So you don't have an argument, you have beliefs and feelings? Unimpressive. If you want to leverage these concepts in order to attempt an argument you're going to have to establish them beyond "well, you know, some people agree with me".

"If people took the time to look deeper into things and poses greater understanding, there'd be fewer arguments."

The thing is I don't go to church otana. My outlook on life is not bleak, it's just intellectually honest. You are free to believe whatever you want, just know that what you believe and what is actually true may be two very different things. The fact that my observations, which are completely logical and practical, upset you, does not change the truth. You may be happy in your ignorance and not believe in God yet still believe in objective morality and good and bad and beauty and wonder, but holding both those beliefs at the same time is irrational and illogical. It's willfully ignorant and hypocritical. But go ahead and believe whatever you like.

You haven't established any of that either. That was sanctimonious garbage. Perhaps you'd like to change the thread title to "I have no argument against atheism (but I know I'm smarter than them anyway)"?

(December 18, 2011 at 6:47 pm)amkerman Wrote: I am not trying to convince anyone.

Or rather you lack the honesty to admit you haven't convinced your audience because you've blatantly failed to present your argument, your case, well enough to withstand moderate scrutiny. You don't comprehend atheism doesn't qualify as an "ism". Your post count being greater than zero betrays you in any case. If you honestly weren't trying to persuade anyone you wouldn't have posted anything at all.

Quote:The argument is there. You can accept or reject it. It seems many have rejected it outright, and began to attack me.

What argument? The four fundamental forces and interactions of nature have nothing to do with our mental concept of morals. Also who attacked you? You made broad-faced assertions that were effortlessly refuted. Nothing more.

Quote:I havent seen a response (actually there was one person who actually responded a few pages back, which I appreciated) to my argument yet.

Please don't expect us to take you seriously when you proceed to contradict yourself. Its being unrealistic, and quite silly.

Quote: You are free to believe whatever you want, just know that what you believe and what is actually true may be two very different things.

The same applies to you. You're not immune from being wrong. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Quote: The fact that my observations, which are completely logical and practical, upset you, does not change the truth.

Do not assert what is 'truth' if you cannot demonstrate it. Calling it logical or truth does not make it so.

Quote:You may be happy in your ignorance and not believe in God yet still believe in objective morality and good and bad and beauty and wonder, but holding both those beliefs at the same time is irrational and illogical. It's willfully ignorant and hypocritical. But go ahead and believe whatever you like.

Morality comes from us, not some god. A does not prove B without first proving A. You can't assert that god is responsible for morality if you have not yet demonstrated that a god exists.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what I see is very pretty. I am made up of star dust, which is part of the universe. As one put it, "I am the cosmos looking at itself". I exist and it's what I do with this existence that matters.

I was talking about you welsh cake. you were the one poster who actually honestly attacked my argument. You claim that the fundamental forces of nature have nothing to do mental concepts of morals, yet you admit that fundamental forces of nature produced conscious thought, and in fact everything in the universe... Logically those forces then do in fact form our notions of morality.

whether or not I have convinced anyone of my argument is irrelevant of truth. People can choose to accept or reject my argument for an infinate number of reasons, only one of which is that my argument isn't valid. I have not seen any one present a valid response negating my argument (you have attempted by claiming consciousness is not a primary function of the univerrse, which you can not prove), so I am forced to assume the rejection of it has nothing to do with it's validity but probably more to do with what people want to believe.

Quote:you have attempted by claiming consciousness is not a primary function of the univerrse, which you can not prove

You haven't proved that it is yet.

otana: "it's what I do with this existence that matters" . That may be what you believe but that may not be true, and it certainly can not be actually true from an honestly atheistic viewpoint. I have repeatedly acknowledged that my argument may be wrong. No one has presented me with any logical basis for me to believe that it is wrong, however.

Truth, if truth exists, exists apart from personal morality, or else truth is just a figment of human consciousness. If you believe that truth exists apart from human consciousness or morality, then you can not correctly call yourself an atheist. It would be a belief that consciousness is a primary function of the universe, which would most correctly be termed a belief in "God".

---

i can not prove that consciousness is a primary function of the universe, I have never claimed that I could. that is what I believe. if you don't its fine, but you logically you then you shouldn't believe in objective morality or truth.

No one has any obligation to do so. You have to make your own case. Your posts are word salad. You should probably put a lid on telling people that they believe in god.

---

Quote:If you believe that truth exists apart from human consciousness or morality, then you can not correctly call yourself an atheist. It would be a belief that consciousness is a primary function of the universe, which would most correctly be termed a belief in "God".

Try-

If you believe that truth exists- it would most correctly be termed a belief in "truth".