, although I must admit that I sometimes envy those who are able to hijack their own intellects in such a way as to find comfort there. There is one question you must ask yourself – truly, honestly, bravely, thoroughly, deeply.
“Who am I?”
A continuation of maximal arrogance. Atheism itself is irrational to the core, and that is what allows you to make such ignorant and elitist statements, devoid of any actual argument, actual logic, actual evidence in support of your arrogant conclusion that Atheism is more than a VOID of morality and logic. I have asked that question decades ago; I know the answer and it is that no Atheist is actually a full person.
”Every direction you turn, that question is waiting for you. You can duck and dodge it and throw the Bible at it, but there it is. It sees you coming a mile away and it waits for you: “Who am I?””
You are completely full of yourself and your Atheism; your self-endowed elitism has no substance. All of the above is without substance, and is fraudulent. If you dare, read the post just placed today, at the home page of this site. Then come back and defend your irrational conclusions.
Before anything else, just where is your proof of this God that is good? And how do you know he is good? How do you know what his morals are?
"A continuation of maximal arrogance. Atheism itself is irrational to the core, and that is what allows you to make such ignorant and elitist statements, devoid of any actual argument, actual logic, actual evidence in support of your arrogant conclusion that Atheism is more than a VOID of morality and logic. I have asked that question decades ago; I know the answer and it is that no Atheist is actually a full person."
Empathy and rationality. Morality is about how human beings should treat each other and how societies should function. For example virtually everyone does not want to be brutally murdered, and if every one was killing each other all the time the society would die out. This is how morality works. Values that function and benefit society thrive and survive while destructive values die out. This is the Atheist's system of morality, so can you show us what yours is?
The foundation of Atheist morality is human psychology or nature based on these facts – like not wanting to be brutally murdered – you build a moral system that works and allows society to function. Homosexuality for example, is not a moral issue because it does not harm society. If something harms society then those people have to be removed from society – regardless of whether it is genetic or anything else.
Midas actually despite what you claim there is not the system of morality for all Atheists. I would go as far to say that I could ask any Atheist and get a different answer. You realize that the League of Militant Atheists killed over 20 million people right? Did they share your views?
"Morality is about how human beings should treat each other and how societies should function." Who is the authority for Morality? You? Your friends? Popular opinion? If that is the case Morality is a moving target.
Homosexuality doesn't harm society? You realize that there is no way you can state that claim empirically right?
”Before anything else, just where is your proof of this God that is good? And how do you know he is good? How do you know what his morals are?”
The subject is not “this God”, the subject is the moral basis of individual Atheists, because there is no "Atheist Morality". So this is a Red Herring, but I will not let the conversation be dragged off track and into the ditch.
"A continuation of maximal arrogance. Atheism itself is irrational to the core, and that is what allows you to make such ignorant and elitist statements, devoid of any actual argument, actual logic, actual evidence in support of your arrogant conclusion that Atheism is more than a VOID of morality and logic. I have asked that question decades ago; I know the answer and it is that no Atheist is actually a full person."
“Empathy and rationality. Morality is about how human beings should treat each other and how societies should function. For example virtually everyone does not want to be brutally murdered, and if every one was killing each other all the time the society would die out. This is how morality works. Values that function and benefit society thrive and survive while destructive values die out. This is the Atheist's system of morality, so can you show us what yours is?”
First, your claim is egregiously FALSE. Here’s why. a) There is no common "Atheist's system of morality". b) What everyone wants is not the issue for moral principles. Everyone might want to be filthy rich; they can’t be. However, a minority of Atheists might want stage a coup (and they commonly do. re: Robespierre; Mao; Lenin; Pol Pot; Castro; Ortega; etc.) and then the culture becomes one of terror and of massive slaughter followed by total mind and body control of the remaining populace. And THAT is the most overwhelmingly popular Atheist morality as is historically and empirically demonstrable. Those values “function” for society, if continual submission by starvation is the objective. But never has Atheist morality provided “benefit” to society if freedom and self-determination is the objective.
Second, it is purely the Atheist moral proclivities that are being scrutinized here. Mine are not.
”The foundation of Atheist morality is human psychology or nature based on these facts – like not wanting to be brutally murdered – you build a moral system that works and allows society to function.”
Atheist morality is either Consequentialist or Pragmatism, sometimes Virtue Ethics. All of which are totalitarian principles which are created by Atheists, not for themselves, but for the “herd”, the masses who must be controlled to the satisfaction of the Atheist elitist overlords. The Atheist history of the 20th Century belies the claim of Atheists refraining from murder, mass murder, genocide and general atrocities upon their own peoples.
”Homosexuality for example, is not a moral issue because it does not harm society. If something harms society then those people have to be removed from society – regardless of whether it is genetic or anything else.”
And here you have demonstrated the fully totalitarian nature of your own personal Atheist proclivities, as you would impose upon society. What society thinks is of no concern; they have no input, no consideration. Your rules would be imposed as Their Rules. Society is an amorphous abstraction in your moral composition; not humans with any rights.
Atheism is defined by its attachment to materialism and evolution, both of which declare that humans are accidental animals and that there are no "rights" attached to biological things any more than to chemical and mineral things. So if a right exists, it is seized by the Will To Power, and it exists just for the person who successfully seized it. Thus, it is necessary to assert power over all other animal/humans in order to keep that right, once seized.
That, then, is the moral universe of all the 20th Century Atheists, and of all current Atheists regardless of their complaint otherwise.
You continually make my points for me.
Values that function and benefit society thrive and survive while destructive values die out. This is the Atheist's system of morality, so can you show us what yours is?
I detect a non sequitur. "Values that function and benefit society thrive"... is then followed by "this is the Atheists system". Where is the premise linking the assertion to the conclusion? This is a bare assertion which could easily be asserted by theists and deists alike.
On Metacrock's blog, he did an entry recently about the Fine Tuning Argument. He has been having a back and forth with someone named Eric Sotnak. Today, I just read through the comments, and Eric said something about how the earliest models of the earth using Quantum Mechanics suggest a totally randomly created Earth or something. I said "Say what"?
Post a Comment