Argument against atheism

[Erinome]

Are we seriously going through this shit again? Why do these lunatic theists desire to come here and tell us what atheism is, and what we believe?

Could it possibly be that what you think we believe is only what you believe you think you know? Fuck off. You're ignorant and unoriginal. You'd blend in better on a christian forum.

[Shell B]

I'm starting to lean toward D.

[The Grand Nudger]

You haven't shown any poster here to be holding an illogical or contradictory belief. You haven't shown anything at all. Perhaps people are calling you a bibliotard because you're propping up the same tired arguments we hear day in and day out from bibliotards? Argument against atheism?

[Ace Otana]

It is most certainly a religion.

If atheism is a religion, then non-stamp collecting is a hobby. So obviously that line of thinking doesn't work.

[amkerman]

Rhythm, for the hundredth time... a belief in any sort of objective truth outside of human perception necessitates consciousness as a primary function of the universe. A belief that consciousness as a primary function of the universe would most correctly be termed as a belief in a monotheistic deity. 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.

I have never claimed or told anyone what to believe, I have never stated that consciousness is infact a primary function of the universe. It seems to me that since humanity and science for the most part agrees that things actually exist and are true and real independent of human perception, consciousness is a primary function of the universe.

Therefore, atheism is incorrect.

It is entirely possible that I am wrong, that consciousness is in fact not a primary function of the universe but rather an emergent function of complex systems such as the brain. If that is the case, however, then things are not inherently good or bad, nothing has any "real" value besides the subjective value that humanity ascribes them. It may be that feelings and morality are purely human constructs and that nothing has any value at all.

If someone has some different analysis or an argument for how objective morality or truth can exist without consciousness I would love to hear it, not to try to insult it, but to come to some deeper understanding of the question.

---

I haven't shown anyone on here to be holding illogical or contrary beliefs Rythem. I can't. I have never asked anyone what they believe in. I don't really care what anyone believes. All I am doing is making an observation. Many of you are wrongly perceiving that I am somehow attacking atheism.

[Erinome]

Rhythm, for the hundredth time... a belief in any sort of objective truth outside of human perception necessitates consciousness as a primary function of the universe.

You think the world revolves around you, and your ability to notice it exists? Arrogant, stupid.

A belief that consciousness as a primary function of the universe would most correctly be termed as a belief in a monotheistic deity.

But neither belief is necessarily correct at all, or even a little.

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.

What makes you think you're moral? Do moral people go around saying people are too dumb to know what's good and bad because they don't believe in a specific deity? Atheism isn't a worldview. You want it to be one, but it doesn't matter because it's just not.

I have never claimed or told anyone what to believe, I have never stated that consciousness is infact a primary function of the universe. It seems to me that since humanity and science for the most part agrees that things actually exist and are true and real independent of human perception, consciousness is a primary function of the universe.

You're full of over thought, and still empty assumptions.

Therefore, atheism is incorrect.

Evidence? Still have seen none. You're still just handing us your personal opinion, and we still have no valid reason to consider what you're asserting is anything more than your opinion.

It is entirely possible that I am wrong, that consciousness is in fact not a primary function of the universe but rather an emergent function of complex systems such as the brain.

Glad you're admitting it. You're probably very wrong.

If that is the case, however, then things are not inherently good or bad, nothing has any "real" value besides the subjective value that humanity ascribes them. It may be that feelings and morality are purely human constructs and that nothing has any value at all.

What would be so bad about that? Are you not enjoying your life? Feelings and morality are not purely human constructs. Many animals have exhibited signs that they have feelings and morals. I recently posted a thread about empathetic mice. Humans are animals too, ya know.

[amkerman]

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. I never said belief in consciousness as a primary function of the universe is necessary at all, or even a little... I never claimed to be moral... you claim my thoughts are empty but you are unwilling to argue why they are empty, you just attack them as such without any logic. I don't have anything to offer you besides my argument, which is my own personal opinion. I don't know what you are looking for; all any of us have are our own personal opinions... Mine just happen to be rational and logical. I may be wrong... very wrong. Until someone logically explains how my argument is not valid, however, I am forced to persist in my belief. The probability of me being wrong is irrelevant.

I never said anything would be "bad" with a purely mechanical universe where nothing had inherent value or meaning. Indeed, if that is the case, "good" and "bad" don't exist at all, so nothing could either be good or bad.

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".

[thesummerqueen]

whateverist - I take umbrage at your claim.

We accept and even extend the hand of friendship with a firm grip to any theist who comes here NOT riding his or her high horse and engages in meaningful dialogue and displays a goddamn sense of humor - something we could all use a little more of. We don't treat all Christians badly because of twatchop examples - just the ones who walk in and announce to the forum at large that their shit don't stink. Or the ones who reveal their bigotry or delusions of grandeur, but hell we do that to atheists too.

As for me, I can't believe I skimmed through the rest of this thread as it was patently clear that Rhythm was right when he said the title should be change to "I don't have an argument against atheism..."

The guy is doing what a lot of R-tards like to do to sound intelligent and splitting hairs over the accepted definitions of words, basically hoping to make you not see the forest for the trees.

If I might lose a little of my usual tenuous grasp on delicacy and elegance: that wasn't a word salad. That was a mixed bean stew and it's causing a fart storm worse than that classic scene from Blazing Saddles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6dm9rN6oTs

[Whateverist]

whateverist - I take umbrage at your claim.

I can assure you I intended no umbrage. But the smell on this thread was so bad I had to get out of there. Admittedly all of the smell was coming from the cretin. I have no idea whether he was a christian, theist or just somebody who liked to stir things up. However it quickly became clear that he wasn't being genuine about much. I thought we atheists acquitted ourselves much better but I remain skeptical that all Christians are bigger assholes than all atheists.

We accept and even extend the hand of friendship with a firm grip to any theist who comes here NOT riding his or her high horse and engages in meaningful dialogue and displays a goddamn sense of humor - something we could all use a little more of. We don't treat all Christians badly because of twatchop examples - just the ones who walk in and announce to the forum at large that their shit don't stink. Or the ones who reveal their bigotry or delusions of grandeur, but hell we do that to atheists too.

As for me, I can't believe I skimmed through the rest of this thread as it was patently clear that Rhythm was right when he said the title should be change to "I don't have an argument against atheism..."

The guy is doing what a lot of R-tards like to do to sound intelligent and splitting hairs over the accepted definitions of words, basically hoping to make you not see the forest for the trees.

If I might lose a little of my usual tenuous grasp on delicacy and elegance: that wasn't a word salad. That was a mixed bean stew and it's causing a fart storm worse than that classic scene from Blazing Saddles.

Dressed as you are in your avatar, I can only encourage you to lose anything you like, my queen.

[Erinome]

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:

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.

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?

I never claimed to be moral...

You said:

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

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.