April 29, 2014
Atheism
"Atheism is the void which removes human value and moral responsibility and replaces them with human accidental existence under evolution, and the inevitability of the Will To Power as the messiahist, elitist, Progressive moral code, which emerges naturally from the do-it-yourself morals of emerging Atheists." ~ http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2014/04/from-atheist-site-called-humans-are.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Stan using some atheist's hasty generalisations to make some strawmen and hasty geralisations of his own? This is a joke post, yes?
ReplyDeleteWhat I really hate about Atheists, is they all generalize about Christians. :)
DeleteGeneralizing and making straw men is bad regardless who does it. Every side does it and badly too.
DeleteDan...I hope that somehow your wife is doing better, and that you can afford all the treatments that you're getting for her (I know that american medicare kind of suffers unless you're friggin' rich) but I do have to say this:
ReplyDeleteThat post by Stan is bigoted and dishonest as hell.
If you really want to learn about atheism, don't go to a guy who's demonizing them, go to what actual atheists say:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_Atheism_FAQ_for_the_Newly_Deconverted
You may want to read up on the debate I had with that guy:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=15151
Reynold,
DeleteWe have great healthcare through work, until next year when Obamacare will force work to change plans, so hopefully we can get things stable before then. My conspiracy theory slant believes they're purposely botching the whole system to force us into an inferior system, like yours, of single payer plan. That would be a nightmare.
Thanks for your concerns, it's appreciated. We're rejecting modern medicine's reality, and inserting our own. Nothing they're saying makes any sense, but it sounds like it just makes future patients. Removing lymph nodes, chemotherapy, radiation, etc. merely destroy the natural immune system to fight cancer. Cutting out bad cells certainly makes sense though. Lumpectomy ONLY will be this month.
Back to the post. It's ironic that Atheists proclaim that their individuals, who cannot be placed into a box, yet provides a slanted link that describes "us Atheists" better.
Stan is spot on, and spelled it out eloquently. You can only deny it, big shocker that you deny that also. But when pushed you cannot appeal to moral laws, or standard, other then an individual's opinions. Again, ironic that a person who worships the god of "self", wishes to elevate your mere opinions above others to proclaim your subjective morals as the standard. Please repent.
Dan said:
DeleteMy conspiracy theory slant believes they're purposely botching the whole system to force us into an inferior system, like yours, of single payer plan. That would be a nightmare.
How is the canadian system inferior? Long wait times? I'll grant that, but at least even the poorest of us don't have to worry about going bankrupt because of hospital bills.
We're rejecting modern medicine's reality, and inserting our own. Nothing they're saying makes any sense, but it sounds like it just makes future patients. Removing lymph nodes, chemotherapy, radiation, etc. merely destroy the natural immune system to fight cancer. Cutting out bad cells certainly makes sense though. Lumpectomy ONLY will be this month.
They're not trying to "make future patients" Dan, they're trying to save your wife's life! At least you seem to be making one good move!
Did you ever ask WHY they want to remove the lymph nodes? If they're cancerous, there' no longer going to do a damned thing to help with the immune system! They'll only spread tumor cells throughout the bloodstream!
Back to the post. It's ironic that Atheists proclaim that their individuals, who cannot be placed into a box, yet provides a slanted link that describes "us Atheists" better.
It's an article made by some atheists. It's not like it's a "bible" or anything, but it gives the opinion of more than just one atheist.
And no. Stan does lie, to put it delicately. In my debate with him:
1) I pointed out that I never claimed to speak for all atheists. That was why I put up links to He kept insisting that I DID claim to speak for all atheists. Even after I put up the link to the Rational wiki article which lets some other atheists speak for themselves.
2) Stan kept referring to one Barna study which he used to characterize all atheists everywhere as being stingy. Even to the dollar amount that the Barna group had! He ignored the links that I gave to other studies that showed differently.
He claims to have been atheist for fourty years? Then consider this: All his anti-atheist rants are actually about himself!
Dan? I do not "worship the god of 'self'". Where do you get that from? And no: I do not "proclaim my subjective morals as the standard". Society itself has a hand. Mainly by learning from the consequences of history and what happened to people's welfare when society followed the "morals" of the bible.
You want depravity? Check this out and be glad we don't still follow this madness.
http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=95965
---
[You do not have an objective moral standard.
For instance: baby-killing is OK if god orders it, is it not? William Lane Craig seems to think so.]
Of course. Whatever God commands is absolutely moral because God himself is the absolute standard for good. In fact, if God really did command to do something, such as kill babies, then it would be immoral not to do it. And on what basis do you have to disagree with this outside of mere opinion?
---
>>If they're cancerous, there' no longer going to do a damned thing to help with the immune system!
DeleteIf they're not cancerous then the things that fights cancerous cells just got removed to be "tested". Because, that's right, the only way to test to see if they're cancerous is by removing them first, to test them. Uggh!
The rest is expected hearsay, conjecture, and opinion. Are you trying to elevate subjective opinion over others for people to bow to? Tell us, oh god of "self", why should others suffer under your mere opinions? :)
Are they going to remove every lymph cell to see if it's cancerous?
DeleteAs to the rest of it, kindly show where I said that anyone has to "suffer" under my "mere opinion"?
Also please deal with the so-called "morality" that's revealed by Josef and Jason Lisle when one follows your book.
>>Are they going to remove every lymph cell to see if it's cancerous?
DeleteYes and no, they wanted to remove the four main ones feeding the breast. They said the arm would swell like a huge balloon, as a side effect, because the arm can't drain anymore. It's ridiculous.
All you can appeal to is your mere opinion. There is no such a thing as a moral law in a Atheistic worldview. Are you claiming otherwise?
What are you asking about Jason Lisle?
There is no such a thing as a moral law in a Atheistic worldview.
DeleteAccording to who? You? Where is your argument to backup this baseless assertion?
Of course, there are moral laws, but you must leave for worldview of matter in motion to speak to such things. State your claim, is it subjective morality until proof objective? I don't get it.
DeleteEdited for typos.
DeleteOf course, there are moral laws
Are they objective or the subjective product of a consciousness, Dan? If it's the former then we can know we don't need a god for morality. If it's the latter then by what objective standard do you consider your subjective morality to be the best option?
you must leave for worldview of matter in motion to speak to such things.
Is this just your rewording of the original claim ("There is no such a thing as a moral law in a Atheistic worldview.")? If so simply restating the claim isn't the same as providing an argument for it.
State your claim, is it subjective morality until proof objective?
I made no claim, I asked you to support yours with an argument. You're free to try any time you feel able.
>> If it's the former then we can know we don't need [God] for morality.
DeleteI see what you did there. (Didn't work) Again, you're assuming morality without any moral ontology bit.ly/assmorals. Did it "just arrive" one day in tact and complete? You're being absurd. Of course absolute morality conforms to my worldview, but that is not what is being questioned here. Your worldview is.
It's like speaking about our hearts, from my worldview we were created with hearts. Your worldview says we are relatives of carrots, and since we have hearts, we evolved them. But, from my worldview it makes sense, from yours, not so much. YOU require more explaining to get from plant matter to organs, to the point we are at today. You're leaping to the present without the extrapolation of your worldview to the present.
>> If so simply restating the claim isn't the same as providing an argument for it.
Your basis for determining right from wrong stems from personal feeling, opinion or preference. and you cannot appeal to anything else as an Atheist. It is my argument that your worldview, when it comes to morality among other things, is reduced to the absurd. You cannot ask ME if their is absolute morality, because we are talking about your worldview. Please explain moral laws from your perceived "objective" morality? Just because you have a conscience, does not explain it. Unless you're ready to concede to the innate understanding of being made in God's image. Again, you need to reach outside your worldview to 'pilot fish' onto the Christian one. Otherwise, spill your atheistic worldview's position of absolute morality.
>>I made no claim, I asked you to support yours with an argument.
It's time to fess up some claims, and some ontology behind morality WITHIN your absurd atheistic worldview. Otherwise, it will be seen by all that you're passing the buck to avoid the explanation. Pucker up, pilot fish :)
Debunking Atheists said...
Delete>> If it's the former then we can know we don't need [God] for morality.
I see what you did there. (Didn't work) Again, you're assuming morality without any moral ontology bit.ly/assmorals.
Except that I'm not. (Your link goes nowhere by the way, a lot like your claim to absolute morality).
You're being absurd. Of course absolute morality conforms to my worldview,
And just how does absolute morality conform to a worldview which posits an omnipotent deity that can change morality on a whim? For morality to be absolute your god would need to be subject to it every bit as much as you claim we are, but Christianity would reject any such requirement. So we can all see that it is you that's being absurd here.
but that is not what is being questioned here. Your worldview is.
This is nothing more than a dodge on your part, Dan. I understand why you don't want the focus on your claims, it's because you can't back them up without appealing to concepts which can only be accounted for by my worldview.
It's like speaking about our hearts, from my worldview we were created with hearts. Your worldview says we are relatives of carrots, and since we have hearts, we evolved them. But, from my worldview it makes sense, from yours, not so much. YOU require more explaining to get from plant matter to organs, to the point we are at today. You're leaping to the present without the extrapolation of your worldview to the present.
Lol, instead of explaining how your heart came to be (as evolution does), you've simply poofed into existence an omniscient, omnipotent deity that you can neither explain nor demonstrate the existence of and claimed that it created your heart. Talk about a need for more explaining.
cont'd...
cont'd...
Delete>> If so simply restating the claim isn't the same as providing an argument for it.
Your basis for determining right from wrong stems from personal feeling, opinion or preference. and you cannot appeal to anything else as an Atheist.
Incorrect, I can appeal to objective facts. Something a worldview predicated on the primacy of consciousness, as yours is, cannot do.
It is my argument that your worldview, when it comes to morality among other things, is reduced to the absurd.
And yet you offer nothing but your assertions to support your "argument".
You cannot ask ME if their is absolute morality, because we are talking about your worldview.
Dodge, weave, duck and cover. Nonsense Dan, of course I can ask you about absolute morality when we're essentially comparing worldviews. You claim to have it and yet you seem incapable of demonstrating how.
Please explain moral laws from your perceived "objective" morality? Just because you have a conscience, does not explain it. Unless you're ready to concede to the innate understanding of being made in God's image. Again, you need to reach outside your worldview to 'pilot fish' onto the Christian one. Otherwise, spill your atheistic worldview's position of absolute morality.
As a fellow objectivist atheist I'll point you to 3 blog posts by Dawson Bethrick (Bahnsen Burner) over at Incinerating Presuppositionalism which present the case for objectivist morality:
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2005/03/christianity-vs-objective-morality.html
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2005/04/do-i-borrow-my-morality-from-christian.html
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2006/03/rational-morality-vs-presuppositional.html
>>I made no claim, I asked you to support yours with an argument.
It's time to fess up some claims, and some ontology behind morality WITHIN your absurd atheistic worldview. Otherwise, it will be seen by all that you're passing the buck to avoid the explanation. Pucker up, pilot fish :)
I have done so. Any chance you can do the same for any of your claims? What exactly is morality in the Christian worldview? How do you account for your claimed "absolute morality"? Why should we accept your inherently subjective morality when it's subject to change any time your deity feels like it?
Sorry, been away from social media as wife was going through operation. I will give you some time now.
Delete>>(Your link goes nowhere by the way, a lot like your claim to absolute morality).
Well, cute, but it was right. http://bit.ly/assmorals will get you there, but my code was off by a back slash (/) so yea, corrected it's bit.ly/assmorals to redeem my coding skills. Point still stands.
>>And just how does absolute morality conform to a worldview which posits an omnipotent deity that can change morality on a whim? For morality to be absolute your god would need to be subject to it every bit as much as you claim we are, but Christianity would reject any such requirement.
Oh, that's where you're mistaken. God cannot contradict His own nature and character. Stealing is wrong because God is not a thief, not because He said it is. There is a difference between reality and what you believe here.
>>I can appeal to objective facts. Something a worldview predicated on the primacy of consciousness, as yours is, cannot do.
Do you mean primacy of God's consciousness? Because we've been through that in this past post... bit.ly/PrimacyOfGod Remember your "existence" (time/space) is finite and cannot hold primacy logically.
>>Nonsense Dan, of course I can ask you about absolute morality when we're essentially comparing worldviews. You claim to have it and yet you seem incapable of demonstrating how.
You're still not understanding my argument. I'm not arguing my worldview, I'm pointing out your inconsistency in your application of your worldview. The atheist is the one who claims one worldview yet operates on another. Sure you're trying some Jedi mind trick proclaiming absolute truths, objective morality, but when pushed you cannot appeal to moral laws, or standard, other then an individual's opinions. Again, ironic that a person who worships the god of "self", wishes to elevate your mere opinions above others to proclaim your subjective morals as the standard. Please repent.
Here's the gist of the matter; you have no basis from which to judge your opinion to be superior over another's without having a common standard by which to make such a judgment. The same common standard your atheistic worldveiw denies exists, not you directly because you're in denial of the tenants of your own worldview.
See, without even mentioning my worldview, your worldview eliminates any possibility of judging which opinion is morally superior.
But you then say in essence 'you have to prove your worldview before you can make any observations about the application of mine'. I don't. But even if I cared to I wouldn't have to - because the inconsistency of your application of your worldview is evidence of your belief that my worldview is reality.
I said, It's time to fess up some claims, and some ontology behind morality WITHIN your absurd atheistic worldview. Otherwise, it will be seen by all that you're passing the buck to avoid the explanation. Pucker up, pilot fish :)
>>I have done so.
No you haven't. How ironic I called you a pilot fish and passing the buck BEFORE you, as your "explanation" merely linked to posts of your cult leader. I must be a prophet. :)
Also, speaking of cult leader, according to the Objectivist Atheist philosophy, altruism is described as "evil", as culture Objectivists look down their noses at generosity, giving, sharing, selflessness, and community concepts. It was the cornerstone of Ayn Rand's dribble. You're flat wrong. We all know it.
Dan said...
DeleteSorry, been away from social media as wife was going through operation. I will give you some time now.
There's no need to apologise Dan. Family comes first and I hope your family is doing well.
>>(Your link goes nowhere by the way, a lot like your claim to absolute morality).
Well, cute, but it was right. http://bit.ly/assmorals will get you there, but my code was off by a back slash (/) so yea, corrected it's bit.ly/assmorals to redeem my coding skills. Point still stands.
Your point stands barely asserted and no more. The link you give offers no evidence to support that assertion either. Similar to you Meister simply makes the claim that "Atheism offers no objective basis for the existence of moral notions such as good and evil" but nowhere do I see any supporting argument for that assertion. Simply trying to shift the burden of proof isn't the same thing as backing up your claim.
I also notice that my question on that thread still remains unanswered.
I asked "Is God good because there's a truly objective standard by which to measure or is he good because he dictates what is good?"
You replied "God is the objective standard, because good is God's nature."
Which is a dodge as I pointed out in my response "And by what standard do you judge God's nature to be good?"
>>And just how does absolute morality conform to a worldview which posits an omnipotent deity that can change morality on a whim? For morality to be absolute your god would need to be subject to it every bit as much as you claim we are, but Christianity would reject any such requirement.
Oh, that's where you're mistaken. God cannot contradict His own nature and character.
So what is the thing that constrains your God's nature in the way you claim here? Could it be a truly objective moral standard perhaps? Something that is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks, wishes, wants, demands etc...?
Stealing is wrong because God is not a thief, not because He said it is. There is a difference between reality and what you believe here.
So if God were a thief stealing would be fine? So stealing is not absolutely morally wrong? So much for the Christian claim to absolute morality.
>>I can appeal to objective facts. Something a worldview predicated on the primacy of consciousness, as yours is, cannot do.
Do you mean primacy of God's consciousness? Because we've been through that in this past post... bit.ly/PrimacyOfGod Remember your "existence" (time/space) is finite and cannot hold primacy logically.
The thread where you admitted you hadn't read any Objectivist literature and then proceeded to demonstrate that utter lack of familiarity by failing to understand any of the concepts being discussed you mean? I'm not sure why you'd want to go there but that's your choice. Here's some unanswered questions from that post.
Do you have a coherent argument for your local/non-local consciousness claim yet?
You claimed that only non-local consciousnesses could transmit but never said what you called the non-local consciousness which decided what your God thought. Or the non-local consciousness which decided the thoughts of the non-local consciousness which decided the thoughts of your God. For anyone watching, it's non-local consciousnesses all the way down...
Alternatively you could've explained how God's consciousness is non-local to Himself but you didn't manage that either.
Or how God's local consciousness could broadcast when you claimed local consciousness was only capable of receiving.
You never did define the phrase "Primacy of God" either. Especially in light of the fact that your abstract God concept is built on a raft of more basic concepts. Just how does an abstract have primacy over anything, Dan?
cont'd...
cont'd...
Delete>>Nonsense Dan, of course I can ask you about absolute morality when we're essentially comparing worldviews. You claim to have it and yet you seem incapable of demonstrating how.
You're still not understanding my argument. I'm not arguing my worldview,
And yet you made a claim to have moral laws within your worldview. I simply asked you to back up the claim ... still waiting.
I'm pointing out your inconsistency in your application of your worldview.
Except that you haven't yet pointed out any inconsistency. You've simply made a claim that "there's no such things as a moral law in an atheistic worldview" which I've asked you to give a proper argument for ... still waiting.
The atheist is the one who claims one worldview yet operates on another.
Again, you make the claim but fail to actually back it up with anything.
Sure you're trying some Jedi mind trick proclaiming absolute truths, objective morality, but when pushed you cannot appeal to moral laws, or standard, other then an individual's opinions.
In what way are the axioms existence and consciousness an "individual's opinions"? In what way does the Primacy of Existence depend on what anyone thinks, wants, wishes etc...?
Again, ironic that a person who worships the god of "self", wishes to elevate your mere opinions above others to proclaim your subjective morals as the standard. Please repent.
I worship no gods, Dan, "of self" or otherwise. Please demonstrate how the Objectivist conception of morality, based as it is on the metaphysical Primacy of Existence and the axioms rather than what anyone wants, wishes, demands etc..., falls prey to subjectivism? Where in Objectivism does it claim that morality is dependent on anyone's wants, wishes, demands etc...?
cont'd...
cont'd...
DeleteHere's the gist of the matter; you have no basis from which to judge your opinion to be superior over another's without having a common standard by which to make such a judgment.
Odd. I've never claimed that "opinion" matters at all. As for an objective standard for morality, it was given in those links I presented.
The same common standard your atheistic worldveiw denies exists, not you directly because you're in denial of the tenants of your own worldview.
Also odd. Can you show where Objectivism has denied that an objective standard exists? My argument therefore is that an objective standard exists and that it cannot be subject to the whims of consciousness. Perfectly in keeping with my worldview.
See, without even mentioning my worldview, your worldview eliminates any possibility of judging which opinion is morally superior.
In what way is morality a matter of opinion, Dan? Objectivism certainly doesn't make that affirmation as you'd have known if you'd read and understood the links I provided.
But you then say in essence 'you have to prove your worldview before you can make any observations about the application of mine'. I don't.
No, Dan. That's not what I have said. You can make all the "observations" you want but it's your responsibility to back up those "observations" with evidence. When you "observe" that "there's no such things as a moral law in an atheistic worldview" where's your argument for it? Similarly when you claim that "Of course absolute morality conforms to my worldview" it'd be nice if you actually explained how.
But even if I cared to I wouldn't have to - because the inconsistency of your application of your worldview is evidence of your belief that my worldview is reality.
If only you'd actually produce evidence that showed I was inconsistently applying my worldview. You're also wrong about that being evidence that I believe your worldview is reality. Even if I was applying my worldview inconsistently - something you haven't yet shown - it could turn out to be evidence that I believe that the Islamic worldview is reality ... or the Buddhist worldview is reality etc... etc... It simply does not follow that, if I'm wrong, I must believe that you are necessarily right.
I said, It's time to fess up some claims, and some ontology behind morality WITHIN your absurd atheistic worldview. Otherwise, it will be seen by all that you're passing the buck to avoid the explanation. Pucker up, pilot fish :)
>>I have done so.
No you haven't. How ironic I called you a pilot fish and passing the buck BEFORE you, as your "explanation" merely linked to posts of your cult leader. I must be a prophet. :)
Sigh. You asked for the ontology of morality behind my Objectivist worldview and I linked to an explanation of Objectivist morality. Instead of throwing out ad hominems regarding the source of said ontology maybe you could try dealing with the ontology itself?
Also, speaking of cult leader, according to the Objectivist Atheist philosophy, altruism is described as "evil", as culture Objectivists look down their noses at generosity, giving, sharing, selflessness, and community concepts.
Is your ad hominem comment, concerning what some unnamed Objectivists might think about certain things, supposed to be an argument against Objectivism itself? Also, in what way does rejecting altruism as morally wrong undermine the Objectivist position?
It was the cornerstone of Ayn Rand's dribble.
I think you'll find that the cornerstone of Rand's ideology was the metaphysical Primacy of Existence coupled with the axioms Existence, Consciousness and Identity.
You're flat wrong. We all know it.
What you claim to "know" doesn't seem to match up with what you can demonstrate, which, so far, has been nothing.
I will let you know what I am doing. I admit that I did not originally check, or read, your links you provided, but have since returned to reread them to get to know the argument you actually hold. It was quite apparent as to BB's errors, and I voiced them in his posts. But he moderates posts, which frustrate actual conversations, so I will just rely what I said...
DeleteThe first link I commented with:
"I can't believe I'm the first to post here, someone just referenced this as the end all for objective morality for some atheists. BUT in case you moderate unpopular points, I'll keep things short.
You're being disingenuous, because we've been over this so many times for years, but your unflinching dogma is apparent.
Morality is from God's character and unchanging nature. Stealing is not wrong because God says so, but because He is not a thief.
I'll start there, and will see if things are left for the record."
BB replied with "If you say so"
I said, "Is your "lack" of knowledge, in this subject, deliberate?
God is unchanging, not because any of us says so, but because He is. Malachi 3:6, among others things, attests to that.
We are, after all, are made in His image. It's the reason any rational person has that intuitive knowledge called a conscience. You know this, but just deny it."
And that is how far I got. My plate is pretty full at the moment, but I will try my best to wrap my head around your faulty claims with some clarity. I have your last comments here in my inbox and it's reminding me to address it, and I will. You know how winded BB gets with his posts, and I was avoiding that, but since you just linked to your daddy's viewpoint as your own arguments, I will give it a look..in time. :)
Debunking Atheists said...
DeleteI will let you know what I am doing. I admit that I did not originally check, or read, your links you provided, but have since returned to reread them to get to know the argument you actually hold. It was quite apparent as to BB's errors, and I voiced them in his posts.
An odd claim to make when all you actually did was make a couple of barely asserted claims and then failed to back them up with anything even approaching an argument.
But he moderates posts, which frustrate actual conversations, so I will just rely what I said...
You could have just made your comments here and I would have dealt with them.
The first link I commented with:
"I can't believe I'm the first to post here, someone just referenced this as the end all for objective morality for some atheists. BUT in case you moderate unpopular points, I'll keep things short.
You're being disingenuous, because we've been over this so many times for years, but your unflinching dogma is apparent.
Always a good idea to start with an unsupported ad hominem attack.
Morality is from God's character and unchanging nature. Stealing is not wrong because God says so, but because He is not a thief.
I've already addressed this barely asserted claim so I'll just repeat my earlier response. So if God were a thief stealing would be fine? So stealing is not absolutely morally wrong? So much for the Christian claim to absolute morality.
I'll start there, and will see if things are left for the record."
BB replied with "If you say so"
I said, "Is your "lack" of knowledge, in this subject, deliberate?
Another ad hom.
God is unchanging, not because any of us says so, but because He is. Malachi 3:6, among others things, attests to that.
That's nothing but a circular argument. "God is unchanging. It says so in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. We know this because it says so in the Bible."
We are, after all, are made in His image. It's the reason any rational person has that intuitive knowledge called a conscience. You know this, but just deny it."
Another barely asserted claim without an argument to support it. Why did you think Dawson would bother to interact with such inanities, Dan?
And that is how far I got. My plate is pretty full at the moment, but I will try my best to wrap my head around your faulty claims with some clarity. I have your last comments here in my inbox and it's reminding me to address it, and I will. You know how winded BB gets with his posts, and I was avoiding that, but since you just linked to your daddy's viewpoint as your own arguments, I will give it a look..in time. :)
And back to the ad homs. You asked for the Objectivist position. Dawson spells out the Objectivist position and the best you can manage is to repeat a claim that contradicts your stance regarding absolute morality followed by another unsupported assertion loaded with the arrogant notion that you could know what someone else knows. Well you avoided a long winded response alright but only by failing to offer anything of substance in an attempt to counter the Objectivist position.
Debunking Atheists said (to Reynold) ...
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic that Atheists proclaim that their individuals, who cannot be placed into a box, yet provides a slanted link that describes "us Atheists" better.
Everyone can be placed in a box should the box be broad enough to fit them in. In the case of atheists only the box marked "Has no belief in god(s)" is truly broad enough to hold each and every one of them. When you use the boxes supplied by Stan i.e. "Is a void", "Eschews human value", "Eschews moral responsibility", "Evolutionist" etc... you'll find many atheists who then suggest that they do not actually fit into those boxes. The first link presented by Reynold actually explains this in the very first question answered. As such it obviously does describe atheists better than Stan's narrow minded and deliberate attempt to paint atheists in a manner specifically designed to then enable him to easily burn the strawmen he has created.
Stan is spot on, and spelled it out eloquently.
In what way is Stan spot on? Where does atheism make the claim that there is a void? Where does atheism make the claim that we should ignore human value or moral responsibility? How does atheism imply evolutionism? I don't care how "eloquent" an assertion may be, when it's wrong, it's wrong.
You can only deny it, big shocker that you deny that also.
Of course we deny it, because it's not based on fact.
But when pushed you cannot appeal to moral laws, or standard, other then an individual's opinions.
Of course I can Dan, after all my worldview rests on the metaphysical primacy of existence giving me recourse to a truly objective standard. In fact the ones with subjective morals are those that subscribe to a worldview that is predicated on the metaphysical primacy of consciousness i.e. those who believe that a consciousness created and maintains everything through it's will. A worldview in which objects are subject to the consciousnesses that are aware of them. Quite literally a worldview where "wishing makes it so".
Christianity is just such a worldview. It professes the belief that God created everything through an act of will and that everything is subject to that will. As such the Christian is then mired in subjectivism. His moral standard is prey to the whims of consciousness.
He then has to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept every time he makes a truth claim. Every such claim is an example of the Christian being performatively inconsistent with his own worldview.
Again, ironic that a person who worships the god of "self",
Again, you hastily generalise that all atheists "self-worship".
wishes to elevate your mere opinions above others to proclaim your subjective morals as the standard.
Now here's the real irony. A Christian i.e. someone who believes that "wishing makes it so", telling us that "wishing doesn't make it so".
Please repent.
To whom? And for what?
"We have great healthcare through work, until next year when Obamacare will force work to change plans, so hopefully we can get things stable before then."
ReplyDeleteThat's great, Dan. What about those who don't have great health care, or any health care? Let me guess; it's their fault, right. You're just a hard working, white Christian who has had to overcome so many obstacles; you deserve good health care.
Don't be so silly. Everyone gets healthcare. If you do not have it, then we treat you anyway, even if you're an illegal alien. We have turned away zero. Hippocratic oath, and our humanitarianism, makes that promise. So don't be so dramatic. We are not like the Japanese in the 40's, you must have watched "Grave of the fireflies" recently. Because we even feed the hungry too.
Deletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/04/29/obamacare-beneficiary-you-wouldnt-have-caught-me-dead-watching-msnbc/
ReplyDeleteNice story bro.
Delete"Don't be so silly. Everyone gets healthcare. If you do not have it, then we treat you anyway,"
ReplyDeleteI just cannot imagine what it might be like to be someone who is so far outside reality.
People without insurance DO NOT receive healthcare. They receive emergency care.
Healthcare includes preventive care with regular check ups and lab results for early diagnoses of trouble.. Healthcare includes prescription plans and affordable copays to primary care doctors and specialists.
My best friend's uncle lost his job three years ago and his healthcare with it. He's had to spend his savings and 401(k) to live on.and will not get social security for three more years and three years after that to get on medicare.
Recently he got very sick and finally went to the emergency room and they made a diagnosis. They gave him a dose of medicine, then wrote him a prescription and sent him on his way. When he went to get the prescription filled it was $340.00 which he didn't have. He also needs blood pressure medicine; 2 prescriptions that cost $280 per month, also which he cannot afford.
That crock that everyone gets health care is a lie.
You're right, emergency care is what I was thinking of. We're so grateful to have such good insurance to have so many kids and three brain surgeries on it too. The brain surgeries were not painful in the pocket at all. I am humbled by some of the horror stories out there.
DeleteI should know better. My mom had lupus and a stroke, my dad didn't have insurance to pay for it and we went broke from all of it with hundreds of thousands worth of ICU bills to boot. I get it, I was wrong. We certainly need reform, it would be better if it were not tied to jobs all around.
But our failure of a government is certainly not the answer. We see how flunky they are at simple things, the VA hospital's are nightmarish. But I concede, Canada it works, maybe because cronyism, and evil lobbyists, and an evil oligarchy is not an issue there, as it is so much here.
Feeling blessed, that is for sure. Thanks Froggie for the knuckle rapIng. It was well deserved.
No prob, Dan.
ReplyDeleteI want to say that I can empathize with your current challenges. I went through this same thing with my younger sister in 2001 who was also one of my best friends and confidantes. She lost the battle at 47 years old, leaving two teen age boys.
I hope for the best outcome for you and your family,
/F
Still an absolute fucking moron, I see.
ReplyDelete