How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Acrobat]

I'll take your "dad-meaning" to be just another attempt on your part to troll. 

Sure. Everyone is trolling except you. Well that is really plausible, is it not?

No, I accused one person of trolling not everyone. I care too little about your feelings, to say things purely for the sake of eliciting an emotional reaction out of you.

As I indicated an atheist can believe in all sorts of stuff, such as a Adam Eve and 6000 year old earth, Moses Departing an entire sea, etc...

Name one atheist who believes that crap.

Don't know any personally, but then again I don't know many atheists. 8% of self identifying atheists indicate that they also believe in God, so anything is possible.

The point is believing the earth is 6000 years old, or Adam and Eve were real people, Moses departing a Red Sea, aren't beliefs that negate atheism, defined as broadly as many here do.

But you exempt theists from the very same question because......waiting for a reason.......no?

Do I? That would come as a surprise to the theists in religious discussions groups I'm in.

Vulcan can believe in a Platonic conception of the Good, and be an atheist. I don't know how he accounts for it in his atheistic view of reality, so I'll continue to challenge that by questioning his beliefs.

Pay attention. It is not a matter of belief. Somehow you cling to the stupid notion that evolution is a matter of religious faith. It isn't.

Err? What does evolution have to do with a Platonic conception of the Good? You probably should avoid speaking for Vulcan.

And secondly, I accept the theory of evolution, so not sure where you got the idea that I said it needs to be accepted on religious faith?

[Alan V]

Judging that so far no atheists in this thread has indicated that they believe reality possess intrinsic meaning, but that meaning is extrinsic, created by us, there is no particular atheist here for me to ask how they account for such a belief.

But atheists saying "we make our own meanings" does not mean "we just made it up arbitrarily yesterday." It means we have an evolved human nature which itself determines a lot of what is good and bad for us. It means that morality can be objective even while it is still relative to specifically human interests, as compared to the interests of mice for instance. That's not the same as extrinsic or determined by a God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Value pluralism allows for multiple sources or origins. We can posit that there is meaning both in the universe that we apprehend, and meaning that we populate the universe with, ourselves.

The mere existence of apprehended meaning in the universe won’t make that set the more compelling or important of the two, ultimately.

It wouldn’t be surprising to find that whatever meaning or value which may be general to the universe ( or more relevant to other species) isn’t high on a list of particularly human concerns.

[downbeatplumb]

Don't know any personally, but then again I don't know many atheists. 8% of self identifying atheists indicate that they also believe in God, so anything is possible.

If someone says that they believe in god then the one thing they cant be is a n atheist. Its would be like a Christian that doesn't believe in Christ.

[Acrobat]

Judging that so far no atheists in this thread has indicated that they believe reality possess intrinsic meaning, but that meaning is extrinsic, created by us, there is no particular atheist here for me to ask how they account for such a belief.

But atheists saying "we make our own meanings" does not mean "we just made it up arbitrarily yesterday."  It means we have an evolved human nature which itself determines a lot of what is good and bad for us.  It means that morality can be objective even while it is still relative to specifically human interests, as compared to the interests of mice for instance.  That's not the same as extrinsic or determined by a God.

When many atheists, particularly on the internet appeal to evolution in such discussions about morality, they rarely ever explain what they means by it here, what exactly are the features being described that are being selected for? Are you referring primarily to human behavior? Human beliefs? Our biological feelings? The biological components of our perceptions ? etc..

The atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg provides such an explanation. He acknowledges a core morality shared universally, that people perceive as objective, but this is illusory. Our strong biological feelings and emotions produce essentially a mirage, a perception of a moral order out there, that doesn't actually exist, much like free will.

My perception of a moral law, of moral oughts and obligations, duties are perceived as objective truth, while not real, are not the product of social constructions, or religious indoctrination etc.., but strong evolutionary components, that produced a functionally useful, but false set of beliefs regarding moral foundations.

I don't find the argument convincing but at least the role of evolution here is more clearly laid out, then how ever vaguely you've used it.

In my view, evolution underpins the perception elements, that allows us to see a moral reality that is real, and not an illusion, just like it underpins the elements that allow us to perceive an objective non-moral reality outside of our minds, or the eyes that see the world around us.

[comet]

But atheists saying "we make our own meanings" does not mean "we just made it up arbitrarily yesterday."  It means we have an evolved human nature which itself determines a lot of what is good and bad for us.  It means that morality can be objective even while it is still relative to specifically human interests, as compared to the interests of mice for instance.  That's not the same as extrinsic or determined by a God.

When many atheists, particularly on the internet appeal to evolution in such discussions about morality, they rarely ever explain what they means by it here, what exactly are the features being described that are being selected for? Are you referring primarily to human behavior? Human beliefs? Our biological feelings? The biological components of our perceptions ? etc..

The atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg provides such an explanation. He acknowledges a core morality shared universally, that people perceive as objective, but this is illusory. Our strong biological feelings and emotions produce essentially a mirage, a perception of a moral order out there, that doesn't actually exist, much like free will.

My perception of a moral law, of moral oughts and obligations, duties are perceived as objective truth, while not real, are not the product of social constructions, or religious indoctrination etc.., but strong evolutionary components, that produced a functionally useful, but false set of beliefs regarding moral foundations.

I don't find the argument convincing but at least the role of evolution here is more clearly laid out, then how ever vaguely you've used it.

In my view, evolution underpins the perception elements, that allows us to see a moral reality that is real, and not an illusion, just like it underpins the elements that allow us to perceive an objective non-moral reality outside of our minds, or the eyes that see the world around us.

most atheist believe in something.  The militant atheist would classify them as "irreligious", a title that misrepresents what atheism is as surely as Fundy theist misrepresent what theism is.

Most atheist understand that we are part of a larger more complex system.  Most even accept that "life" is a better discriptor than "non life.

atheist just do not accept an over seeing finger pointing sky wizard.  Most atheist do not need to fill in "we do not know" with said sky wizard.

[The Grand Nudger]

You’re going to find that your view of biology providing you with the necessary equipment to see a fact is shared by atheists, Acro.

[Alan V]

When many atheists, particularly on the internet appeal to evolution in such discussions about morality, they rarely ever explain what they means by it here, what exactly are the features being described that are being selected for? Are you referring primarily to human behavior? Human beliefs? Our biological feelings? The biological components of our perceptions ? etc..

I consider basic human morality to be a specific evolutionary strategy. We are both a social and an intelligent species, so morality is inevitable. Other animals have other strategies which do not include morality.

Our evolved human nature gives us certain likes and dislikes, our sense of fair play, our empathy toward others, and our game-theory interactions. Those are at the base of our moral systems.

The atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg provides such an explanation. He acknowledges a core morality shared universally, that people perceive as objective, but this is illusory. Our strong biological feelings and emotions produce essentially a mirage, a perception of a moral order out there, that doesn't actually exist, much like free will.

My perception of a moral law, of moral oughts and obligations, duties are perceived as objective truth, while not real, are not the product of social constructions, or religious indoctrination etc.., but strong evolutionary components, that produced a functionally useful, but false set of beliefs regarding moral foundations.

If you are talking about how religions have mythologized human morality here, then I agree that such assessments that morality is "out there" are illusory.

What I consider objective is our human nature, including the benefits or harms which comes from moral principles or their violation. On such a basis we have evolved our moral understanding, which is why we have drifted away from religious over-simplifications -- however much they contributed to our earlier thought on morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s the kicker, as long as there really are things that really are harmful, the criteria of objectivity in realism is met....even if a lot of people, for a variety of reasons ™ don’t realize that.

It shouldn’t be remotely difficult to understand how atheists can account for realism. There are only two requirements for it. The existence of facts and a human ability to apprehend them.

Why you can rape a person but not a pie.

I’d love to know what Acro finds so mystifying about that.

[Acrobat]

You’re going to find that your view of biology providing you with the necessary equipment to see a fact is shared by atheists, Acro.

In this case, it would my biological makeup leading me to believe in a false fact, something that you don't think is an objective truth, but I do, i.e moral oughts, duties, and obligations. Which you see more as non-objective goal, placed on us by ourselves, or society. 

i view your statement as a false account of this perception. 

The question here would be, why do people like myself view moral obligations, duties, moral oughts, as objective truths? If you said it was because of religious indoctrination that would be false, it's far more rooted than anything taught by my religion, or society.