Posted on 01/26/2005 9:46:21 AM PST by 7thson
When I pulled into the parking lot this morning, I saw a car covered with sacrilegious bumper stickers. It seemed obvious to me that the owner was craving attention. I’m sure he was also seeking to elicit anger from people of faith. The anger helps the atheist to justify his atheism. And, all too often, the atheist gets exactly what he is looking for.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
> For atheists, there is no logical morality.
Fine. Believe whatever BS you want. Just know that you're wrong.
Here's your conclusion: "The belief that without God there is right and wrong is illogical."
Are you saying that coming to this conclusion, based on the absence of hearing anything is logical?
How?
> But by tough guys surrounding themselves with tough guys we have a tougher race and create a better future for humanity.
Not necessarily. Tough guys surrounded by tough guys can result in:
1) Tough guys in love... no next generation. ("Mongo not that kind of boy...")
2) Tough guys who dominate their neighbors... who finally put the nerds in charge. Tough guys discover that in modern warfare, nerds win. No more tough guys.
3) Tough guys get bored and kill each other.
> I didn't think you could defend it.
That's because humans have learned that co-operation and empathy are *generally* stronger survival tools than naked greed and aggression.
Where? Your paraphrase of the issue is noted: at issue here is not "religious matters" in general but a tort of indecent behavior.
What exactly is a "Christian interest" and when have the courts struck them down?
Christian monuments have been removed from public places or their construction blocked by court decree on numerous occasions and Christian celebrations were denied or curtailed by municipalities, and the crackdowns on religious expression were held up by the imbecile courts. I am sure you can think of specific examples.
I know. And it's not faith, it's lack thereof.
It doesn't matter in the end.
So, anyone who does anything is OK.
That being said, I'm not going to be around in the end to judge what matters and what doesn't.
In that bizarre world, no one will be, and there will be no reason to judge, and nothing to judge. Nothing will matter.
What matters is what takes place between now and the end. ;) That is the body of my belief.
It's a pity. A meaningless life doing meaningless things to no purpose.
I don't feel that I need to believe that there is a purpose, a meaning, what have you. Simply being is enough.
I know, it would be an empty feeling for me. Hitler wasn't bad, or good, he just was. Democrats win, or Republicans, no difference in the end. Someone kills your kid, Oh well, they had no purpose anyway, and the person who killed them was just doing what they wanted, and it was neutral in the end.
It must be empty where you live. I truly feel sorry for you.
> How about the German who hides Jews from the Nazis? Where's the evolutionary benefit in that act? The German is placing his life in tremendous peril. Or is that not a moral act?
In general, helping other humans who are not threatening you is a way to aid your own progeny.
Humanity has evolved and learned that helping out other humans is a generally useful survival trait. It is thus ingrained into most people. Sometimes these survival traits kick in in situation where they might not strictly be real useful... but that doesn't mean they're not morally right.
There a need for a non-believer to substantiate his non-belief in the absence of priors -- the non-belief is the optimal default position. Compliments of another mathematician, Reverand Thomas Bayes.
Atheists (and agnostics) are asserting the existence of God is a null prior. Non-belief is the optimal/correct default position in this case. You cannot validly assert that the non-belief of an atheist or agnostic is irrational until you establish a non-null prior.
This is THE problem: theists can only convince atheists by establishing a valid prior. This it seems is nigh impossible, and so the default position remains.
No and not at all. Of course, you did mention that, "Jumping to incorrect conclusions is commonplace on this forum."
> The best way to ensure survival is to be the toughest and surround yourself with the toughest.
Not exactly. I'll take a weenie who's good with a shotgun than a Mr. T wannabe most days.
That won't happen. And what would it matter to you anyway? Wrong? Right? No such thing. If someone killed your kid, it wouldn't matter in the end to you. It's just a neutral act.
Abortion is OK, genocide, euthanasia are neutral. Whores and saints all the same. Bank robbers are the same as charity workers in the end.
And this discussion never happened and it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, because there is no such thing.
Occam's Razor, the formal version.
Perfectly logical. No one can tell me why it matters what they do if there is no God, therefore I must conclude that my conclusion was correct.
But I have already told you, I'll keep an open mind. I withdraw if you can explain why it is. I notice you didn't answer, but instead changed the subject back to my conclusion. Make your case,,,,if you can.
Can? Can? You can do better than that. Perhaps they can result in spontaneous combustion also, but they are not most likely to.
That's because humans have learned that co-operation and empathy are *generally* stronger survival tools than naked greed and aggression.
Yeah, as long as that empathy and co-operation is backed up by an army or police force with big guns. You crack me up. Girlie-man societies like the one we live in now are a drop in the historical bucket. This one won't last and we'll be back to the natural order of things.
Don't take what I said too far. Requiring men to defend their property, ability to procreate, and their lives has historically been the best way to ensure a strong species. However, this doesn't mean wonton raping, pillaging, and murdering. That takes a lot of energy anyway. It does mean that you take what you want when you want it. Gluttony toward any apetite is a distraction.
But if a tough guy wants your girl, I hope you have more than just talk about "co-operation and empathy being *generally* stronger survival tools" to defend her with.
Shalom.
Ok, so if you aren't embarrassed, tell me what your point was.
Except that Mr. T handled an AK-47.
Anyone who would use a shotgun to defend himself is, by definition, not a weenie.
Thanks for making my point, though. I appreciate the support.
Shalom.
Do you have a link?
I would like to ask you a question: Are you afraid to die?
And when you die where do you think you are going?
And what purpose do you think you have in being part of the earth.
I am not being sarcastic, I just cannot understand atheism because in my view of atheism there would be no reason to be alive or to even be born. What is the purpose?
> If someone killed your kid, it wouldn't matter in the end to you.
This is how I know you are not only wrong, but seriously messed up in the head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.