Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[Damian Cucinell]

Grow up

 

[Damian Cucinell]

"One cannot eat one's own heart"-Sophocles

 

[watsup]

2) I gave you the reason, and you chose to ignore it. I emphasized the limitations of human knowledge, and you responded as most atheists do, that said limitations are not important compared to your dogma that materialistic science explains everything.

Yes, we know that you are a fence-sitter and carry water for the theists and religionists. You don’t need to keep emphasizing it.

 

[watsup]

You want evidence, but you can't define the parameters.

You want evidence, but you won't define it

Still hiding behind the same lame excuse instead of actually offering evidence to support your claim of an imaginary entity. What are you so afraid of?

 

[watsup]

Morality cannot be defined as just whatever suits atheist dogma,

That’s not what I said. Yet another strawman from you. It’s pretty much all that you have these days. Why are you so afraid to tell us from whence you believe that morality comes?

I have not suggested that formless entities were the source of human morality.

Then what is? Why are you so afraid to answer this question?

 

[watsup]

Religious concepts of morality are as much a part of society as the relativism of atheists.

You do know that “religious concepts of morality” show every bit as much relativism as any other derivation of morality, right? And anyway, those moralities were also derived via humans communicating with one another to develop the ethics that would best lead to the long-term viability of their particular tribe or society. That they then decided to overlay it with their myths and superstitions regarding a God or gods does not change that.

 

[watsup]

Bernard Shaw was in the most correct, yet if civilization which remains the means to which all ethics, philosophy and religion subsist is now dismantling, then the man who attempts to uphold the precepts of civilization will thus suffer. But he will be considered a hero not a truant

Like those fighting against the open immorality and pure corruption of Trump and his acolytes and his cult. Yes, they are heroes.

 

[Ouroboros]

Do you know WHY you believe a god or gods could exist in reality?

Neither the arguments for gods by theists nor the arguments against gods by atheists possess any truth value, so I seek to see each problem in a non-dogmatic manner. My turn: will you define the evidence that you would require before you could hypothetically countenance the possibility of gods?

 

[Ouroboros]

As I said, I have no reason to hold any beliefs that are lacking of a reason to believe.
Was the reason you claim to have given be "I don't know."
I don't recall ever posting the words you claim being mine.

I did not make a direct quote. I attributed to you the general atheist belief that gods are not necessary because materialistic science explains everything. If you have a reason other than that for your tautology, by all means express it.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have done so numerous times, and you appear to be the one barking,

Your sealioning is defined by your insistence that I should answer your questions more than once.

 

[Ouroboros]

(1) Obviously not.
(2) From where do religious concepts of morality originate?
(3) Religion does indeed appear to be early humans way of answering questions, though in no way would I call it a form of science.
(4) It is a fact that some persons who believe the universe and life was created by a god. It is also a fact that other persons believe the universe and life is a creation of nature. The truth is, one is correct and the other is wrong.

So while you sit on the fence, others have been asking questions trying to find ways of producing more detailed answers. Are you sure you aren't a theist?

(1) Obviously your incorrect POV. (2) From a hypothesis about the nature of the universe, just like atheist hypotheses about that nature. (3) Defining religion as explanatory in nature is an attempt to compare it with the dogma of materialist science. (4) Dogma, not truth. (5) You are not the least bit interested in finding more detailed answers.

 

[Ouroboros]

Huh? Did you did read it? Do you not understand english?
The dictioanry agrees with what I said and disagrees with you. You clealry are basing your beliefs on your theistic dogma

Why did you feel the need to quote a dictionary definition of "subjective," rather taking the M-W definition at face value?

 

[Ouroboros]

So you wont even try to support your false claim, why am i not surprised?

I gave you a definition that did not conform to your specifications and you pretended it did not exist. The fake claim is yours.

 

[Ouroboros]

Apparently he is either he is a theist or he is a self confessed immoral/amoral person with no ability to appreaciate poetry and only uses derivative arguments

Copycat posts like yours show their dependence on derivative arguments.

 

[Quag]

Why did you feel the need to quote a dictionary definition of "subjective," rather taking the M-W definition at face value?

Still no attempt to defend your false claim or refute my post
as to subjective it's because the you need the definition of morals and subjective to understand why I said morals are subjective by definition
Do you not understand what subjective means. Hitn it isnt what most theists like yourself pretend

 

[Quag]

Copycat posts like yours show their dependence on derivative arguments

Anoter nosnense post thatg has nothign to do with mine

 

[Ouroboros]

Agreed if there is no civilization of any sort there is no concept of God(s)
The same is true for morals

Based on what evidence? If a tribesman leaves the tribe and goes out to live as a hermit, how can you possibly prove the tribesman has no religion? If he's alone, no one is there to observe whether or not he maintains a personal relationship with a god.

 

[Ouroboros]

You do know that “religious concepts of morality” show every bit as much relativism as any other derivation of morality, right? And anyway, those moralities were also derived via humans communicating with one another to develop the ethics that would best lead to the long-term viability of their particular tribe or society. That they then decided to overlay it with their myths and superstitions regarding a God or gods does not change that.

Atheist assumptions only. General concepts of morality are not affected by specific concepts of morality.

 

[Ouroboros]

Like those fighting against the open immorality and pure corruption of Trump and his acolytes and his cult. Yes, they are heroes.

"But Trump" is such an original idea.

 

[Ouroboros]

Still no attempt to defend your false claim or refute my post
as to subjective it's because the you need the definition of morals and subjective to understand why I said morals are subjective by definition
Do you not understand what subjective means. Hitn it isnt what most theists like yourself pretend

The M-W definition did not state that morals were subjective, so your original statement is nonsense.

 

[Quag]

Based on what evidence? If a tribesman leaves the tribe and goes out to live as a hermit, how can you possibly prove the tribesman has no religion? If he's alone, no one is there to observe whether or not he maintains a personal relationship with a god.

Oh I will agree with that but I was referring to the fact that religion is a societal creation and the correct term is God(s) not God

 

[Ouroboros]

Anoter nosnense post thatg has nothign to do with mine

Before calling another's post nonsense you ought to be able to spell all the words in your post.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh I will agree with that but I was referring to the fact that religion is a societal creation and the correct term is God(s) not God

Who was the first shaman to tell his people that there was, say, a hunter-god who controlled whether or not the tribe found animals to eat? How would such a concept be societally created? Societally affirmed, perhaps, but not necessarily created.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, we know that you are a fence-sitter and carry water for the theists and religionists. You don’t need to keep emphasizing it.

The fence you imagine is weak, made up of bad atheist arguments. I wouldn't try sitting on it on a bet.

 

[Ouroboros]

Still hiding behind the same lame excuse instead of actually offering evidence to support your claim of an imaginary entity. What are you so afraid of?

You won't even venture Dawkins' definition of evidence because you quake with fear at your idol being torn down.