[betty boop]

“So, you, a random collection of stardust, are going to try to tell me, another random collection of stardust, that I’m somehow morally “wrong” in my belief system?”

The fallacy in this statement is that "you" and "me" are random collections of stardust.

If what were true, your "humanist" might have a leg to stand on.

But your humanist cannot either test, let alone prove his statement. Thus it can only be his "opinion." And as such, is fundamentally meaningless.

For how can anything be "meaningful" if everything is "random?"

Thanks so much, MrB, for your astute insight here!

[MrB]

I think you misunderstood my post.

the “random collection of stardust” quote is what I say to the humanist who tries to borrow the Christian-based existance of absolute morality by which any value system can be judged.

My point is, he, the humanist, has no superior basis for his morality within his proposed worldview than I do, also within his worldview. We’re both just stardust, within his worldview.

When you hold a materialist to consistency, no basis exists for right or wrong, nor for even simple “meaning”. It’s a very depressing worldview to hold, if held consistently.

[Agamemnon]

For how can anything be "meaningful" if everything is "random?"

Such is the fundamental internal conundrum of contradiction which bedevils all that passes for putative Evo-locution!

Home run, bb!

FReegards!