(December 18, 2011 at 10:34 pm)amkerman Wrote: i don.t know why you are trying to argue with me aleialora... I never said the world revolves around me, you are just perceiving what you want to.
You absolutely did say that when you said:
Quote:a belief in any sort of objective truth outside of human perception necessitates consciousness as a primary function of the universe.
You're asserting that consciousness is a primary function of the universe. As if all this were here just for us to experience it. This is the most illogical, self-important shit that anyone can say. The universe has proven it'self to be completely apathetic to our consciousness. It doesn't know we're conscious, doesn't care. Just because you want it to care, doesn't make it care. You wouldn't know anything about an objective truth based upon your statements. Just because you're not aware of how small and insignificant you are in the wider scheme of things, doesn't make your consciousness a primary function of anything.
Quote:I never said belief in consciousness as a primary function of the universe is necessary at all, or even a little...
If you're going to say something, stand by it. You obviously don't even agree with yourself, or don't know what you're even saying. Are you sure you are actually conscious?
Quote:I never claimed to be moral...
You said:
Quote:It is illogical to claim that one believes iin any sort of objective morality or truth and also claim that one doesn't believe in "God". Therefor, any belef that some things are inherently good or bad can not exist in a truly atheistic worldview.
You claimed atheists don't have morals because they don't believe in god, and also that morality comes from god, but there is no logic in that at all. None. You're not an authority on morals, and your opinions are biased by your beliefs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r58f3wfplHQ
Quote:Your statement that there are signs that animals have morals and feelings actually supports my argument for consciousness as a primary function of the universe rather than a purely mechanical universe... Morality in animals supports the existence of something that would properly be termed "God".
No. It doesn't. It supports my argument that morals and feelings are not uncommon to life on earth, and form by evolutionary function and survival of species. You should also note that 1,500 animal species have homosexual tendencies. By your own standards, you're asserting that since so many animals practice something that is widely thought to be ungodly, god must not exist. That's how logic works, sir.
42
