Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Bigotboy]

I agree with PureX’s sentiment.
Those who say there is no first cause are arguing out of ignorance. (Not that they are ignorant in the pejorative sense of the word, they have no facts on which to base their theory.) They don’t like the answers they have and so they propose a new theory to explain their observations.
Hawkings says there is a 95% chance he is correct. What does he base that statistic on ? He has no set of data to plot, to analyze, to test his theory against. Its all guess work.

This is where Zakath fails. I had discussions with him a couple of years ago and I challenged him on the historical event known as the resurrection of Jesus. His rebuttal was the event occurred in the past, so we really cannot know if it happened. So he has decided that he is the ultimate arbiter of truth: what he accepts is true, what he rejects is false.
This is what BE is trying to get him to admit, that we can set up a set of standards with which to measure the veracity of a claim for a particular event.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by novice
Is Zakath ever going to make a case for his own arguments?

And this from a man (Zakath) who claims he has a "doctorate."

Will he ever hint at how everything came into existence without supernatural help?

Hmmm...no.

Isn't this supposed to be a debate? I cannot imagine fellow atheists being very happy with Zakath's post #4.

How could they...Zakath has embarrassed himself.

Where are the opposing points?

Well, :zakath: , where are they?

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Bigotboy
I agree with PureX’s sentiment.
Those who say there is no first cause are arguing out of ignorance......

I'm not sure which post you are referring to, but I was not promoting the idea that there must be a first cause any more than I was promoting the idea that there is not. My point was that we simply do not know. And I would extend this point to include the resurrection as well.

 

[Bigotboy]

Originally posted by PureX
........ And I would extend this point to include the resurrection as well.

Are you saying we cannot determine if the resurrection was an actual event ?

 

[Psycho Dave]

Consciousness is explainable

Consciousness is explainable

Bob Enyart wrote:

Consciousness is an absolute. Here is my third proof for the existence of a supernatural creator: consciousness. Atheists cannot even conceive, theoretically, in the most basic of terms, how self-awareness could develop from atoms and molecules.

This is utterly untrue. Bob seems to forget that there is a field of science known as Neurophysiology, which not only has models that explain this, but together with microbiology, does a pretty good job of explaining how thinking and consciousness are chemical processes.

Bob may not be aware of it, but neurophysiology has pretty much figured out what consciousness is. Here's a hint -- it's not a thing. It's an action. Consciousness is what happens when multiple feedback loops within the brain operate and interact with one another to give an organism (or person) information about their surroundings and status. Anything with a brain, nerve cells, and organs to sense things has consciousness. The larger the brain, the more aware of "self" an organism is. A fly knows enough to dodge out of the way of a swatter. It is conscious of it's survival and surroundings. People are conscious on higher levels with more detailed senses.

What Bob is saying here is that BOB has no idea how brains and consciousness work, THEREFORE, nobody does, THEREFORE, his idea of a spiritual or supernatural cause of consciousness is the only explanation. If Bob were to read up on neurophysiology, consciousness studies, he wouldn't make such ignorant statements.

So, consciousness, self-awareness, arising from matter – that’s a tough one. Because the molecules have to become aware of themselves. Yikes.

This further exemplifies Bob's lack of knowledge in the subject of neurophysilogy. ATOMS make up MOLECULES. Molecules make up PROTIENS. Protiens make up AMINO ACIDS. AMINO ACIDS make up RNA and DNA. (I think we all acept this as scientific fact, don't we?)

When DNA is arranged in a certain way, it forms cells. A nerve is a certain type of cell. Some nerve cells are sensitive to light. Some are sensitive to chemicals. Some are sensitive to vibrations. Some are sensitive to temperature changes. Arrays of different types of nerve cells form sensory organs -- for hearing, sight, smell, taste, etc. Brains have large portions of nerve cells dedicated to decoding and analyzing the data from various sense organs. When a brain works -- when a brain analyzes input from sense organs, categorizes it, and determines whether or not to respond to it, it is making CONSCIOUSNESS happen. Cows and dogs have consciousness, and insects have consciousness. What makes Human consciousness different is all the extra brainpower. I don't think anyone would deny that apes are conscious. I believe that all the studies, the sign language experiments, and other data conclusively prove that apes have a very similar consciousness to our own.

Consciousness is not a separate part of the brain, nor is it separate from the brain. It is rather, what the brain does.

But wait, Zakath, before you ignore this question also, let me throw in a handicap for you. You can begin with biological life. Yup. Start not just with atoms and molecules, but with proteins, DNA, RNA, ribosomes… aw, go ahead and take the enzymes and the cell wall too, yea, I’ll grant you an entire organism of living cells, in fact, a world full of them. Now, from atoms and molecules, and biological life, can you give us some idea, any hint of an idea, just conceptually, even vaguely, of how consciousness arises by natural processes?

It's quite simple, when you know where to look.

Bob did not define WHAT consciousness was. I will assume that Bob has a definition for consciousness that is different from mine. If Bob agrees that consciousness is "the sensory awareness that an organism has of itself in relation to it's surroundings", then my next paragraph stands.

Consciousness, described as simply as possible, is when sensory organs in an organism are connected to the brain by a series of neurons (nerves), to clusters of brain matter dedicated to analyzing the data from the sensory organs, which are networked to a central part of a brain that prioritizes that information, determines if there is any pain, any danger, or any need to flee (or other instinctual reactions). The larger the brain, the more complex the potential reactions are.

http://www.bcset.org/neurolinks.htm

I sure would like to hear how Bob explains consciousness without reference to the physical brain. What would be really interesting is if he makes any claims to his explanation being scientific in nature.

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Flipper
Meaninglessness is very relative. I expect you have no compunction squashing ants, or spraying their nests with Raid. Not a big deal to you, a pretty massive deal to the ants and their nest. It all, of course, depends on your frame of reference (as Bob is now found of saying).

That's right, if atheism is true, squashing people should no different than squashing ants. Afterall, if there is no absolute standard of morality, who would you be to tell someone else they can't view ants and humans equally and kill them both??

So, in a grand universal 'so-far-off-the-human-scale-of-distance-magnitude-and-time-it's-ridiculous' sense, you're absolutely right. It is meaningless.

Actually, it would be meaningless right now as well.

Yes, we have an objective reality but it is a tiny fragment of time, that's not even the crest of an vast and unseen electromagnetic wave smeared across huge distances.

Yes, which means the present would be as meaningless are the past or future.

So, in the grander scheme, your point is correct. However, your conclusion is not, for reasons that we will explore.

My conclusion is correct, for reasons we will explore.

Even if it were, this argument is a poor one. Assume atheism to be true, for a moment, would it make the truth any less true just because you don't like it and you don't care for its consequences?

No, but if atheism was true, it certainly makes arguing and debating and caring about what other people think - futile and utterly pointless. If I truly believed that atheism was true and believed that my pathetical speck of life was all I had before my existence would be terminated into the meaningless sea of eternity, I wouldn't waste one second of my life arguing or debating about anything, because if no God exists, then truth, lies, perception, thoughts, experiences - EVERYTHING would be relative and no one would have the right to tell anyone else how to think, live, or behave. Therefore, what would be the point of arguing? Afterall, there would be no such thing as absolute truth; just a lot of relativistic opinions and none more "valuable" than any other.

I disagree. Find more solid ground for criticism.

That's fine that you disagree, but what does it matter? You can disagree until you are blue in the face, but you have not proffered a single statement that resolved any my questions. If you are honest, you'd admit that atheism simply has no end game. It is a belief system that leads to total meaninglessness, relativism, futility, and absurdity.

It matters to other humans. Quite a lot, actually.

But humans themselves wouldn't matter. There would be no objective standard that would give meaning to humans. And what "matters" to meaningless things (like humans) would be irrelevant because the things themselves are inherently meaningless. An inherently meaningless thing cannot assign meaning to itself. And if humans have to create their own meaning out of thin air, how is that any different than creating the idea of God out of thin air? Indeed, if atheism is true, any meaning we assign to ourselves would be just as "imaginary" as any God.

In fact, you might appreciate the value of human life more because you understand how fragile and short-lived it really is.

Human life would have value? What "value"? OH!! You mean the *imaginary* value that you would arbitrarily assign to it. I see........so as an atheist, you believe it's okay for people to believe in imaginary values, but not okay to believe in imaginary gods.

Makes perfect sense. :thumb:

 

[Flipper]

What "value"? OH!! You meaning the imaginary value that you arbitrarly assign to it. I see, so as an atheist, you believe it is okay for people to believe in imaginary values, but not okay to believe in imaginary gods.

When did I say you shouldn't believe in gods? In fact, I think I said that I wasn't really interested in converting people just a few posts before. Life would be pretty boring if we all believed the same stuff.

I was just demonstrating that it is possible to be an atheist and hold a moral perspective. A morality that is in some sense bolstered by atheism. That, as it happens, is my belief. Because I hold it and believe it a justifiable one, thus you are refuted. So sucks.

I don't give a fig about your contention of what it is that all atheists should believe. Perhaps your understanding of atheism is painfully limited because of your christian perspective. No matter.

What you seem to be failing to understand is that we humans don't operate on a quantum scale, or across vast spans of time. Therefore, for reasons that I and others have outlined, we are important in our frame of reference.

But humans themselves wouldn't matter. There would be no objective standard that would give meaning to humans. And what "matters" to a meaningless things (humans) is irrelevant because the things themselves are meaningless.

A simple experiment may suffice. On levels far below our self-aware perspectives, we are mixtures of fermions and bosons. Or We may have a reasonable academic understanding of the dizzying spans of time on either side of us.

This may be my view, but if during these weighty musings if someone stamped hard on my* foot, I'd be more concerned with the more immediate world.

Animals that do not operate in the immediate reality soon become extinct. We have emotions and senses that root us in objective reality and also make us human. Like other animals, we feel fear and pain, but unlike most other animals, we are able to foresee long and short term consequences and plan accordingly. Mankind was founded on cooperation, and cooperation requires hierarchies and certain rules of behaviour that are not arbitrary.

In complex societies, I would suggest it makes perfect sense to develop stories about a hypothetical 'next-level-up' hierachy of troop leader or leaders as gods. There are two obvious reasons - 1) it provides foundational origin myths and 2) it provides a `check' against behavior that could concievably damage or destroy a tribe. Some of these checks are in the form of moral prescriptures, others are designed to imbue the leader of the group with other-than-human providence to minimize the danger of challenges and factionalism.

I don't expect you to spend any time considering this because it's diametrically opposed to your worldview.

I'm just letting you know that there are alternative views, whether you personally find them valid or not. And as the Bob E/Zakath debate is demonstrating, there are no clear proofs for the existence (or non-existence) of Gods or God.

* EDIT "your" changed to "my".

 

[Scrimshaw]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions for Atheists....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions for Atheists....

Originally posted by heusdens
Such a molecule acts entirely different, and therefore you can not claim it's the same.

I didn't say there weren't different molecules. I was saying that no set of moleclues would be any more valuable than any other set. In other words, the set of molecules that equals - YOU, would be no more valuable or meaningful than the set of molecules that make up an interstellar gas cloud.

I don't agree, since (for the majority of manhood) that is not what we observe our behaviour to be.

That's only because for the "majority of manhood", humans have been believing in gods and practicing religions that they believed gave meaning to their lives. But if all of our ancient ancestors were atheists, and knew that there was no "actual" meaning to life, I am quite confident the human race would have gone extinct many thousands of years ago.

Then I think you missed the point. If that was the case, manhood would already have gone extinct. Our biological nature provide us guidelines for our survival.

As equally ancient as our "biological nature" is our belief in religion, and gods. It would be quite interesting to see if ancient mankind would have had the will to survive if they knew they were nothing but an arbitrary by-product of a cosmic accident, alone in a hostile, and meaningless universe.

You are missing the point of what 3,2 billion years of evoultion did to our species. When we look around we can see that our species is the most evolved, even when not all of our organs are the best organs found in nature.

Why would we care about evolution or what it did? If no god exists, then evolution would also be an arbitary by-product of the cosmic accident - a totally meaningless process that creates totally meaningless things in a totally meaningless universe. I am not missing the point. You have no "point" to miss. :nono:

When we look back and see where we are now, you can not escape from caring about what so many billions of years of evolution and human development brought us, to be what we are now.

But what we are now would be a meaningless set of molecules - the indirect result of a cosmic accident. Whoopie!

And the ultimate goal of humans is freedom, to live in a environment in which our human goals can be fulfilled.

Wrong. The ultimate goal of humans would be DEATH. All other goals would be imaginary, make-believe, and arbitrary. Man may think he achieves freedom, but he would always find out he is really just the slave of death. Mankind would never have freedom from death and suffering. And the utter futility of our temporal goals would be made manifest when they die right along with us, either individually or collectively.

The question is then: why do you assume that it should be the case that all of material reality, including the fact we are living in that, is irrelevant? What makes you think it does?

Because it is the random consequence of a cosmic accident. Our lives would have no INHERENT meaning. Our existence would be nothing but the chance result of a cosmic explosion. Any meaning we assign to our own existence would be IMAGINARY. So what would the substantive difference be between make-believing we have value, and make-believing we have an imaginary Creator? Indeed, if atheism is true, any value you assign to your own human life would be just as "imaginary" as any god.

While this thought might be "helpfull" to some, I could not escape thinking of what invented that deity then.

A deity, by most definitions, is eternal. Eternal things don't have origins - so asking about the origin of thing that, by definition, does not have one, is a false question.

I think your post just shows your prejudice towards atheism, and neither reflect truly on what being human actually is like.

You are dead wrong. My post shows no prejudice whatsoever. Rather, it takes atheism to it's logical conclusion. I think you atheists spend far too much of your time play around in the minutia of "clever" arguments and not nearly enough time following your own claims to their logical conclusions.

Your defense on theism is defended on the following reasoning:

1. If atheism is right, then human lives would just be arbitrary
2. Humans lives are not arbitrary
3. Therefore theism is right

That is not my argument at all, but let's pretend that it is and have a little fun.....

Assumption 2 is I think correct, for the reasons I already mentioned. If a species would exist not taking care about it's own existence and survival, nature would already have let that species go extinct. So the fact that we exists, means that we had to be caring about our own survival.

Right, but mankind is not like the other animals. We are not robots controlled only by our instincts and biochemical impulses. We have consciousness, self-awareness, cognition, volition, and an extremely advanced intelligence. Those cerebral powers override our instincts most of the time. And coincidentally, religion, the belief in god, and belief in a higher meaning for life goes all the way back to the dawn of man. So quite likely, theism/religion is the reason mankind found the will and desire to survive.

However, I do not agree with assumption 1. It shows nothing but prejudice against the atheist point of view.

You're right. So let me rephrase point 1 as follows:

1. If atheism is true, any "value" we assign to our lives would be just as "imaginary" as any god.

This Deity would have had to reside then in no time and no space, which for me means, that it has no independend existence. This does not contradict the fact that deities can be hold to "exist", but that form of existence is entirely within our minds, and not outside of it.

Right, so if atheism is true, I guess deities and our self-ascribed values would have something in common - they both would exist entirely within our own minds, and not outside of them. If atheism were true, there would be no difference in believing in god and believing that human life has value. Both notions would be make-believe.

I can not help but to care about my own existence, which then for me means that it is an unpleasant idea to think that nothing whatsoever (including myself) does not exist.

And if atheism is true, I cannot help but think about how caring about my own existence would be the epitome of futility......and how my very act of "caring" about the futility of *caring*, would itself, be FUTILE.

Blessings,

 

[quip]

Originally posted by Charismata
quip in my example you are the antagonist not the apathetic...get it? That is the analogy. That is the point of the post. Is english not your first language?

No, I don't get it because of this:

Originally posted by Charismata

The opposite of belief isn't antagonism...it's apathy.

1. the opposite of belief = non-belief
2. (therefore) non-belief = apathy (your words - not mine)
3. I'm a non-believer
4. Therfore I'm guilty of apathy. (again, your (unintended?) conclusion - not mine.)

Now, since I first ask the "believers" on this thread a question, I'll assume that you are a believer and your pathetic analogy was an attempt to dodge my question. I suggest the next time you try your hand at witty analogous retorts you make sure such retorts are well written and logically support your position until then........

Originally posted by Charismata.

And it's "you're" not "your". Crafty I must be.:bannana:

(LOL)............ I suggest taking English Comp. 101 - I'll be down the hall learning how to critique your "crafty" compositions!! :bannana:

 

[Hank]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions for Atheists....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions for Atheists....

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Right, but mankind is not like the other animals. We are not robots controlled only by our instincts and biochemical impulses.

I am not an atheist and I don’t believe we are robots, but we are obviously controlled by our instincts and biochemical impulses to a great extent.

We have consciousness

All animals do.

, self-awareness, cognition, volition,

Some animals do.

and an extremely advanced intelligence.

And what does that mean to this debate?

Those cerebral powers override our instincts most of the time.

I like to think that but I think you would have a hard time proving that.

And coincidentally, religion, the belief in god, and belief in a higher meaning for life goes all the way back to the dawn of man.

And?

So quite likely, theism/religion is the reason mankind found the will and desire to survive.

That doesn’t make sense. All animals have a will and desire to survive and they don’t have religion. The will and desire to survive is completely independent of a belief in God.

I once debated a Christian who said if there was no God, we would all go out and start killing each other. I found that statement to be ludicrous, but he insisted it was true. I’m curious, if you were suddenly confronted with the fact there was no God, would you care about your children or the people you loved any less? What would you do differently? Just a hypothetical question.

 

[Flipper]

Scrimshaw:

And coincidentally, religion, the belief in god, and belief in a higher meaning for life goes all the way back to the dawn of man. So quite likely, theism/religion is the reason mankind found the will and desire to survive.

For what it is worth, I think that religion provides some evolutionary advantages.

However, have you seen neolithic images of their godesses and totems? Quite a way from Hebraic monotheism, I fancy.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by quip
[/b]

Now, since I first ask the "believers" on this thread a question, I'll assume that you are a believer and your pathetic analogy was an attempt dodge my question.

quip I did some looking for your question but this is a very long thread. Would you mind repeating the question.

Thanks

 

[quip]

Originally posted by Hank
quip I did some looking for your question but this is a very long thread. Would you mind repeating the question.

This question was in response to a similar question posed to atheists. My (now obscured) point was to illustrate that all beliefs tend to be defended by their respective believers and that the Christian who posed the original question was being somewhat hypocritical. ---Whew anyway.....

I ask this of the believer: Is one's faith in God so weak and insecure that the challenge of such a simple and 'meaningless' atheistic conviction should elicit so much trepidation and feverish hostility from the devout?

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Flipper
When did I say you shouldn't believe in gods? In fact, I think I said that I wasn't really interested in converting people just a few posts before. Life would be pretty boring if we all believed the same stuff.

So you don't think atheism is better than theism? Because if you did think atheism was better, why wouldn't you want to let people know???

I was just demonstrating that it is possible to be an atheist and hold a moral perspective.

Right, an IMAGINARY moral perspective.

A morality that is in some sense bolstered by atheism. That, as it happens, is my belief. Because I hold it and believe it a justifiable one, thus you are refuted. So sucks.

I see, so your make-belief in a morality, and mere assertion that it is "justifiable" means that I am refuted?? Wow, that's amazing. So perhaps someone who make-believes in Santa Claus only has to assert that their belief is "justifiable", and Santa Claus is proved? I don't follow your logic at all. You've haven't refuted anything except the consistency of your own belief system.

I don't give a fig about your contention of what it is that all atheists should believe. Perhaps your understanding of atheism is painfully limited because of your christian perspective. No matter.

No, my understanding of atheism is painfully accurate because of LOGIC. If you spent more time actually thinking through the logical ends of your atheistic beliefs, you'd find that atheism is ontologically flawed and logically inconsistent.

What you seem to be failing to understand is that we humans don't operate on a quantum scale, or across vast spans of time. Therefore, for reasons that I and others have outlined, we are important in our frame of reference.

And your own puny "frame of reference" is nothing but the chance result of a cosmic accident, according to your own belief system. Any "importance" you assign to your feeble and insignificant frame of reference - is make-believe. That's right. Any importance of your frame of refence is *imaginary* according to your own belief system.

Animals that do not operate in the immediate reality soon become extinct.

That's totally false. Squirrels survive the winter because they plan ahead and store huge gatherings of nuts. Humans have taken control of the world because of their ability to plan ahead.

Mankind was founded on cooperation,

No, mankind was "founded" on billions of chance effects of a cosmic explosion. Mankind's entire existence would totally arbitrary if atheism is true.

and cooperation requires hierarchies and certain rules of behaviour that are not arbitrary.

If the *thing* that behaves is arbitrary, so would be any "rules" that govern it's behavior. For it's very existence, which is governed the by rules, is ABITRARY.

In complex societies, I would suggest it makes perfect sense to develop stories about a hypothetical 'next-level-up' hierachy of troop leader or leaders as gods. There are two obvious reasons - 1) it provides foundational origin myths and 2) it provides a `check' against behavior that could concievably damage or destroy a tribe.

I see, so you're basically saying we should believe in an imaginary farce in order to PRESERVE another imaginary farce - namely, that our existence has "value". Sorry, that makes no sense.

You're argument is circular, and logically flawed.

Some of these checks are in the form of moral prescriptures, others are designed to imbue the leader of the group with other-than-human providence to minimize the danger of challenges and factionalism.

Right, right. And we would NEED all those things in order to support the imaginary FARCE that our lives actually have some kind of "meaning" or "importance", and therefore, must be maintained.

I don't expect you to spend any time considering this because it's diametrically opposed to your worldview.

Oops, too late. I already spent time considering it and found it to be yet another circular argument with massive logical holes. Your entire scenario assumes that human life has value, and therefore, must be maintained. But that belief, in and of itself, is an IMAGINARY value.

I'm just letting you know that there are alternative views, whether you personally find them valid or not.

Those alternative views make no sense in an atheistic reality. In fact, if atheism is true, those "alternative" views would be circular, and logically flawed.

And as the Bob E/Zakath debate is demonstrating, there are no clear proofs for the existence (or non-existence) of Gods or God.

And if there are no proofs for the existence of God, then there are no proofs for the *inherent* value of human life. And since you are willing to believe in the value of human life without proof, BUT, *not* willing to believe in God without proof, you have proven your atheism to be a hypocritical, and logically inconsistent worldview.

.....For you believe in human values without proof, but will not believe in a god without proof. :down:

 

[quip]

Hank, the argument was started by Scrimshaw post #1120 page 75

 

[Flipper]

Scrimshaw:

I see, so your basically saying we should believe in an imaginary farce in order to PRESERVE an imaginary farce - namely, that our existence has "value".

That's very high-level abstract and somewhat non-superstitous thought that would have little value in primitive society. Didn't I just suggest that religion could have evolutionary advantages? Do try and keep up.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animals that do not operate in the immediate reality soon become extinct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's totally false. Squirrels survive the winter because they plan ahead and store huge gatherings of nuts.

You misunderstand. Animals have no choice but to live in the immediate reality because most of them lack the capacity for abstract thought. A squirrel may well be caching nuts, but you can bet your bottom dollar he's always being watching and checking his periphery, because if he doesn't he might not live long enough to enjoy his winter supply.

I see, so your basically saying we should believe in an imaginary farce in order to PRESERVE an imaginary farce

Perhaps you're being deliberately obtuse now.

Did I not say that atheism is a minority belief, largely because of the unattractive conclusions it may force you to confront. Did I not also indicate the religion may have some evolutionary benefits? Superstition generally preceeds reason, right? It seems to me that you worship an imaginary construct.

I can provide evidence for fermions and the great age of the universe. You cannot provide direct evidence for your version of events. So my arbitrary values and yours are both creations of different social constructs.

Anyway, I'm out of time - I'm off to Denver for the weekend.

Cheerio.

 

[quip]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw

Your entire scenario assumes that human life has value, and therefore, must be maintained. But that belief, in and of itself, is an IMAGINARY value.

No, that is your interpretation of his scenario. Don't misinterpret his statements and then claim his statements are illogical based on your ignorance. :down:

 

[Psycho Dave]

Scrimshaw wrote:

That's right, if atheism is true, squashing people should no different than squashing ants.

Well, believing in God never stopped people from exterminating people like insects. Sure -- it stopped SOME people from exterminating others like insects, but for the most part, God and religion seem to be one of the more often used excuses for mass exterminations. Take a look at history. The hebrews massacred dozens of tribes in the old testament. The 4th and 5th century Chrsitians massacred each other's sects over doctrine and heresy. Then they massacred muslims (according to their own accounts, the streets of Jerusalem were knee-deep in the blood of Muslims).

So what's the difference? Humans will kill for whatever reasons they seek to justify. God or no god.

Afterall, if there is no absolute standard of morality, who would you be to tell someone else they can't view ants and humans equally and kill them both??

But what's stopping you from defending yourself from people who think you're an insect? If you have the firepower, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT. In the world of ultimate reality, MIGHT DOES MAKE RIGHT. He who has the guns (or other firepower) makes the rules. That's the way it's always been.

Actually, it would be meaningless right now as well.

You forget one thing. We are humans. We seek to create meaning where there is none. It is in our nature to seek out patterns in our world, and create a meaning for it. If you do not think there is meaning in something, someone else will make a meaning. Even atheists do this. Seeking meaning and creating meaning is what humans of all cultures do. It's simply our nature.

No, but if atheism was true, it certainly makes arguing and debating and caring about what other people think - futile and utterly pointless.

No it doesn't. Humans care, whether or not they believe in gods. Caring is a fundamental and universal part of the human experience. If you are human, you have emotions, and that means that you care about something. It may not be exactly what another person cares for, but the fact is that we all do it.

If you care about your survival, it logically follows that you will do some things in order to survive -- even care what other people think. Because humans are social animals, and have an emotional need to connect with other people, we have an innate tendency to care about what other people think. We don't have to -- there is no law that compells us with hellfire and eternal torment. But we have no control over it, we just do it. We care about each other because we have instincts that drive our nature.

If I truly believed that atheism was true and believed that my pathetical speck of life was all I had before my existence would be terminated into the meaningless sea of eternity, I wouldn't waste one second of my life arguing or debating about anything, because if no God exists, then truth, lies, perception, thoughts, experiences - EVERYTHING would be relative and no one would have the right to tell anyone else how to think, live, or behave.

I'm not going to psychoanalyze you based on how you apparently see yourself as a pathetic speck, but If you believed what actual atheists believe, instead of the bizarre straw-man version that you present here, you would not consider your life to be pathetic.

Why do you think your life is a pathetic speck? I don't. I think my life is special, no matter how crappy a day I've had. Not EVERYTHING is relative. Just things that involve OPINION. The fact that a rock is hard, and water is wet are things that people never bother to argue about, because we all experience them in virtually the same way in any context. Morality, justice, happiness, spirituality, and political beliefs are all relative. It would be very nice if morality and "truth" were as universally understood by all people as "hard", "soft", "wet", and "tree" were, but they're not. Those things are the realm of subjective opinion.

Therefore, what would be the point of arguing? Afterall, there would be no such thing as absolute truth; just a lot of relativistic opinions and none more "valuable" than any other.

Well, there is no absolute truth -- the failure of religionists to demonstrate an absolute truth sort of suggests it strongly. But even if there is no absolute truth, we are HUMAN. We seek to understand and seek patterns. Understanding things makes us feel comfortable. Arguing truth with one another is a way we try to understand each other -- unless of course, you're a preacher who is trying to eliminate all arguments through the force of his personality.

That's fine that you disagree, but what does it matter? You can disagree until you are blue in the face, but you have not proffered a single statement that resolved any my questions. If you are honest, you'd admit that atheism simply has no end game. It is a belief system that leads to total meaninglessness, relativism, futility, and absurdity.

Atheism has no "end game", whatever that is. It's not a game. It's not a "belief system"; it's just a single belief. It's simply not believing in supernatural explanations and/or gods. it doesn't lead to meaninglessness, because humans naturally seek out meaning and create meaning if none exists. It only leads to moral/spiritual/political reletivism -- which, by the way, is exactly what society is like in the real world. Each of us has their own viewpoint. Atheism does not lead to scientific reletivism, logical reletivism, rational reletivism, or a reletivistic view of reality in general. Atheism only leads to futility and absurdity if you are a futilistic, absurdist person.

But humans themselves wouldn't matter. There would be no objective standard that would give meaning to humans.

Is it important that an objective standard exists for humans to find meaning? Why can't we all find our own individual meanings by whatever standard we happen to develop as we live and grow? Does there need to be a universalyl accepted "meaning" to everyone's life? Is there something inherently wrong about everyone having their own unique idea of meaning?

I say humans still matter, despite the fact that there is no god. Humans matter each other, because WE ARE HUMAN. It is in our nature to seek social contact with other humans. It is in our nature to communicate, seek companionship, and find meaning. People matter because people are human. Call it a tautology -- it is. Humans have innate instincts to care for other humans, therefore, humans care about other humans. Is it too simple to see that?

And what "matters" to meaningless things (like humans) would be irrelevant because the things themselves are inherently meaningless. An inherently meaningless thing cannot assign meaning to itself.

Not unless, of course, it has a thinking, analyzing, pattern-seeking brain that tries to find and/or create meanings, even if there are none. Humans, even if there is no real intrinsic, universal, absolute meaning to anything, will assign meaning to whatever they want, because it's what their minds are naturally inclined to do. Why bother fighting it? Enjoy it. It's part of being human.

And if humans have to create their own meaning out of thin air, how is that any different than creating the idea of God out of thin air? Indeed, if atheism is true, any meaning we assign to ourselves would be just as "imaginary" as any God.

BINGO! What we think, dream, imagine, create, etc., with our imagination has meaning TO US. I may not enjoy the creations of your mind, but I enjoy my own. Sometimes, our own individual ideas are all we have; sometimes we cannot share them with others. What goes on in our head -- apart from the chemical reactions that make things happen -- is an imaginary process -- it's illusory. Thoughts are imaginations.

Human life would have value? What "value"? OH!! You mean the *imaginary* value that you would arbitrarily assign to it.

I don't think that humans give "arbitrary" values to anything. We clearly operate on genetically assigned components, socially-assigned components, and circumstantial components. Whatever values we assign are going to follow some very predictable, expectable, patterns. All humans have the same machinery inside of their brains, and we therefore tend to place values on things along the same lines.

I see........so as an atheist, you believe it's okay for people to believe in imaginary values, but not okay to believe in imaginary gods. Makes perfect sense.

I have no problem with a diversity of values. I have no problem with a diversity of beliefs. It is only when those who lack an appreciation for diversity, and try to impose a universal, absolute standard on everyone else that I have a problem.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by quip
I ask this of the believer: Is one's faith in God so weak and insecure that the challenge of such a simple and 'meaningless' atheistic conviction should elicit so much trepidation and feverish hostility from the devout?

I am a believer if that means a belief in God but I agree with you. I was raised a Christian but when I first learned everyone did not agree with me I became very defensive. I didn’t get completely out of that until I became comfortable with the believe that I decided on from my on examination of the facts. I am convinced a persons conviction is directly related to how much opposition he can handle without becoming defensive.

 

[quip]

Is seem Scrim cannot discern between the statements: "having a meaning of life" from "having a meaning in life."