WinterBorn
Verified User
No thanks.
I'm confident the material is there for people who care enough to look into it.
we both know the truth already.
Yes we do. We both know I didn't say what you claim I did. And we both know you went back searching.
Fear of Atheism
- Thread starter Daylight63
- Start date
Yes we do. We both know I didn't say what you claim I did. And we both know you went back searching.
WinterBorn
Verified User
No thanks.
I'm confident the material is there for people who care enough to look into it.
we both know the truth already.
This also shows you to be a coward.
You are so willing to make specific accusations, but when called to prove it, you crawfish and bail out. Typical.
Scut Farkus
Best
I see it differently, as you might imagine.
WinterBorn
Verified User
I'm sure that helps.
I see facts. I see you claiming I said something that I did not say. I see you refusing to post a link or a quote.
And I see you refusing to admit you lied.
Scut Farkus
Best
You said abusing children is a private matter.
WinterBorn
Verified User
Where did I say that?
I simply insist that you live with and accept the consequences of atheism and physical materialism: morals are subjective, there is no ultimate purpose or meaning in life, all that exists is matter and energy, evil ultimately wins, all our beliefs, thoughts, and emotions are simply just biochemical reactions fine-tuned by millions of years of evolution, and human free will does not exist.
That's an intellectual argument, it's not fear or hate.
There's a possibility atheism is even correct, I have never ruled that out.
If you find your discomfort level rising at the thought of accepting the price and consequences of atheism, maybe you need to reflect on what you actually believe about atheism.
Daylight63
Verified User
Let me correct you: You want atheist to accept the consequences YOU specify for atheism. That's in no small way due to your lack of actual understanding of what atheists think.
Your continual mischaracterization of atheism based on your lack of knowledge of the topic does not carry any imperative for atheists who do understand their own philosophy.
And that's how I know it isn't your argument. Your argument CONSTANTLY requires you mischaracterize other people's points or outright make up stuff that is in no way part of the topic and then demand others somehow account for it.
We can't account for your lack of understanding of the topic. But your approach screams "fear" or "hatred". Not intellectual argument.
If it were you wouldn't have to CONSTANLTY compare me to Stalin or Hitler.
This is false. The fact you refuse to discuss this means you prefer to lie.
That's how atheism is defined by history's most famous atheist intellectuals, from Nietchze, to Sartre, to Camus, to Schopenhauer, to Richard Dawkins. It's not me defining it.
It's very revealing that you don't want to pay the intellectual price for the consequences of materialistic atheism. That's why you should probably reflect on whether you actually believe in atheism, and examine the reasons for your hesitancy of living out your atheism to it's logical conclusion.
Last edited:
Nietzsche never argues morals are subjective.
He most definitely said that there is no objective morality.
We can play word games until the cows come home, but at the end of the day if there is no objective morality, then morals are subjective.
You only play word games. As usual, a waste of time.
You think Christian ethics are the only possible ethics that are not "subjective." This is false and easily refuted
I don't know why atheists on this board are so keen to run away from subjective morality, when every major atheist intellectual I have read about denies objective morality and denies absolute right and wrong.
Subjective morality is one of the touchstones of physical materialism and atheist thought. If you want to maintain some kind of tenuous grip on objective morality, then you really need to question how strongly you believe in truly living out an atheist philosophy to it's logical conclusion.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I'll just pull out a cornerstone of your screed here: morals are subjective
Says who? How do you spray paint anyone who is a self professed atheist as being "immoral"? Last time I check, you have daily/monthly/yearly reports in the news about avowed "religious" folks of various large, organized faiths who are nailed for sexual abuse, pedophilia, sex trafficking, trafficking in kiddie porn. You really don't hear about the belief systems of your average criminal, now do you? Not all religious folks are creeps, just like anyone in the general population. Just saying.
I never said anything of the sort. A moral subjectivist can still hold the opinion that killing Jews in death camps is wrong, or that child abuse is wrong.
It's not me that says atheists deny objective morality. That's what history's most famous atheists say. But believing what the Nazis did was wrong, does not require objective morality. One can certainly hold the opinion that killing Jews is wrong.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Cy, you can't BS when there's a printed record. You stated, " I simply insist that you live with and accept the consequences of atheism and physical materialism: morals are subjective,..."
You can't have it both ways, Cy. Nor can you ignore the logic of the rest of what I said in Post #76.
You are extremely mistaken if you believe a moral subjectivist cannot have the opinion that what the Nazis did was abominable.
Plato, Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, and Immanuel Kant believed in objective morality. You don't have to be a Bible thumper to believe in universal moral truths.
Being a moral subjectivist also does not mean you are a bad person. That's why I don't understand the desire to run away from the term, rather than just accept it as the logical consequence of strict atheism.
Being a moral subjectivist also does not mean you are a bad person. That's why I don't understand the desire to run away from the term, rather than just accept it as the logical consequence of strict atheism.