Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Tonus]

I cringe at the concept of "if someone didn't tell me how to think and act and enforce it through terror, I'd be a very horrible person."

[Chas]

Your absolutist relativism is boring and uninstructive.

[Cyberman]

Anyone else finding it deeply ironic that a thread discussing theists and what they would consider acceptable evidence has developed into talking about eating shit?

[discipulus]

Aaaand I'm done talking with this joker. Oh, everything's just an opinion, nothing is true, whatever anyone does is as good as anything else, it's all just blah blah fucking blah.

That puts us in the position of being unable to have conversations about anything. I'd rather go and do something useful, if it's all the same to you. Discipulus, see how long it takes for this "everything's an opinion and therefore not true," schtick to stop anyone from bothering to engage with you. I guarantee you, you will become a forum ghost if this is all you're intent on doing.

... But you'll probably just think this is just my opinion anyway.

You have a quote in what I believe is your signature.

It reads:

YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you.

This is essentially a summation of my various points here.

As I see it, when one is told that they determine for themselves what is meaningful, what is good, what is bad, what is right, what is wrong, with no one to judge them for their thoughts or actions, then you are essentially telling them they are God.

Atheism takes God out of the picture, and makes each individual a god unto themselves. In a world where there are roughly six billion individual gods, each determining what is meaningful to them, what is right, what is wrong, the basis for legitimately condemning any action is completely eradicated. For in such a world YOU and I are simply by-products of evolution and we are what we are because of our biological and physiological makeup. There exists no standard of goodness outside of humanity that we look to to measure our actions and thoughts against and say: This action (A) or this thought (T) is closer to meeting that standard than this action (A1) or this thought (T2).

When measuring time or distance in this world, we utilize standards and we can tell if a clock is keeping correct time by comparing it to the one time keeping device that is the standard by which all others are measured. If my watch deviates from the standard time keeping instrument, my watch is wrong in virtue of it not displaying the time that the standard displays.

Likewise, if I say a mile is 5,279 feet, then I am wrong in virtue of the standard telling me that a mile is not 5,279 feet, but rather, 5,280 feet.

We utilize standards, laws, rules, and those objective rules exist regardless of what our individual opinion is. You may not like the fact that it is 2:30 according to International Atomic Time and may rather wish it to be 5:30, but if the International Atomic Time is 2:30, then your opinion counts for nothing regarding the matter. It is 2:30 even if you say it is 5:30.

Remove the standard of morality and each individual is left to determine for themselves what is moral. We are adrift in a sea of individual opinion. None of these opinions are "better" or "worse" than any other because each individual is the determiner of what is moral. Each individual's preferences are their own standard!

Some may resist this and say woah woah woah! Wait a minute now, not so fast!

And then say something like:

Well not all opinions are equal. Some are better than others.

But this would just be your opinion!!!!

Unless.......

Unless you maintain that their is some type of standard or law or rule that exists above and over the various opinions of the six billion or so that exist that you look to and compare the opinions to and say this opinion (O) is closer to meeting the standard (S) than opinion (O2).

But if you remove God, what basis do you have for saying that there exists this "objective standard" that we should judge our individual opinions by?

How, in the absence of God, can we legitimately say that action (A) is "wrong"?

If God does not exist, and yet you want the view that "people should live in such a way as to minimize human suffering and maximize conscious creatures well being" to be objective and obligatory for all homo sapiens regardless of their opinion, then what standard can you appeal to?

Some may say, well, over the course of our evolution we have learned that certain behaviours have been more conducive to our survival as a species and therefore these behaviours are to be seen as objective moral duties.

This however, is not an explanation as to how these behaviors are objectively obligatory. At most it simply implies that certain behaviors are more conducive to the survival of our species. It does not answer the question: Why should we be concerned about the survival of our species?

This concern for the survival of our species is something that is assumed to be self-evident and taken for granted by the atheist. But this argument is tautologous. It amounts to saying: we should be concerned for the survival of our species because we should be concerned for the survival of our species.

But being gracious, I can grant for the sake of making my point, that there are objective moral values and duties that exist without God as the explanation. I will grant that that is true for the moment and ask:

What follows?

Some people choose to live according to these values and duties and some do not.

If each person determines what they want out of life with neither anyone above them like God to judge them, nor anyone beneath them, for we are all sons and daughters of an indifferent cosmos, then what follows??

Some people will find meaning in living in such a way as to fulfill every moral duty and obligation to their fellow man. Some people will find meaning in living in such a way as to break every moral duty and obligation to their fellow man.

Ultimately, they both......

---

Anyone else finding it deeply ironic that a thread discussing theists and what they would consider acceptable evidence has developed into talking about eating shit?

Dogs eat their own poo sometimes...

Both you and the dog are creatures of chance, by-products of evolution by natural selection...adrift on a tiny speck of dust flying through the dark, cold, uncaring cosmos with nothing but your own desires to serve.

You, like the dog, or fly that dwells in poo, will soon die and be replaced by another of your kind, until at last, the earth itself ceases to exist.

According to the godless, I, a Christian, like you, will one day lie down and cease to exist and become compost.

So technically, it does not ultimately matter what we discuss here.

[Captain Colostomy]

Now I wanna handle those rattlesnakes.

[discipulus]

Your absolutist relativism is boring and uninstructive.

You may have already known all of this prior to my coming.

However, I see that many here are being instructed, for they seem to be somewhat ignorant of the implications of an atheistic view of reality and all that it entails.

[Darwinian]

Your absolutist relativism is boring and uninstructive.

You may have already known all of this prior to my coming.

However, I see that many here are being instructed, for they seem to be somewhat ignorant of the implications of an atheistic view of reality and all that it entails.

And you, presumably, are the light that is going to shine on our darkness

[Cyberman]

Now I wanna handle those rattlesnakes.

I want some of whatever he's smoking, personally. It looks awesome!

[discipulus]

His life would be sickly and he'd die sooner - so I'd be better off.

Ultimately, you both would be dead. That is what the word "ultimately" is alluding to.

So no, YOU would not be better off, for YOU would not exist, because YOU would be dead.

That's simply insane. It isn't anyone's personal opinion that eating poop is bad for you, its an objective fact. Don't believe me? Try it and find out.

I can be gracious to you and inform you I am not concerned about people eating poo.

In order to be charitable, I will even grant that what you say is true.

I will then ask:

So what?

Ultimately, you, and the poo eater suffer the same fate. He may die sooner than you, but he has died doing what gives him pleasure. You may have lived longer.

The problem you have here is that you assume that long life is something everyone desires like you. That simply is not the case. Some would rather go down in flames doing what they love than to flicker out like a candle.

If you don't act in a manner conducive to your and others' well-being, you won't get to live very long. Finding meaning in things that go against life itself - such as harming others - is contradictory and detrimental to both your life and the meaning you find in it. That fact remains the same irrespective of god's existence. Which is why anyone who finds meaning is productivity is ultimately better off than someone who finds meaning in destruction.

Let me be charitable and grant that what you say is true.

So what?

You assume everyone wants to live a long life.

This is clearly incorrect. You might want to live a long life, others may like shooting heroin all day and having unprotected sex with anyone who will lay with them. These people care not for how long they live, but how much pleasure they derive while they live.

Given that the duration and quality of life are relevant here, one would be objectively ultimately better off than a poop-eater.

It is relevant to you. It is not relevant to everyone.

The rational solution here is not to find sexual arousal in eating poop so you won't have to sacrifice your health. And while we are at it, what are the "potential negative side-effects" of anal sex?

Assuming someone wants to be rational. There are many that could care less about being rational, and rather, are more concerned about having pleasure.

I have had several friends die from AIDS as a result of them having unprotected anal sex. The risks for contracting disease are increased when one engages in anal sex among other potential negative side effects.

The anus is not a reproductive organ. Any physician will tell you that. The anus and large intestine are for the removal of waste, not sexual intercourse.

[pocaracas]

Disc, did you notice that those standards that you compared god to are all man made?
The atomic clock... why is a day made of 24 equal parts?
The mile... why so many feet?
The tonne... why do many pounds?
Etc.

Now your god... why so many morals?
Why is it that other gods, originating in other parts of the planet, sport morals somewhat different from yours?
The way I see it, it looks a lot like your God's "absolute" morals are just as man made as all the other standards.
How do you make a standard?