If no God - What Meaning ?

LemonJello,

It's bizarre the way you seem to imply blanketly that atheists are relativists. Personally, I don't know many atheists who take relativism seriously,

If you say that man is the measure of all things because God does not exist, then you have to decide which man.

And I would like to see in your atheistic worldview what rational bases you furnish that Adolf Hitler should not be that final measure as opposed to any other man.

Originally posted by sonship
LemonJello,

It's bizarre the way you seem to imply blanketly that atheists are relativists. Personally, I don't know many atheists who take relativism seriously,

If you say that man is the measure of all things because God does not exist, then you have to decide which man.

And I would like to see in your atheistic worldview wha ...[text shortened]... ases you furnish that Adolf Hitler should not be that final measure as opposed to any other man.

an atheistic world view wouldnt consider man to be the measure of all thing. in fact the sentence 'measure of all things' would mean ziltch.

Originally posted by sonship
LemonJello,

It's bizarre the way you seem to imply blanketly that atheists are relativists. Personally, I don't know many atheists who take relativism seriously,

If you say that man is the measure of all things because God does not exist, then you have to decide which man.

And I would like to see in your atheistic worldview wha ...[text shortened]... ases you furnish that Adolf Hitler should not be that final measure as opposed to any other man.

If you say that man is the measure of all things because God does not exist, then
you have to decide which man.

Bull.

Morality is determined collectively and not on the basis of a single mind.


And there IS nothing in the 'atheistic' world-view other than a lack of belief in god.
How can you still not know that?

Atheism has nothing to say about morality other than it doesn't come from a god because
we don't have any belief that gods exist.

There are many schools of secular philosophy that you can go read about that deal
with this question, and different atheists, secularists, and people on this site will
subscribe [formally or otherwise] to different schools of morality.
There is no one answer.

But don't for one second think that because there is no one final answer that no answers
exist.


Short video, on the experience of debating morality with theists.
YouTube

Matt Dillahunty: The Superiority of Secular Morality
YouTube

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins on Morality and Science
YouTube

Originally posted by sonship

I seriously doubt that, since lots of healthy minds do not have sufficient reasons to think God exists in the first place.

You have witnessed voices on this Forum who seem not to have the clarity to understand that a male is for a female, and a female is for a male.

Physiologically they compliment each other. It is in the "plumbing" ...[text shortened]... God for wisdom to raise them while they were still in their mother's womb. And God was faithful.

That's great that your children are doing well on that front. I'm sure that their cognitive health has little or nothing to owe, per se, to your speaking to them about God when they were young or your attempts to get them to remain as children forever. That is, supposing they are cognitively healthy and mature, they are probably as such despite the developmentally stunting methods you described.

Originally posted by sonship
LemonJello,

It's bizarre the way you seem to imply blanketly that atheists are relativists. Personally, I don't know many atheists who take relativism seriously,

If you say that man is the measure of all things because God does not exist, then you have to decide which man.

And I would like to see in your atheistic worldview wha ...[text shortened]... ases you furnish that Adolf Hitler should not be that final measure as opposed to any other man.

If you say that man is the measure of all things because God does not exist, then you have to decide which man.

Why would I say that? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

Originally posted by LemonJello
That's great that your children are doing well on that front. I'm sure that their cognitive health has little or nothing to owe, per se, to your speaking to them about God when they were young or your attempts to get them to remain as children forever. That is, supposing they are cognitively healthy and mature, they are probably as such despite the developmentally stunting methods you described.

May I ask if you are married and how long ?

And how many children you have raised ?

Originally posted by LemonJello

If you say that man is the measure of all things because God does not exist, then you have to decide which man.

Why would I say that? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

Why would I say that? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

Let me put a question to you this way.

Supposed Hitler and the Germans had won World War 2. Suppose they were able to thoroughly indoctrinate everyone in every nation that the Holocaust was the just and right thing to do. Suppose today all the world is under the German Third Reich educated in their interpretation of history, trained in their ethics, schooled in their methods. We all have been educated to think like the Nazis.

Would then the Holocaust still have been morally wrong ?
And if so why was it wrong on your atheist view of the universe ?

Originally posted by sonship

Why would I say that? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

Let me put a question to you this way.

Supposed Hitler and the Germans had won World War 2. Suppose they were able to thoroughly indoctrinate everyone in every nation that the Holocaust was the just and right thing to do. Suppose today all the world is under the G ...[text shortened]... been morally wrong ?
And if so [b]why was it wrong on your atheist view of the universe ?[/b]

Holocaust would still have been wrong.

And it would be wrong because the Holocaust [and all that went with it]
caused huge suffering to all those tortured and killed as well as all those
who cared about those who were tortured and were killed and it did not
maximise the well-being of those alive at the time OR those after.

I direct you to this talk by Sam Harris who deals with basically this exact
question in this talk YouTube

And as he points out, we are a highly social species, for whom good relations
with and sympathy and empathy for our fellow humans is the norm not the
exception. And it would be incredibly hard to achieve your hypothetical in
reality. And if it were achieved, it would create a society that performed
markedly worse at maximising well-being and happiness than our present
day society... let alone a theoretical optimal society that we could strive
to achieve and aim for.

Almost all acts of inhumanity such as the holocaust were preceded by sustained
periods in which the persecuted group were made out to be subhuman, to
short-circuit the empathy and sympathy that would normally prevent people
carrying out such atrocities.

It's why combat troops should not be conditioned to hate their enemy and think
of them as sub humans, and why prison guards similarly shouldn't regard their
detainees as sub-humans, and it's why I come down on people [like you] who
use dehumanising language against gays.

In Russia right now there is a concerted attempt to portray gays as subhuman
perverts and peodofiles... And there has been a corresponding huge upsurge in violence
against gays, suspected gays, and anyone who dares to stand up for them.
Which is why Robbie is so beyond despicable for holding up Russia as an example
of what should be done.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Holocaust would still have been wrong.

And it would be wrong because the Holocaust [and all that went with it]
caused huge suffering to all those tortured and killed as well as all those
who cared about those who were tortured and were killed and it did not
maximise the well-being of those alive at the time OR those after.

I direct you to thi ...[text shortened]... why Robbie is so beyond despicable for holding up Russia as an example
of what should be done.

LemonJello is suppose to have such grown up healthy and mature cognitive skills, I'm sure he doesn't need to hide behind your coat tails.

I am interested in his own answer. He'll think for himself.

Originally posted by sonship
LemonJello,

It's bizarre the way you seem to imply blanketly that atheists are relativists. Personally, I don't know many atheists who take relativism seriously,

If you say that man is the measure of all things because God does not exist, then you have to decide which man.

And I would like to see in your atheistic worldview wha ...[text shortened]... ases you furnish that Adolf Hitler should not be that final measure as opposed to any other man.

The people of the USA have twice decided Barrack Obama is that man. I wonder if they will choose a woman the next time.

Originally posted by sonship
LemonJello is suppose to have such grown up healthy and mature cognitive skills, I'm sure he doesn't need to hide behind your coat tails.

I am interested in his own answer. He'll think for himself.

I am sure he can and quite possibly will...

However I wanted to answer the question as well.

My answering does not in any way hinder anyone else from answering.

Originally posted by sonship
LemonJello is suppose to have such grown up healthy and mature cognitive skills, I'm sure he doesn't need to hide behind your coat tails.

I am interested in his own answer. He'll think for himself.

would you like us to put our hands up, like school, when we wish to speak?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am sure he can and quite possibly will...

However I wanted to answer the question as well.

My answering does not in any way hinder anyone else from answering.

Well googlefudge frankly, when someone says that they did not bother to read something I wrote, it really doesn't encourage me to want to reciprocate.

And right now that's where I am with you. When posters start skimming apathetically over what I write (as you said you didn't even bother to read a post I wrote), it kind of damages my willingness to reciprocate by digesting that poster's posts.

Let me just say, I am in no dire hurry.

Originally posted by sonship
Well googlefudge frankly, when someone says that they did not bother to read something I wrote, it really doesn't encourage me to want to reciprocate.

And right now that's where I am with you. When posters start skimming apathetically over what I write (as you said you didn't even bother to read a post I wrote), it kind of damages my willingness to reciprocate by digesting that poster's posts.

Let me just say, I am in no dire hurry.

Stick to the topic and stop imagining what your opponent says and respond
to what they actually say and more people will read your entire posts.

Reading some of your long posts is painful, you go off on irrelevant tangents
about things I/we never said in the first place.

Originally posted by sonship
May I ask if you are married and how long ?

And how many children you have raised ?

Perhaps if you can persuade me that these questions are somehow relevant to the current discussion, then I will play along.