Critiques of Atheism

[Mr. Perfect]

Having some fun with atheists. Atheists think they are so smart but often are foiled rather easily. Ruminating on Feser et al has yielded the following.

I think with the following 2 questions you can get atheists to say there is a god.

Let's say 2 atheists board a time travel device, are put 500 years back in time to an island, a tropical paradise with abundant food water and shelter to last all their lives. However they are totally stranded, and will never see another human being.

Unfortunately one of them turns out to be a sociopath, and kills the other one out of sociopathic joy. He lives out the rest of his life in peaceful solitude, and no one will ever find out about it.

2 questions to ask about this, and the 2nd question is critical and will need to be examined.

Question 1: Did anything bad happen?

[noddy]

certainly bad for the second fellow, possibly bad for the first fellow if they have moments of introspection and clarity.

as an outsider, id also say it was bad as it fails the basic test of the golden rule, a wonderful moral tool available to all, no matter what their background.

question: if someone only behaves well due to fear a supernatural being is going to rape them eternally with hot pokers, is that actually good behaviour ?

[Mr. Perfect]

Moving to question 2, which we will analyze for rationality and coherency,

If the murder is bad, it is bad by what standard?

Again, we will analyze this answer on it's merits. An answer like "the murder is wrong because of purple" will not be accepted.

[noddy]

already answered that.

because of golden rule.

[Mr. Perfect]

Why should anyone care about the golden rule? Any day we can all be wiped out by a solar flare, asteroid or megavirus. What good is the golden rule in that circumstance.

[noddy]

because we come with introspection and a sense of being part of a group.

its emotionally and physically destructive to us to work contrary to these principles, unless we are sociopaths and immune to such thoughts.

[Mr. Perfect]

Socipaths are people too. But you didn't answer the question, which is we can all be wiped out tomorrow for any number of reasons, of what merit is group dynamics and introspection in that case. In the case of the murder on the island, the guy is an introvert and is glorying in his solitude. Where does introspection and group dynamics come into play in that circumstance.

[noddy]

i suffer for realsing ive been breaking the golden rule, it makes my life worse in every way.

abstract extinction events dont even come into this, im worried about going to sleep tonight, i dislike the heavy dread of knowing ive been behaving contrary to the standards ive set using that rule.

you already said the guy is a sociopath, he obviously isnt going to suffer with it.

what happens after my death is extremely irrelevant, I have no idea, how could i even care about imaginary consequences for fantasy situations.

[Mr. Perfect]

It's not imaginary or fantasy, a small percentage of murders are solved or prosecuted.

But you are sinking in the atheist quicksand, and you are about to go all the way under.

Atheist Dawkins disagrees with you, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." No evil, therefore murder is not immoral.

Famous atheists Stalin and Mao were perfectly fine with murder. It benefited them greatly in their estimation. They valued it as good.

Here is an atheist quantum physicist who says there is no morality at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tcquI2ylNM

So with so many atheist views on morality and murder, a number of which are that there is no immorality or evil at all, how do we tell which one of you is right?

[noddy]

gibberish.

dawkins is only important to christians, most folks dont care about his unhinged rants and the more he rants, the less people care.

do i ask christians to justify themselves against islamic terrorists ?

both are abrahamic cults based on a bodgy blend of pagan and jew beliefs, they are more the same thing than most atheists are.

the only simmilarity amongst atheists is that its absurd to claim knowledge on the unknowable, all you can do is poke at it with science and get clues.. maybe.

[Mr. Perfect]

That's sort of a reverse appeal to authority, lol an argument isn't bad because of who made it. It doesn't matter if it came from Dawkins or not, that argument is out there, has been made by others, and stands and falls on it's own merits.

The point is this debate is among atheists. Some atheists say murder is immoral, some say it is not.

How do we tell which one of you is right.

[noddy]

huh ?

some abhramics believe blowing yourself up in train stations is right, how can i trust any of you god botherers

this is how your quesiton reads, its a non starter.

[Mr. Perfect]

No, not really. We can answer your question in great detail. It's very odd that you can't answer mine.

After thousands of years I can't find a single sentence written by atheists that explains how murder, arguably the most fundamental moral question, is wrong. Rather, we find disagreement.

Is murder moral, or immoral? And among the atheist arguments, how do we determine which one of you is right.

This is why I said you were stumped. 2 questions with just a little follow up. And total stumpage.

[noddy]

i answered but you seem incapable of dealing with it and moved to your usual goal post shuffling of posting youtube videos and gaslighting

the golden rule is applied by millions of atheists the world over, entire civilisations of barely religious folk in asia and elsewhere dont care about your ignorance on "what you have read"

[Mr. Perfect]

Lol bro you didn't answer the question.

I documented atheists who don't agree with you. And I can find a lot more if need be, the numbers don't really matter though.

How do we tell which one of you is right.

[noddy]

you cant.

just like i cant tell which god botherers are going to explode in train stations or shoot me for being a non believer.

[Mr. Perfect]

you cant.

So after a handful of posts you can't rebut Stalin or Mao? You might want to rethink some things.

This is part of the reason so many people find atheism to be horrifying.

just like i cant tell which god botherers are going to explode in train stations or shoot me for being a non believer.

I don't have much of a problem telling.

[noddy]

So in handful of posts you've can't rebut Stalin or Mao? You might want to rethink some things.

i rebutted it with the golden rule and personal introspection

you ignored that and continue to ignore that , which is nice.

just like i cant tell which god botherers are going to explode in train stations or shoot me for being a non believer.

I don't have much of a problem telling.

good for you, i cant... it wasnt so long ago christians believed in empire and slavery, now they mostly dont.
it seems easy to twist any belief system into something odious if people want too to.

[Mr. Perfect]

i rebutted it with the golden rule and personal introspection

you ignored that and continue to ignore that , which is nice.

Not really. I was hoping you would argue with your fellow atheists. They don't seem to accept your proposal.

How do we tell if the Dawkins/Mao argument isn't correct?

good for you, i cant... it wasnt so long ago christians believed in empire and slavery, now they mostly dont.
it seems easy to twist any belief system into something odious if people want too to.

Just look up the statistics. Christian terrorism is at an all time low, Islamic forms are at a dull roar.

[noddy]

I cant have imaginary arguments with people ive never met.

sounds religious.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

This Quora post lays it out:

My guess is that Freud (like so many before him, including Nietzsche) saw Dostoevsky as one of the most profound explorers of human psychology in all of Western literature. But unlike Fyodor, Sigmund dismissed religious belief as a useless relic from the human race’s infancy. Freud was surprisingly confident that human beings would outgrow the Christian myth as the 20th century progressed (so was Karl Marx). The jail of religious belief was fortified by Dostoyevsky’s literary works, despite his incredible sensitivity to the human condition and his uncanny insights into the human mind. Freud and Marx thought of themselves as helping to liberate our race from our superstitious past. Freud is merely expressing his regret (in the quote in your question) that he cannot consider the Russian author as a fellow liberator.

This is the underlying assumption of modern secular thought, along with it's corollary that this is the natural metamorphosis of human development and in no was poses any questions nor consequenses of any sort. The strategy of the 'new thought' movement of even the past year has been to hold anti-theists to account and to demonstrate to them that their position is groundless and they have no justification for the bland indifference they have to a transcendent mode of being......

Also.......

The current state of societal disenchantment, also referred to as the meaning crisis, is a widely acknowledged product of our history. Steeped as we are in egocentrism and the epistemic hegemony of scientism that seems to lack consideration or foresight about where it’s going (Tupper, 2011), we are beset by a lack of wisdom and the kind of meaningful engagement with the world required for a good life. Though there has been an increase in the general standard of living in North America, our sense of meaning, purpose and satisfaction with life have not gone up; they have gone down (Seligman, 2009)

https://magickmushroomsblog.wordpress.c ... silocybin/

[Mr. Perfect]

I cant have imaginary arguments with people ive never met.

sounds religious.

We can count you as stumped then.

[noddy]

nope, im just not getting into your strawman stuff.

we have the culture of our parents and communities, we have the golden rule and introspection.

atheists believe that is what everyone has , varations on humanism which can be secular or religious.

[Mr. Perfect]

This Quora post lays it out:

My guess is that Freud (like so many before him, including Nietzsche) saw Dostoevsky as one of the most profound explorers of human psychology in all of Western literature. But unlike Fyodor, Sigmund dismissed religious belief as a useless relic from the human race’s infancy. Freud was surprisingly confident that human beings would outgrow the Christian myth as the 20th century progressed (so was Karl Marx). The jail of religious belief was fortified by Dostoyevsky’s literary works, despite his incredible sensitivity to the human condition and his uncanny insights into the human mind. Freud and Marx thought of themselves as helping to liberate our race from our superstitious past. Freud is merely expressing his regret (in the quote in your question) that he cannot consider the Russian author as a fellow liberator.

This is the underlying assumption of modern secular thought, along with it's corollary that this is the natural metamorphosis of human development and in no was poses any questions nor consequenses of any sort. The strategy of the 'new thought' movement of even the past year has been to hold anti-theists to account and to demonstrate to them that their position is groundless and they have no justification for the bland indifference they have to a transcendent mode of being......

Also.......

The current state of societal disenchantment, also referred to as the meaning crisis, is a widely acknowledged product of our history. Steeped as we are in egocentrism and the epistemic hegemony of scientism that seems to lack consideration or foresight about where it’s going (Tupper, 2011), we are beset by a lack of wisdom and the kind of meaningful engagement with the world required for a good life. Though there has been an increase in the general standard of living in North America, our sense of meaning, purpose and satisfaction with life have not gone up; they have gone down (Seligman, 2009)

https://magickmushroomsblog.wordpress.c ... silocybin/

Yeah. As long as people wonder about right and wrong and the meaning of life then we will have religion. As we see in the above posts after thousands of years atheists haven't been able to produce a viable sentence on either topic. And that's just for starters.

[noddy]

the is patently wrong and only makes sense if you ignore all the religions that arent your own.

their are as many types of atheism as their are religion, their are as many types of religion as their are cultures and blends of cultures.

personally, the god i dont believe in is the god of the protestants.