Evil Atheists

[StatCrux]

StatCrux, why don't you get your pastor to join the forum so we can talk to him directly, instead of through you as an intermediary? You clearly have no thoughts of your own.

Yet another irrelevant assumption, I don't have a pastor.

Priest, vicar, televangelist, shaman, witch-doctor or similar will suffice.

I still have none of the above, perhaps you should ask questions rather than make assumptions?

[DaveD]

Because you don't answer questions.

[Skepsis]

No, not at all, I have never once claimed that theistic derived morality is superior or even relevant to the question, that is the frustrating aspect to this whole scenario. The question is specifically aimed at atheistic philosophical understanding of morality. I simply want to understand how one atheist can refute another atheists views on morality, it has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism vs theism.

That right there is where you are wrong then, as there is no such thing as an atheistic view on morality. An atheist can hold views on morality, but they cannot and will not be derived from their disbelief itself. You really can't ask that here duie to the sheer amount of different responces you are liable to recieve, due to the fact that everyone will give you a different answer.

In general, when atheists compare their morality to that of a theist, it is just a comparitive tool, not an attack on your beliefs. Then again, you have to provide your stance as to avoid useless confrontation.

[StatCrux]

Stat part two, please stop ignoring my posts in order to continue your enjoyment of the inflammatory ones. If you post one more time, having ignored my repeated attempts to get you to read my response to your questions, I can only assume that you are here to argue, not to ask honest questions. You are not being persecuted, but are instead trying to make yourself feel like you are by only reacting to angry posts.

Skepsis, no one without an agenda would call atheism a worldview. Many people try so that they can apply our atheism to various parts of our lives where they do not apply. It is a common way of attempting to discredit atheists.

Shell B, my apologies if I appear to have ignored your posts, its difficult to engage on the varying levels of discussion, from outright insult to intelligent response, I can assure you I have no agenda, other than getting answers to questions that have perplexed me about atheism, in some respects I view atheism as a valuable tool to rid theism of some of its worst failures (fundamentalist views for example) but the torrent of unwarrented insults is a little surprising..

[Shell B]

Alright, I am fucking tired of this. I have made something like six posts pointing you back to a post that I made which answered your question. You don't want to debate about it, you want to argue about your priests (or lack thereof), beliefs and agenda. No wonder these people are getting pissed off at you. You are trying to hoodwink them into believing you actually give a shit about the answers while trying to demonstrate to yourself that atheists are big meanie poopie heads. What the fuck? For weeks, all we have gotten are newbs that pull this "Check out my psychological experiment" bullshit. Be direct. Respond to answers that don't have fucking insults in them instead of only zeroing in on insults. Most of all, don't be underhanded. Your facade is very old and there are extremely large cracks in it. Your game has been played. Try the genuine approach now.

I hope all of you will try to redirect this back to the topic so he can stop playing his game. What he believes and who preaches it to him doesn't matter. You get a guy like this sidetracked and it all spirals downhill. I predict right now that he will leave this site with a "You know what, I'm not telling you guys anything. All you did was bully me and you don't care about logic. I'm never coming back." post. Force one topic and when he isn't getting the negative attention he is seeking he will either go away or be forced to have a conversation that isn't loaded with prejudice. I prefer the latter.

---

its difficult to engage on the varying levels of discussion, from outright insult to intelligent response

Sure, it is, but you keep skipping stuff and responding only to the negative, which suggests something entirely different from what you are saying.

I can assure you I have no agenda, other than getting answers to questions that have perplexed me about atheism

Then explain to me why you are ignoring the answers and only engaging in the negativity. I was genuinely interested in this conversation and am positive that my initial response was in no way insulting. I have also seen other posts that weren't insulting go ignored. If you are that interested, you would be engrossed by the answers given to you.

the torrent of unwarrented insults is a little surprising..

You are not playing a fair game. Therefore, the word "unwarranted" has no place here. You're not surprised. You're pleased with yourself. You are labeling the few insults in here as a torrent and the few suggestions about your faith in here as insults. Why you are doing this could be assumed rather easily, but I don't want to give you anything else to latch on to. Please get back on topic.

[Epimethean]

He's never been on topic since he posted and received responses, which should point to his agenda.

[Shell B]

I know. I should probably have more patience, but I would love to have an actual conversation one of these days. I hate having to essentially wave my hand around in the air saying, "Hey, that thing you claim to be asking for is here, right here. Oh fuck, he still isn't looking."

[Skepsis]

I sure hope this discussion gets back on track, starting with a responce to my posts, if I may be so bold.

Shell B seems to be anxious for you to respond to hers as well, so you really should ignore naysayers and respond to the serious answers.

[StatCrux]

Alright, I am fucking tired of this. I have made something like six posts pointing you back to a post that I made which answered your question. You don't want to debate about it, you want to argue about your priests (or lack thereof), beliefs and agenda. No wonder these people are getting pissed off at you. You are trying to hoodwink them into believing you actually give a shit about the answers while trying to demonstrate to yourself that atheists are big meanie poopie heads. What the fuck? For weeks, all we have gotten are newbs that pull this "Check out my psychological experiment" bullshit. Be direct. Respond to answers that don't have fucking insults in them instead of only zeroing in on insults. Most of all, don't be underhanded. Your facade is very old and there are extremely large cracks in it. Your game has been played. Try the genuine approach now.

I hope all of you will try to redirect this back to the topic so he can stop playing his game. What he believes and who preaches it to him doesn't matter. You get a guy like this sidetracked and it all spirals downhill. I predict right now that he will leave this site with a "You know what, I'm not telling you guys anything. All you did was bully me and you don't care about logic. I'm never coming back." post. Force one topic and when he isn't getting the negative attention he is seeking he will either go away or be forced to have a conversation that isn't loaded with prejudice. I prefer the latter.

---

its difficult to engage on the varying levels of discussion, from outright insult to intelligent response

Sure, it is, but you keep skipping stuff and responding only to the negative, which suggests something entirely different from what you are saying.

I can assure you I have no agenda, other than getting answers to questions that have perplexed me about atheism

Then explain to me why you are ignoring the answers and only engaging in the negativity. I was genuinely interested in this conversation and am positive that my initial response was in no way insulting. I have also seen other posts that weren't insulting go ignored. If you are that interested, you would be engrossed by the answers given to you.

the torrent of unwarrented insults is a little surprising..

You are not playing a fair game. Therefore, the word "unwarranted" has no place here. You're not surprised. You're pleased with yourself. You are labeling the few insults in here as a torrent and the few suggestions about your faith in here as insults. Why you are doing this could be assumed rather easily, but I don't want to give you anything else to latch on to. Please get back on topic.

Thankyou Shell B, you may be surprised that I am in agreement with you, so can we dispense with the atheist vs theist approach and deal with the question now? How can one subjective view of morality logically refute the subjective morality of another person without reference to a transcendental objective truth?

[Shell B]

At last an attempt to answer the question. He would simply respond by saying that you're making the assumption that the welfare of others makes any difference to him or his family, he's quite happy living in that kind of world, thats how it is, survival of the fittest, why should he care about the welfare of others, they are merely evolved machines just trying to survive, of no consequence to his well being or his families. Nothing wrong with that is there?

Why would he respond that way? Atheists don't necessarily think "survival of the fittest" applies to everyday life. Shit, I bet there are atheists who have never even heard the term.

Besides, the whole pretense is flawed. Dude kills people, I don't have to convince him that my morals are the right way to go. All I have to do is call the cops. You're essentially making the presupposition that atheists are trying to convince other people to believe their personal system of morals is right. While that may be true for some atheists, it doesn't apply to most. If I knew that guy, I wouldn't try to convince him of anything. I would report him to the authorities, lock my doors until he is arrested and move on with my life. Luckily, the cops tend to have the same morals as I do in regard to murder and theft.