Zone1 Atheism Has No Basis for the Idea of Good or Evil, Just or Unjust

[presonorek]

Well that might be the dumbest thing I will read all day.

What is so dumb about it? Why would you need a law if everyone was behaving and getting along together?

 

[dblack]

To an atheist there's no such thing as moral or immoral.

Bullshit. You're just making up random shit now. Is random shit all you got?.

 

[ding]

I'm a material being. That doesn't preclude non-material things.

I'm also a software developer. Software is information, ideas, algorithms, data. None of it is "material", but it's real. Ideas are real. You're strawman that claims that anyone who fails to believe in your god is a strict materialist is utterly unfounded. But unfounded seems to be your thing.

Technically everything is information. Or as I like to say... mind stuff. So what better thing could there be than a mind that created the material world. That's how I see God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to pen that. Maybe you should check.

Why would I willingly expose myself to the same stupidity, but from multiple sources?

 

[dblack]

What else is there for you?

I already told you. Why should I repeat it? So you can ignore it again? You're quite a bit more of a jackass than I remembered.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is so dumb about it? Why would you need a law if everyone was behaving and getting along together?

When we move to the fantasyland where that has ever happened, I will get back to you.

 

[dblack]

Technically everything is information. Or as I like to say... mind stuff. So what better thing could there be than a mind that created the material world. That's how I see God.

OK.

 

[Donald H]

I wasn't presupposing the concept of time. I believe the First Cause created time.

Indeed? Time was created? You're becoming quite creative now for a christian who doesn't endorse science!

 

[ding]

Bullshit. You're just making up random shit now. Is random shit all you got?.

No, it makes perfect sense once you accept the fact that atheism is predicated on the belief that all there is is the material. All there is is the satisfaction of material needs and primitive impulses. There is no such thing as being moral for the sake of being moral. There's only pain and pleasure. That's it. Laws and morals can be anything you want them to be. There is not universal right and wrong. So you can't say an atheist is moral or immoral. They can only deal in preferences.

 

[ding]

I forgot about the forgiveness laws that would arise if Christian principles were applied.

Applicable Modern Law: Anybody person guilty of any crime whether a felony or misdemeanor shall be forgiven and the judge should be mandated to say, "Go back to where you came from and don't commit anymore crimes."

Yeah. Let's use God's model for right and wrong instead of man's model of right and wrong. That could wipe out some of my old speeding tickets.

There's no other practical option other than forgiveness. Unless of course you are willing to kill them.

 

[ding]

Indeed? Time was created? You're becoming quite creative now for a christian who doesn't endorse science!

One can argue the universe is expanding into time. Which makes sense if you believe we exist in the mind of God.

 

[dblack]

No, it makes perfect sense once you accept the fact that atheism is predicated on the belief that all there is is the material. All there is is the satisfaction of material needs and primitive impulses. There is no such thing as being moral for the sake of being moral. There's only pain and pleasure.

No, that's not a "fact". Why do you imagine all this? Atheism is simple: lack of belief in gods. That's it. The rest is your imagination. Or rather, your incessant desire to tell others what to believe.

 

[ding]

Why would I willingly expose myself to the same stupidity, but from multiple sources?

Be ignorant. I couldn't care less.

 

[ding]

I already told you. Why should I repeat it? So you can ignore it again? You're quite a bit more of a jackass than I remembered.

You told me about the elctro chemical responses in your brain, right? That's still the material world to you and really it's still about pleasure and pain of your material existence. You really have no other motivations.

 

[dblack]

You told me about the elctro chemical responses in your brain, right? That's still the material world to you and really it's still about pleasure and pain.

Nope. That's your empty strawman. Did you even follow the links I posted??? Of course you didn't.

 

[ding]

No, that's not a "fact". Why do you imagine all this? Atheism is simple: lack of belief in gods. That's it. The rest is your imagination. Or rather, your incessant desire to tell others what to believe.

That's a very convenient way of looking at it for you. But the logical conclusion is exactly what I have been telling you for several pages now. Your only motivation is pleasure and pain. Which is where the satisfaction of your material needs and primitive impulses comes in. You recoil at this as well you should. I don't blame you for trying to spit the bit. It's one of the reasons I'm not an atheist.

 

[buttercup]

You se, buttercup?

That's my problem.

It has nothing to do with anyone's faith or even faith itself.

It's the shenanigans of misrepresentating the nature of science as a means of confirmation for one's identity or to coerce others into adopting one's view of what someone elses identity should be, except doing do from under the cloak of science.

I understand. I haven't read all his posts regarding science, but if he is misrepresenting the nature of science, then I agree that that's the wrong way to go about making an argument for theism.

That said, I've seen shenanigans on the other side, so it can go both ways.

For example, it seems to me that many in the scientific community aren't interested in truth, and aren't LED by truth, but instead are led by their pre-existing worldview. And they view everything through that lens, even if it means shoehorning everything to fit into that pre-existing paradigm.

 

[ding]

Nope. That's your empty strawman. Did you even follow the links I posted??? Of course you didn't.

You want to be more than just matter. You want to see yourself as more. I get it.

 

[dblack]

That's a very convenient way of looking at it for you. But the logical conclusion is exactly what I have been telling you for several pages now. Your only motivation is pleasure and pain. Which is where the satisfaction of your material needs and primitive impulses comes in. You recoil at this as well you should.

Of course. Because it's utter bullshit. Why wouldn't I recoil at empty accusations?

I don't blame you for trying to spit the bit.

Of course you do. Don't deny it.

It's one of the reasons I'm not an atheist.

I don't care why you're not an atheist. Believe whatever you want. Just quite casting aspersions at the rest of us. Asshole.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I understand. I haven't read all his posts regarding science, but if he is misrepresenting the nature of science, then I agree that that's the wrong way to go about making an argument for theism.

Well I went back and edited my thoughts in that resnse for sake of clarity.

That said, I've seen shenanigans on the other side, so it can go both ways.

Yeah. It sure can. And does.

For example, it seems to me that many in the scientific community aren't interested in truth, and aren't LED by truth, but instead are led by their pre-existing worldview. And they view everything through that lens, even if it means shoehorning everything to fit into that pre-existing paradigm.

Well there's science and then there's political science. Two completely antithetical phenomenon.

Anyway. I'm hungry. And I'm kind of tred of Daving on here anyway.

I'm gonna go make some pork chops.