Fear of Atheism

IBDaMann said:
OK, I'll answer your question. You have a religion that gives you a ready-made complete "model" of reality, and that model includes rules/hueristics that provide guidance on living your life.
Click to expand...

do I ?
IBDaMann said:
From these rules you can derive, or otherwise logically deduce, specific rule sets for specifiic situations.

I have no such ready-made complete model. I work in the other direction. I deduce rules/heuristics from my observations, from science, math, logic and economics, and I determine how things must work in order to make the world a better place, what must occur for society to avoid collapsing, etc. I am in the process of building my model.

Your model comes with your "purpose" and "morality" included. I, on the other hand, must continually apply rational bases to build "purpose" and "morality." I do not have all the answers so I often need to reflect and draw from my experiences to ascertain answers to new questions.
Click to expand...
bulllshitter talk.
 
IBDaMann said:
Do you deny it?


I predicted that you wouldn't understand. I was nonetheless happy to extend to you the courtesy of an answer.
Click to expand...
you're a pretentious moron with nothing to say.

morality is simple. evil people cloud the issue so they can be evil, especially war hawk Masonic libertarian traitors to humanity.
 
Last edited:
Daylight63 said:
You want atheist to accept the consequences YOU specify for atheism.
Click to expand...
Morality is either objective, or it's subjective.

There is no such thing as being a little pregnant, or morality being partly objective.

You want to claim on the one hand there is no objective absolute right and wrong, but neither do you want to own up to the consequences of atheism: that morality is relative and subjective.

At least the great atheist intellectuals Camus and Sartre had the integrity to own the consequences of atheism: moral subjectivity.
 
Cypress said:
Morality is either objective, or it's subjective.

There is no such thing as being a little pregnant, or morality being partly objective.

You want to claim on the one hand there is no objective absolute right and wrong, but neither do you want to own up to the consequences of atheism: that morality is relative and subjective.

At least the great atheist intellectuals Camus and Sartre had the integrity to own the consequences of atheism: moral subjectivity.
Click to expand...
All religions are subject to variations of moral ambiguity ... from leaders to practitioners to worshipers. Just saying.
 
Margot said:
Don't confuse organized religion with a personal relationship with YHWH through the Holy Spirit!
Click to expand...
"Personal relationships" are just that .... personal. Whatever social statements made in lieu of such relationships is wholly subjective ... and subject to rational, logical criticism and analysis.
 
Margot said:
Don't confuse organized religion with a personal relationship with YHWH through the Holy Spirit!
Click to expand...
And others ought not to confuse having "...a personal relationship with YHWH through the Holy Spirit"...with a self-induced delusion that is the result of a blind guess about the existence of a GOD...and about the attributes of the "god."
 
Margot said:
Organized Religion has been involved, which always screws things up!
A personal relationship with YHWH through the Holy Spirit! Has no mild man ,wanting you to play Bingo in the basement
Click to expand...

But aren't ALL religions just built out of someone's personal experience with God?

Isn't that how all religions started? How could their personal relationship with God be so flawed if more than one person shares it?
 
gmark77 said:
But aren't ALL religions just built out of someone's personal experience with God?
Click to expand...
Religion does not require a god or gods.
Shinto, for example, has none. The Church of No God has none.
gmark77 said:
Isn't that how all religions started? How could their personal relationship with God be so flawed if more than one person shares it?
Click to expand...
All religions are based on some initial circular argument, or argument of faith.
ALL religions are based on faith.
 
Into the Night said:
Religion does not require a god or gods.
Shinto, for example, has none. The Church of No God has none.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument, or argument of faith.
ALL religions are based on faith.
Click to expand...

I'm decidedly uninterested in your view specifically. Thanks though for trying to get involved. I'd rather you not. Thanks. The question wasn't aimed at you and you have no ability to answer on behalf of the other poster.
 
Cypress said:
^^ And then they get angry and offended when they are called a moral relativist.
Click to expand...
Pointing out your illiteracy and bullshit is not 'getting angry'. There is no such thing as a 'moral relativist'. You're bullshitting again. Go learn English.
Cypress said:
You're either one or the other, ma'am.
Click to expand...
I'm a guy. I guess you never learned what "ma'am" means either.
Cypress said:
Being partly moral objectivist is like being partly pregnant. It's not possible.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as 'moral objectivist' or 'partly pregnant'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top