Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[heusdens]

On "Natural Selection" and (a)theism

Evolution theory includes the idea of natural selection (the survival of those species, best adapthe to the environment) in combination of mutations of genetic material, as primal factors for the gradual change and adaptation of species and evolution of species.

This can of course be stated without a problem, just recalling factual scientific knowledge.

But what has this to do with the holocaust and the nazi theory about uebermensch and untermensch, and the racial theories.

Evolution theory when it come to the differences within the human species (and important to know is that acc. to evolution theory there is only one human species, the homo sapiens, even if environemental differences have caused human kind to evolve differently in different parts of the world) does not imply any moral judgement as to a "better" or "worse" species or variation within a species. As far as evolution is considered, all species and all variations of species are "best" adapted to their environments.

The suggestion or claim that nazi ideology has something to do with evolution science, is a false claim because:
- According to evolution science, all people are equal, and best adapted to their environments. Differences in genetic material of people are due to different historic conditions.
- The extinction of species or variations of species, occurs due to natural circumstances, and for sure evolution theory does not imply that God or man should "help nature" in letting certain species go extinct.

Then where did those moral judgements upon such genetic differences originate from, if it did not come from evolution science?

In contradiction to this, the nazi-doctrines have strong resemblence with theistic doctrines, and for sure the nazi's would not been able to put forward their doctrines, if centuries of catholicism in europe and germany, had not provided them fertile soil for their inhumane and criminal theories.
For instance one of such theistic doctrines is that there was no evolution, at most only "micro-evolution" and that the boundaries of what defines a species, is some "fixed property". And of course, the origin of such fixed properties of species can - acc. to theism - only come from God.

Theistic doctrines, and for instance the "historic guilt of the jews" to the crucifiction of Jesus, in combination with a racial doctrine (which is in flagrant contradiction with evolution science), had helped the nazi's to evolve their racial doctrines of "Blut and boden" and "Uebermench and Untermensch" in which it was considered right for the "better race" to elimate the "lesser race".
The Catholic church did at no point protest against this implication of theistic doctrines, and even collaborated with the nazi's to mass-murder 6 millions jews, as also 20 million of russians (which as slavic i.e. non-german "species" were considered an inferior "species")......

The holocaust and mass murdering of the nazi's during WW II are just consequential implications of a morality based upon the Theistic Doctrine of an Absolute Moral.....

(Absolute Morality is Absolutely Wrong!)

 

[tenkeeper]

he started smelling
a rat
in front of the pews
and
Many have been screwed
in more ways that one

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by heusdens
Thanks for this correction, indeed "God" speaks with many tongues, and often contradicts itself...

History demonstrates the veracity of that comment.

About the debate, how do you think the debate is proceeding?

About as well as I anticipated. I do not expect those firmly on either side to be swayed by the discussion between Pastor Enyart and me. It is serving to get some of his views out in the open where they can be examined under the light of logic and reason...

How do you reflect on the critics which claim that you did not give any clue, not even in outline, how consciousness arises out of matter, and that you did not properly outline the 'origin' of the universe in a non-theistic way.

I did not agree to take on the burden of answering all the unanswered questions of science in ten posts; particularly proving how the universe or cellular life, or consciousness arose. As I discussed, such questions are not reliably answered by science at the present time. This is merely an area for the "god of the gaps" argument. Theists have been claiming the gaps as ex nihilo evidence for their particular deity's existence for the entire recorded history of humankind. Thus far, as every gap has closed, the deities have been shown to be irrelevant.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by PureX
Zakath,

After Bob's last post, I feel your debate is doomed. I don't think he is capable of comprehending the arguments you put before him. He seems to believe, as absolutists do, that what he believes to be "evidence" is evidence, and your "atheistic" reasoning against this assertion simply doesn't compute for him as a rebuttal. I don't think this is going to change, and so he will just continue spewing insults and prejudice without even realizing that he's doing it, and will offer little of value to the actual debate.

Au contraire, PureX. I think St. Bob the Broadcaster is a media veteran and knows full well what he's spewing... it appears that ad hominem insults provide one of the bases for his apologetic method. It might be interesting to see if he could manage three consecutive posts with an opposing view without an insult or derogatory personal comment... :chuckle:

 

[1Way]

Zakath - Just because you are doing so badly, doesn't mean you should throw in like some sort of childish idiot. Your adhomins are juvenile and your aversion to “point counterpoint” or “direct responsiveness” is obvious, especially in your last post. Aren’t you even tempted to handle this with persuasively logical arguments instead of cutting Bob down with your personal contempt?

Do you always “win” debates like this, that is, just ignore the reality of what is going on and pretend like you’re doing well when your not? If not, then why aren’t you even responding to some of his questions? Fear is a good thing, if it honestly is preserving your life, it’s a bad thing if you are deluding yourself.

Opponent ~~ Score ~~~ Quality

Zakath ~~~~ 10 ~~~~~ for aversion from, and contorting, his opponent’s words, and for being a detractor instead of a contributor.

Bob ~~~~~~ 10 ~~~~~ for presenting a logically consistent apologetic while also being directly responsive

(Wow, I just saw Bob's latest, it's an eye opener. I hope.)

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Zakath
I did not agree to take on the burden of answering all the unanswered questions of science in ten posts; particularly proving how the universe or cellular life, or consciousness arose. As I discussed, such questions are not reliably answered by science at the present time. This is merely an area for the "god of the gaps" argument. Theists have been claiming the gaps as ex nihilo evidence for their particular deity's existence for the entire recorded history of humankind. Thus far, as every gap has closed, the deities have been shown to be irrelevant.

Ten posts would be perhaps too short, but some basic outlines as to how the material world operates without any need for a deity is for sure doable, although just some outlines of principles acting in the material world could be given of course.
The best approach to this in my mind is that of materialism, in which the actual world as an objective entity is formed and shaped by matter in eternal motion. No origin of matter can or needs to be assumed, no ex nihilo creation of the universe, life or consciousness.
Matter already contains within itself the property of reflection in the sense that traces of previous actions on material objects can be found. For example in geological formations, in magnitizations, etc. Although these refelection are passive, in organic matter of life forms we find the ability of matter to actively react to outside influences, for which the organism needs to take in energy from the outside world. Etc.

As to the theistic point of view, the fundamental principle or absolute idea at work in their hypothesis, does not have any material basis. As far as the laws of physcis is considered, there is no way in which something immaterial could ever influence on matter, which therefore excludes this principle as 'causing' anything in the material world.

The basic question is then, if the opponent realy holds it possible that some non-material entity shaped or influenced the world, and if he can proof (the burden of proof for his assumption lies on his side) wether that deity has any objective existence, that is outside and independend of his mind.
Since he cannot give any objective proof for his claim, we need to consider his deity to be nothing more as a construct of his mind, and not of the material reality in and around us.

And as to the issue wether there is "truth" the answer must be: such is decided on only by practice. Wether or not any claim, any mental concept of our minds, reflects on any reality outside of and independend of our mind, can only be tested for in reality.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by 1Way
Zakath - Just because you are doing so badly, doesn't mean you should throw in like some sort of childish idiot. Your adhomins are juvenile and your aversion to “point counterpoint” or “direct responsiveness” is obvious, especially in your last post. Aren’t you even tempted to handle this with persuasively logical arguments instead of cutting Bob down with your personal contempt?

Let me review my point, one more time. I'll use short words so you'll understand my point this time.

• 1. This is a debate on the existence of deity, not the origins of the universe. I am not going to explain how everything got here.
  
  2. Re-read the posts. I think you'll see that ad hominems are flowing freely from both sides.

Do you always “win” debates like this, that is, just ignore the reality of what is going on and pretend like you’re doing well when your not?

Your attitude merely serves to demonstrate my point. Your preconceptions would blind you to anything I wrote, no matter how well presented.

If not, then why aren’t you even responding to some of his questions?

"I don't know," is a valid response, even if it's not one you wish to hear.

Fear is a good thing, if it honestly is preserving your life, it’s a bad thing if you are deluding yourself.

Fear of what?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Zakath
Let me review my point, one more time. I'll use short words so you'll understand my point this time.

• 1. This is a debate on the existence of deity, not the origins of the universe. I am not going to explain how everything got here.

• 
  
  Ok, but you have to take in mind that that issue is strongly connected to theistic points of view. When stating that "possibly" the universe had a begin in time, then this already leads to a form of theistic or idealistic viewpoint on the origin of the universe, in which (outside of matter, time and space) fundamental principles or absolute ideas are at work, that is: the universe has then an origin in some immaterial formation. If you leave open that gap, your opponent will not hesitate to stcik his deity there back in.
  
  A begin of time for the universe is however not the case, and it does not contradict that in cosmological observations we do find an observational limit to time and space, we can not look beyond.
  Reality consists of finite parts only, as is the case for an infinite line, consisting of finite parts only. Reality is infinite, but we are not able of ever measuring or witnessing real infinity, or even conceive of infinity without real contradiction.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by heusdens
Ok, but you have to take in mind that that issue is strongly connected to theistic points of view.

OK. It is strongly connected, but not essential to demonstrating the existence of deity.

When stating that "possibly" the universe had a begin in time, then this already leads to a form of theistic or idealistic viewpoint on the origin of the universe, in which (outside of matter, time and space) fundamental principles or absolute ideas are at work, that is: the universe has then an origin in some immaterial formation. If you leave open that gap, your opponent will not hesitate to stcik his deity there back in.

Of course. The God of the Gaps has been used to fill the cracks in human knowledge for recorded history. I certainly wouldn't expect my debating opponent to give up on a debate tactic that has convinced millions (billions?) of people to believe in what he's selling.

A begin of time for the universe is however not the case, and it does not contradict that in cosmological observations we do find an observational limit to time and space, we can not look beyond.

It merely provides, as you mentioned, another gap into which the theist inserts their theos.

Reality consists of finite parts only, as is the case for an infinite line, consisting of finite parts only.

... an infinite number of finite parts, perhaps...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Zakath
It merely provides, as you mentioned, another gap into which the theist inserts their theos.

They are inclined to do that, and stating that the Big Bang is the foremost proof of the theistic "creation event", but we can be quite certain that there is no physical theory that can explain this phenomena. That is: physical laws are not applicable when we have to consider the case that the universe suddenly "emerged" out of literally nothing. Physicists don't know how to make physics/physical laws from nothing.

The work in the field of physics and cosmology however now work in a different field, in which presumably the universe transformed into one form of matter into another, and which work on the assumptions that the prior existing universe was in a different material state.
Inflation theory, which originated from an idea of the Soviet physicist Starobinsky, and which in current days has evolved into the theory of eternal or open / chaotic inflation, considers a universe that is eternally re-producing itself.
Thus far inflation theory can make good predictions about how the current observable universe would look like, which makes the theory falsifiable.

... an infinite number of finite parts, perhaps...

The formation of the world show us in all possible ways that all material formations exists within a finite spatio-temporal extend. But the basic physics laws just state that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, which then means that all material formations (no matter how large or how long they might exist) have prior material formations.
This then leads to the conclusion we can not conceive of any other possibilty as to accept the fact that matter itself has neither a begin or end, but is just in eternal motion / change.

About the contradiction of infinity, let me quote here F. Engels (Anti-Duhring. Chptr. V. Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space.)

"Infinity is a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. From the outset it is a contradiction that an infinity is composed of nothing but finites, and yet this is the case. The limitedness of the material world leads no less to contradictions than its unlimitedness, and every attempt to get over these contradictions leads, as we have seen, to new and worse contradictions. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space. The removal of the contradiction would be the end of infinity. Hegel saw this quite correctly, and for that reason treated with well-merited contempt the gentlemen who subtilised over this contradiction."

 

[Soulman]

PureX said,

Also, no one here has posed a "philosophy that admits it can’t know anything". They [atheists] have posed a philosophy that admits it can’t know anything for CERTAIN.

In other words, they’re guessing. Not knowing anything for certain is guessing. It doesn’t matter how “educated” a guess it is, if they’re guessing they’re guessing.

So even though [an elephant’s] capacity [for conscious thought?] is there, the need to fully develop it is not.

I think you’re overstating your case. There is no way you could know what an elephant’s capacity for conscious thought might be, or what “need” is keeping the elephant’s consciousness from being fully developed. All brains being equal, which they’re not, what possible reason could there be for the elephant’s brain, or ANY brain (assuming the brain drives evolution) to deliberately retard its own development? What “need” is there, other than survival? Would it not be in the elephant’s long-term best interests to be at least as smart as its enemies? What did apes have that the elephant’s didn’t? Opposable thumbs? Elephant’s have a pretty nifty trunk. Who’s to say what an elephant could or couldn’t have accomplished with a “human”-like brain?

You are being species-centric. If the brain is the key to survival, how is it that only the human brain succeeded in attaining maximum evolutionary efficiency? You mentioned dolphins, but all species have the “busy work” of survival to do, including eating, and many species are prodigious builders. Wouldn’t many species benefit from larger, more complex brains? If so, are their brains deliberately holding them back?

Soulman

 

[Soulman]

Dave,

I heard you. With a complex enough brain, self-consciousness “appears” or “awakens” from previously unconscious gray matter. You don’t like my cylinder analogy, but what’s wrong with it? If it gets enough neurons firing, a brain can self-generate self-consciousness. This is a retread of the spontaneous regeneration argument: Consciousness and mind “appears” where consciousness did not previously exist. But what does “consciousness” and the capacity for abstract thought ADD to the biological form? Man as a species doesn’t “require” abstract thought to be successful, any more than a fly requires abstract thought to be successful. Is evolution in the habit of including extra bells and whistles such as “self-consciousness” when a stripped down, instinct-driven model will do the job? Can you imagine man without self-consciousness? I can. Would you agree that self-consciousness is not “necessary” for man’s survival? Yet, there it is. A perk, an add-on, a happy accident, but, evolutionarily speaking, superfluous.

Soulman

 

[Zakath]

Soulman,

Don't we have a number of apparently superfluous things hanging around our human physique and physiology? Perhaps higher order thinking skills were a fortutious accident?

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by heusdens As far as the laws of physcis is considered, there is no way in which something immaterial could ever influence on matter, which therefore excludes this principle as 'causing' anything in the material world.

I don't think this is exactly true. Our universe is essentially made of energy. That energy behaves in certain ways, and not in other ways, and because it behaves as it does, the universe we experience is as it is.

But why?

Why does the energy follow certain behavior patterns, but will not behave otherwise? Where have these "rules" that dictate the behavior of energy come from? We don't know, of course, but we do know that these "rules" are the reason that existence as we know it has the form that it does. We also know that these rules are not "material", because they are dictating the nature of materialism itself. So whatever they are, and wherever they come from, it's NOT true that something immaterial cannot effect something material.

 

[Soulman]

Quip,

Re: Your “Dilemma”

I am basing this dilemma on the assumption that God does exist and that you believe in the Christian God, and that this God was the creator of everything in our universe. By everything I mean every concept, idea, emotion, physical entity…etc.

Okay…

Now being the creator of everything means that everything was brought about by God's fiat. Therefore since everything was brought about by God arbitrary choice then everything cannot be an absolute independent of God's decree...

“Everything cannot be an absolute independent of God” is another way of saying that “nothing” is absolute if independent of God. I guess I would say that nothing is independent of God, and everything derives its “absoluteness” from the absoluteness of God, but I’m not so sure we’ve agreed on what “absolute” means.

unless there is a standard of absolutism that is anterior to God and if this is the case God must be subject to this standard (and subsequently the creator of this standard)

There is no standard of absoluteness (or anything else) anterior to God, in position or time.

Therefore, since God created the concept of everything this includes the human conceptualization of absolutism, so consequently, via his capriciousness, God could (probability is irrelevant) or has the ability - at any possible time- to render absolutism otherwise.

In other words, God, being the Absolute absolute, could render subordinate absolutes non-absolute. It stands to reason that subordinate absolutes created by God can likewise be uncreated.

In conclusion the concept of absolutism itself is not absolute and is therefore an incoherent abstraction.

Except that your “dilemma” has no affect on the absolute absoluteness of God, unless you’re suggesting that God has the ability to render Himself non-absolute, in which case your argument is not a dilemma, it is a riddle.

Likewise any of my above statements (being brought about by God) are not absolute thus they may as well be incoherent and useless.

Your statements are absolute in the sense that without the ultimate absolute of God your statements would be especially incoherent.

Soulman

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Soulman
In other words, they’re guessing. Not knowing anything for certain is guessing. It doesn’t matter how “educated” a guess it is, if they’re guessing they’re guessing.

Welcome to the human condition.

Originally posted by Soulman I think you’re overstating your case. There is no way you could know what an elephant’s capacity for conscious thought might be, or what “need” is keeping the elephant’s consciousness from being fully developed. All brains being equal, which they’re not, what possible reason could there be for the elephant’s brain, or ANY brain (assuming the brain drives evolution) to deliberately retard its own development? What “need” is there, other than survival? Would it not be in the elephant’s long-term best interests to be at least as smart as its enemies? What did apes have that the elephant’s didn’t? Opposable thumbs? Elephant’s have a pretty nifty trunk. Who’s to say what an elephant could or couldn’t have accomplished with a “human”-like brain?

You seem to think that "consciousness" is separate from thought. Thought is thought. Some thoughts are more complex than others, depending on how complex the brain producing them is, and how much of that complexity is being utilized. Consciousness is a degree of complexity of thought, not some special kind of though that only developed in humans.

Originally posted by Soulman If the brain is the key to survival, how is it that only the human brain succeeded in attaining maximum evolutionary efficiency? You mentioned dolphins, but all species have the “busy work” of survival to do, including eating, and many species are prodigious builders. Wouldn’t many species benefit from larger, more complex brains? If so, are their brains deliberately holding them back?

The brain is not the "key to survival". For a cheetah, speed is the "key to survival". For most spiders, spinning webs are the key to survival. Most creatures have some sort of brain, but they don't all need it to be especially complex, or fully utilized to survive. And so they aren't so complex and they aren't so fully utilized.

Human brains are very complex and more fully utilized because much of our ability to survive and thrive rests on our ability to think complex thoughts (use tools, assemble tools into better tools, anticipate the behavior of other animals, etc.), wheras other animals rely more heavily on other highly developed physical traits.

 

[Soulman]

Zakath,

Do you think it’s fair to compare the quantum leap of self-consciousness from unconscious matter with, say, Crusty the Clown’s superfluous third nipple? Yeah. IF evolution was true, self-consciousness WOULD be a “fortuitous accident,” which, I think you’d agree, has to be the Mother of All Understatements.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Soulman
Zakath,

Do you think it’s fair to compare the quantum leap of self-consciousness from unconscious matter with, say, Crusty the Clown’s superfluous third nipple? Yeah.

That would hardly be the level of comparison I'd use...

IF evolution was true, self-consciousness WOULD be a “fortuitous accident,” which, I think you’d agree, has to be the Mother of All Understatements.

So would "and then there was light" to describe the Big Bang...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by PureX
I don't think this is exactly true. Our universe is essentially made of energy. That energy behaves in certain ways, and not in other ways, and because it behaves as it does, the universe we experience is as it is.

Maybe this is just simple confusion in terminology, I refer to the philosophical term matter, which denotes anything the objective reality is made up from, not just physcial matter (particles having mass). So matter includes energy, fields, and whatever material form that exists apart from and outside of the mind.

But why?

We can not expect to have answers for all "why" questions.

Why does the energy follow certain behavior patterns, but will not behave otherwise? Where have these "rules" that dictate the behavior of energy come from? We don't know, of course, but we do know that these "rules" are the reason that existence as we know it has the form that it does. We also know that these rules are not "material", because they are dictating the nature of materialism itself. So whatever they are, and wherever they come from, it's NOT true that something immaterial cannot effect something material.

I think you make here a simple conceptual mistake. The "rules" don't exist, what exist is matter and motion itself. The rules are just abstractions we have as concepts in our mind. They are abstractions from reality, and not to be interchanged with reality itself.

 

[Psycho Dave]

Scrimshaw wrote:

It has nothing to do with whether or not people's belief in God stopped them from squashing people like insects. My statement above is regarding a logical basis for ABSTAINING from squashing people like insects. In other words, the theists (who morally oppose squashing people like insects) would have a logical basis for that moral, whereas the atheists do not.

Uh, I have a logical basis for not squashing people like bugs. You may not like it because it is very logical and very rational, but not based in any religious thought at all. It goes like this:

You should not squash people like bugs, because their friends and relatives might come looking for you, and try to squash you like a bug, only worse.

We also should not squash people like bugs because promoting good will towards other people, including strangers, tends to get you more advantages in life than disadvantages. If people from a distant land hear how much you squash people like bugs, they will try to avoid you, and you will not have much trade, companionship, or enjoyment in life.

You're totally misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing against the fact that humans DO CARE, or even that their caring is "natural" for them. I am aruging, based on logic, that humans would have NO EMPIRICAL REASON FOR CARING.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Since when do any people have EMPIRICAL reasons to care for each other??????!!! Caring is an EMOTIONAL part of the human experience. Do you seriously know any person who "loves" their spouse for "empirical reasons"?

(Afterall, you worship at the alter of "empiricism", don't ya?) Humans would have no logical reason for caring because caring would be inherently pointless because nothing humans care about means a hill a beans. Everything that exists, including you and everything you care about would be nothing but the chance effect of a cosmic accident. Our limited, insignificant "frames of reference" would be no more meaningful than star dust.

Unfortunately for your argument, I AM NOT MR. SPOCK. Though I agree that empiricism is more important than faith and spirituality, it is in the context of SCIENCE, HISTORY, and POLITICS that I speak -- not emotion. I think you have a bizarre idea of how atheists think. We do not behave like Mister Spock, throwing off all emotion, and making all descisions based on pure logic and empiricism. We are human beings, who have emotions, and who separate our emotional feelings from empirical facts. In other words, We love, laugh, and enjoy life, and we use logic, reason, and empiricism when formulating our ideas on science, history, politics, and business.

My point is - if atheism is true, then there is no logical reason to care about our survival.

What about "Because living is more enjoyable than not living..."

Survival would be the vainties of vainties;

I don't think so. See, there's this part of my brain that all humans have that makes us WANT to survive. This instinct is something that I cannot control. I don't want to kill myself, and it's programmed into my head. The people who do end up killing themselves tend to have mental illnesses. besides -- you got a problem with vanity? It can be fun, you know.

the most futile endeavor a human could ever pursue since survival would be an impossible task to acheive. We never escape death. So what would the logical reason be for trying to accomplish a task (survive) that we *already know* can never be accomplished??

How about "because this is the only life you get, and you might as well enjoy it while you got it, because you never know when it's gonna end." See, you're saying that I MUST think the way that you are telling me I have to think. I am saying that you're thinking on these matters is faulty, and in no way describes how any atheists I've ever known think. I don't even think I've read any atheists who think that way -- except maybe Sartre. Even Neitzsche thought that Nihilism was stupid.

Suppose some stranger just handed you a million dollars. Would you just throw it in the trash, saying "Aw, I'll just spend it all, and then I'll be broke again, anyway..." No -- like any other person who got a milion dollars, YOU WOULD STAERT SPENDING IT, or invest it. Life is the million dollars. Spend it while you got it.

Unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, we are cursed with the knowledge that we will one day die, regardless of our efforts, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Animals have ignorance as their excuse for vainly trying to survive. But what excuse would humans have? NONE.

I really would like to get into your head and understand what makes you such a nattering nabob of negativism. Your writing in this thread, thus far, gives me the impression that you are bitter, angry, negative, and see that life is utterly HOPELESS (except through Jesus). Why are you so negative? Most importantly, why do you seem to think that atheists have to be as negative and hopeless as you think?

I said I my LIFE would be a pathetic speck....and I was making that statement based on the hypothetical condition of atheism being true. Please "psychoanalyze" the context my statements. Thanks.

Okay, so you think that without belief in JESUS, that the ONLY alternative is to see yourself as a pathetic speck. Is that how you see all non-believers? Isn't the scientific wonder and mystery of life and consciousness enough to be in awe of? Do we need to have a magical deity behind it to make it special? Isn't science (and the real world) interesting, awe-inspiring, and wonderful enough?

I think your life would be EXACTLY the same as it is to you now, if you suddenly gave up religion. You would have the same likes, dislikes, hobbies, and interests, for the most part, and you would not suddenly become a negative, nihilistic, pathetic speck.

Life is fun, unless you're insane or have mental problems. Enjoying it doesn't require religion.

You couldn't be any more incorrect. I have not submitted any straw men whatsoever. I have simply taken atheism to it's logical conclusions.

You have taken atheism to your own irrational, emotional, and bogus conclusions. All of your arguments have this annoying emotional component to it -- a negativity that borders on depressing. You conclude that empirically, there is no meaning to life, therefore, "I am a PATHETIC SPECK...", and negative emotional statement after negative emotional statement ensues.

You seem to have forgotten that logic and empiricism is VOID of emotion.

If atheism is true, what you "think" about your life is as meaningless as your very life itself.

Well, to the universe, it's meaningless. But I have this thing called a brain, which has certain emotions and instincts programmed into it. This brain seeks meaning, even if there is none, and makes up meaning in the abscence of meaning. What is meaningless in light of the uncaring universe, is meaningful to me and other humans, and that's what matters. Who but a human can say "Screw the universe! I want to enjoy life!"??

Life has meaning to you and other people, regardless of whether atheism or Christianity, or any religion is true or not, because we humans MAKE UP MEANING FOR OURSELVES.

Your life would be nothing a the chance result of a cosmic accident. Any value you assign yourself would be just as "imaginary" as any of the gods you like to claim are "imaginary".

So what. Am I supposed to feel bad about that just because you say so?

Dave

Well, there is no absolute truth --

Is that "absolutely" true? Is there absolutely - no absolute truths?

LIke all truths, it's tentative until someone else proves otherwise.

No, atheism leads to meaningless.

Yes, because logic and empiricism do not deal with meaning or emotion.

A meaningless thing is incapable of ascribing meaning to itself.

Well, yeah -- but this meaningless thing you call a human being has A BRAIN, and that brain naturally seeks out and assigns meaning to everything. So what if the meanings that people believe in aren't true. As long as we have beliefs, emotions, ideas, curiosity, and seek patterns, we will be driven by them.

Certainly, humans could make-believe they have meaning, but if our entire existence is the accidental by-product of a cosmic explosion, then our entire existence is completely arbitrary, pointless, and meaningless. Any make-believe meaning that you ascribe to yourself would not be real - only *imaginary*.

So what. Life is short. Enjoy it. Who cares if the universe is cold, uncaring, and can rain meteors down on us any day, wiping us all out instantly. We enjoy being alive. We want to prolong it. and no uncaring universe of doom will stop us from trying.

You are speaking out of two-sides of your mouth. Notice the last five words of your sentence - "even if there are NONE". Well guess what? If there ARE NONE, that means - there are NONE. Humans wouldn't have any meaning, and you admit this yourself while attempting to deny it. The fact that humans can think and analyze would only prove that they have the ability to play MAKE-BELIEVE and create an their own IMAGINARY meanings.

Yeah? So? What about you -- you're saying that I have to deny what makes me human just because I know I'm gonna die, and that there is no real meaning to anything. You're saying that I have to be fatalistic, nihilistic, and just curl up into an uncaring lump of negativity, just because life has no meaning outside of what meaning people give it.

I'm saying that as a Human, I have drives, emotions, and assign my own meanings to things, and I also know that I'm gonna die someday. So I'm going to make what life I've got count. Who cares if it's lacking some universal meaning. I'm living for the moment, BECAUSE I CAN.

In my argument, when I say "meaning", I am not referring to imaginary meaning, but REAL meaning. Inherent meaning. If atheism is true, humans have no REAL or INHERENT meaning. Their existence would be as inherently arbitary as any moon rock randomly lying about on the lunar surface..

Only to people who lack imagination and creativity.

Irrelevant. Everything you just mentioned only exists as the random result of a cosmic accident.

So, is there anything WRONG with that? That's sort of looking a gift-horse in the mouth.

I mean, What's wrong or bad with everything being the result of cosmic circumstances beyond our control (I refrain from "accident" and "random" when talking about the universe, because anyone who knows physics knows that "random" doesn't realyl exist.)???

There is no such thing as random in the real universe. Everything is driven by chains of causality.

If atheism is true, it is only the result of freak accident

"freak accident" is what scientifically illiterate people use to describe principles of evolution and cosmology that they do not understand. Nothing is a freak accident. Freak accidents and "random events" are what humans use to describe unknown causal chains. Not all factors are known all the time. When we fail to predict causality, we falsely inject the concept of randomness into things. But nothing really is random in the universe. Everything is caused by pre-existing conditions.

that this solar system and planet exists with just the right conditions to support life. Thus, the very existence of - "genetically assigned components, socially-assigned components, and circumstantial components" - are also completely arbitrary; without any inherent meaning. If biological life itself is inherently meaningless, so would be any of the genetic behaviors that govern it.

Just because everything is meaningless in the end doesn't mean we can't be fascinated, in awe of, or have reverence for anything.

Alas, my argument comes full circle and is proven valid by your very own statements.

no. All you have done is assert that I HAVE TO BELIEVE what you say I have to, based on your straw man.

My Argument: Atheists are ideological hypocrites because they claim that belief in God is not valid because God is "imaginary", yet, they believe in the "meaning" of their own lives; which they admit is *imaginary*.

There's a big difference between the emotions and feelings that our brains create, and a whole system of belief based on believing in an imaginary god who dictates things to us from an invisible place. I do not go through my day wondering about the meaning of life. I've got much better things to do. I do not believe that there is any meaning to life. I just have emotions and feelings, and I go with them. My thoughts and emotions are fluid, ever changing. Your God idea is dictated to you by other people. It is a collar that restricts your thought and tells you what to think.

This conundrum that faces atheists is a prime example of logical self-contradiction and double standard, which are the primary signs of a flawed belief system.

Actually, what you wrote about atheists is a straw man -- an emotional diatribe of negativity, hate, and disrespect and loathing. The system of thought that you wrote is definitely flawed, and self-contradictory, but it doesn't really accurately describe what atheists actually say.