Posted by Theophilus on 12/23/06 13:57

<snip>

>>1) Atheism IS a religion, the most hypocritical known.
>
> For which you have supplied NO proof.

I guess you are changing your mind about this.

>>2) Religion is the wilful self-delusion about higher power(s) being the
>>actual arbiters of mankind and the universe.
>
> So atheists are delusional and religious folks are delusional? Why
> split hairs?

Because atheists think they are not delusional. So do religious people.

>>3) It's really about who the arbiter, the assigner of meaning is.
>
> Proof?

About this statement itself? This is actually where the role of any
religion or belief construct comes in. You are sitting there, a blob of
consciousness floating in a lump of primarily carbon-based matter. What
makes YOU special? If you can acknowledge that you are nothing, can be
nothing, are merely the result of electrochemical reactions, then you can
truthfully say that you need no God. Atheists say that they need no God,
but then go on as if nothing is wrong with our predicatment.

We construct gods and belief systems because the truth is too hard to take.

Atheists say that they need no God, but then go on as if life were worth
living. That's hypocrisy.

>>4) For the atheist it is his himself, he is his own arbiter, master of all
>>morality and value. That flies in the face of evidence; he says that he
>>knows that he is no more valuable than any other piece of matter in the
>>materialistic universe, and yet continues to assign value to himself and
>>his
>>actions anyways.
>
> Where is this 'evidence' you keep invoking? I've never heard an
> atheist claim themselves less valuable than 'things'.

No, they claim themselves as being MORE valuable than things; they have no
logical reason to do so, in the godless universe.

>>Clear enough for you? Atheists delude themselves in the same way that
>>religious people, but they do it in SPITE of the evidence around them.
>>That
>>is what makes them hypocrites.
>
> Nope. clueless arguments never seem to gain cluefulness.
>
> Again you seem to assert atheists and religious folks are both
> delusional, Again, why are you splitting hairs?
>
> Again, in spite of WHAT evidence?
>
>>> If it is a religion, where is(are) its Holy Book(s). Every religion
>>> has them, right? Which days are holy to the atheist? What day of the
>>
>>Wrong. Many religions have no such thing. Modern ones would include any
>>of
>>the New Age practices, Wicca, pick any of a hundred jungle religions. Old
>>ones include the religions of the Norse, the Romans, the Greeks, and many
>>other oriental and indo-american religions. Maybe you are thinking of
>>the
>>traditional, orthodox religions. Religion is about the BELIEFS about
>>higher
>>power, and the practices surrounding those beliefs.
>
> Yup, I've never seen a new age or wiccan book. For sure.

Name the revered, holy scripture of any of the religions I have listed
above, and I will let you have the point. There is tons of literature about
every religion, that does not make it holy. My point was that religion is
not about the book (as you want to think), it's about the belief.

>>For atheists, that means the beliefs and practices they have about
>>themselves.
>
> You mean acting as tho unencumbered by religion?

When in fact they are? Yes.

>>>Which days are holy to the atheist? What day of the
>>
>>Today.
>
> Just today?

Does any other day matter? It's always today.

>>> week do they get together to not worship? Which deity do they invoke?
>>
>>Themself, of course.
>
> So atheists are holy deities, now?

Yes, read the other post.

>>> Where are their churches? Do they have any dietary proscriptions?
>>
>>Each has his own. It's his own mind. Some are gluttons, some are
>>fastidious, the religion has no strict dietary codes.
>
> Almost as if.... they had no religion?

MOST religions have no dietary codes. The problem here is that you have
preconceived notions of what religion is; your notions are inaccurate.
Additionally, they are causing you to universalize.

Can a religion have holy scipture? Yes. Is it a precondition for religion?
No.

Can a religion have dietary codes? Yes. Is it a precondition for religion?
No.

Can a religion be a religion without a belief system? No.

>>>Atheists say that the universe is a meaningless place, but they still
>>>>assign
>>>>themselves value. That's hypocrisy. In fact, the evidence is all
>>>>around
>>>>that they have NO value, but they still carry on as if they do. That
>>>>isn't
>>>>even faith, because the evidence is right there; it's willful ignorance,
>>>>a
>>>>decision NOT to see the truth around them.
>>>
>>> I've never heard an atheist say the universe is meaningless. I've
>>
>>That's because you have never asked one.
>
> I've had hundreds of conversations about <cough> faith with dozens of
> atheist and agnostic friends. Than means you are either wrong, lying,
> or calling me a liar.

Did you ask them what the absolute meaning behind an electrochemical
reaction was? Did you ask them the basis for truth or falsehood, good or
evil, morality? No? If there is no basis, then all of those things are
meaningless.

Maybe you should go ask again.

>>Demonstrate the "meaning" behind your typical electrochemical reaction,
>>and you will soon find that the
>>empirical, materialistic view of atheism has no room for any real meaning.
>
> 'View of atheism'. As opposed to simple non-belief?

It is belief, simply because they use words like good and evil, truth and
lie. If they really didn't believe it, they wouldn't use such words.

>>Relative meaning and worth? You bet. But absolute meaning? Not one
>>shred
>>of it exists in the universe, to the honest atheist.
>
> I call bullshit.

How about providing a counter argument instead? It would certainly be more
productive than saying, "NOT! NOT! NOT!"

>>> heard Xtians say it is meaningless without God. So you equate
>>> non-belief in a deity as an assertion the universe is meaningless?
>>> Pretty specious reasoning.
>>
>>No, not at all. It's the other way around, a meaningless universe has no
>>room for a deity, the atheist is just unwilling to acknowledge that. On
>>the
>>other hand, can you describe a meaningful universe that doesn't have a
>>deity? What gives it meaning?
>
> See you just put a different spin on 'the universe is meaningless
> without god.' You didn't back your assertion, you just gave it a
> different spin.

At least I am trying. You aren't answering any of the questions.

The idea of absolute meaning requires an arbiter, someBODY to give it. I
emphasize the personhood of this arbiter because a mindless arbiter really
could not provide meaning any more than the material universe.

In the material universe, we are merely the products of electrochemical
reactions. Nothing we think, do, or say is of ANY consequence ultimately.
Can you demonstrate otherwise?

>>An example of relative meaning:
>>
>>Is it a tragedy when an ant hill is destroyed by a bulldozer?
>>
>>Is it a tragedy when the earth is totally destroyed by an asteroid? Would
>>it mattter at all?

> Sure, in the grand scale of the universe, shit happens. If it

That would be the absolute meaning that I have been talking about.

> happened locally it'd suck, doesn't prove or disprove a deity, does
> it?

Why would it suck? We're all dead, so where's the foul? What difference
does it make to anybody? There is nobody.

[Back to original message]