Quote (TiStuff @ 19 Mar 2021 22:08)
fair enough, i could have chosen a better word.
if your an atheist but you offer no explanations you should not have started an argument if you cant/wont even attempt to back it up. I don't think i brought up scripture you did, do you want to talk about scripture?
what grammar police bit?
the assertion "no god" by necessity is a claim to some kind of omni knowledge, therefore "godhood" or perhaps your are an atheist by whim? If you are an atheist by whim you have no argument and should not have started one.
i already provided a list of atheist nations and the resulting misery. that you assert "its not because of atheism" then what cause do you propose?
"how come they are evil" who are you atheist to make the judgment when you have no belief? on what foundation do you assert evil? from your own "godhood"?
if atheism is true. wouldn't that just make us products of some kind of random naturalistic process? .............accidents? of what value is that sort of creature?
but if i understand you correctly you don't even address origins but will assert "atheist" where is the reasoning?
There is so much to comment on that I'm going to have to pick and choose but don't mistake my lack of response on specific points as concession, I simply don't have unlimited time to argue with you.
Your list you are now claiming is "atheist nations" is outright absurd. I'm not going to discuss them all but I will touch on Nazi Germany (which was almost entirely composed of protestants and Catholics during world war II) You said "you assert "its not because of atheism" then what cause do you propose?" are you seriously trying to claim that the cause of world war II was atheism? I would strongly recommend you read more if that's the case.
your statement "the assertion "no god" by necessity is a claim to some kind of omni knowledge" is the epitome of a straw man argument. there are over 4000 religions in the world almost all are based on iron age books riddled with lack of scientific understanding. but fine if you want to split hairs I will concede that technically I would have to call myself a teapot agnostic. I don't "believe" with absolute certainty that there is no possibility of god - but based on the evidence I've seen, I think a specific human shaped omnipotent being that created 14 billion years of time and space and matter, so that he could watch primordial goo evolve on 1 tiny rock for millions of years until it eventually evolved into his image is about as likely as the rings on Saturn being caused by a giant teapot orbiting the planet at absurd speeds. now. I've never been to Saturn or personally witnessed the cause of it's rings, I cant say with absolute certainty that is not what causes the rings, but I'm not holding my breathe.
This assertion that you cant understand morality without god makes me sick. If I were to see a child chase a ball into traffic I wouldn't stand there devoid of feeling doing nothing because there's no god (the idea that the only reason you would attempt to in help that situation is because it aligns with god's will greatly concerns me). Also, with this only god gives you morals absurdity, why do people in other parts of the world who have differently religions (which I'm going to go ahead and assume you refute) do things out of morality? Or are you claiming that ONLY people of your specific religion have morality and the entire rest of the world are anarchists?
as for this:
if atheism is true. wouldnt that just make us products of some kind of random naturalistic process? .............accidents? of what value is that sort of creature?
It would be FAR more valuable than an all knowing all mighty all powerful being that creates infants with horrible diseases when he doesn't need to, lets them die excruciating deaths (and before finding his particular religion which dooms their "soul" to not go to "heaven" for eternity) when their crime is what? being born in a developing part of the world?
as for addressing origins, I'm not nearly qualified enough to assume I can answer the question of origins (currently the entire global scientific community hasn't answered that question...) but from what I've read they currently say the causality of the big bang (which seems to be omitted from your old book?) is unknown at this time.
explaining origins with "god's just always been around and invented everything and nothing had to invent him" seems no different than saying "the stuff that caused the big bang was just always around and nothing had to create it" it's a cop out pseudo answer that explains nothing. just because there are things we cant explain doesn't mean the point goes to the first person to yell out an answer...