10 Myths and Thruths about Atheism

[WaltL1]

Well lay out your FACTS not beliefs as to why it isn't factual and I will do the same and that will change to this

 

[stringmusic]

I have no clue how you determined that.

It wasn't hard....

What we need is a Reading teacher.

Note I said individuals. That is plural. Automatically eliminates that I said he was talking about "himself" which is singular.
And the title of the article tells you who the individuals are that he is talking about -10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism
And he is clearly, to those who can read, talking about the lives of the individuals whom the article is about.
We got any Reading teachers in the house?
So yeah as you said LOL

 

[HawgJawl]

In His revelation to man.

What does God's revelation to man say about the morality of slaughtering babies?

 

[bullethead]

What if cutting off puppies feet makes someone happy?

Context madman, context.....You did not include the parts where I specifically state:

I can give you an answer that would pertain to me.

I would live life in a way that made me happy with no regrets. I would be respectful of my family and friends and I would be respectful the laws and limits that society has set for me. I would try to accommodate all into living my life to the fullest. If I want to work 100hours a week because that makes me happy I'd do it. If I wanted to enjoy the outdoors I would do it. If spending an entire year in Alaska in a trappers cabin to see if I could make it was on my bucket list I would do it. Right now I have a good balance of family, friends and the outdoors and my life gauge is registering "full".

Now if cutting the feet off of puppies makes someone happy then they are going to do it. They will have to answer for it though.

 

[WaltL1]

And the title of the article tells you who the individuals are that he is talking about

It wasn't hard....

Yeah String and if I wrote an article about Chinese people and I said Chinese people have 2 ears....
Then what I meant was ONLY Chinese people have 2 ears. Or maybe because the article was about Chinese people they are the only ones I mention because, well, the article was about Chinese people.
One of those makes sense. You are picking the other one.

 

[bullethead]

Fact. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pott were not the INEVITABLE product of unbelief, but they were product of
atheism none the less. Their actions ARE the direct result of what can happen when meaning, morals and the sanctity of life are no longer anchored to a transcendent platform.

Unbeliever will be quick to point out that many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity, however there is a fundamental difference from the actions of fore mentioned. It is this. Atrocities committed in the name of Christ directly contradict his teachings, whereas those committed in the name of Atheism contradict no one's, because in atheism the individual decides for himself what the rules are. Hitler, Stalin, and all the rest were just living out the law of moral relativity.



Should we take this statement 'on faith', especially based on his illogical quote from Roberts? One would think a neuroscientist and author, not to mention a 'most intelligent and scientifically literate' atheist would be wiser than to make such logical blunders.



Again a contradiction. It's not chance. It's chance plus.....
Gotcha. Wink. Wink. Nod. Nod. It boils down to something from nothing, no matter how you slice it. Maybe that's what the 87% of believers have a hard time believing about atheism.



Another blatant fallacy. It just goes to prove intelligence and wisdom are not synonymous.

If science is the study of natural order as it claims to be, and scientist use their brains to do so, and the brain according to Darwinian Athiest is just a product of time ,matter, and CHANCE, why should any scientist believe anything his brain tells him. His very belief undermines its own credibility.

On the other hand if we are created in the image of an intelligent designer and we are presented WITH an intelligent design, it should stand to reason that we can understand and trust what we observe in nature.

Neither does science undermine Christianity. Truth is exclusive, and both are this truth expressed in different terms. You will notice that Mr. Harris did not mention that the Universe as science now understands it, with a set beginning point, is exactly what one would have expected if one was to have read Genesis 1. Maybe it's atheism that can't bear the weight of science.





Atheist are arrogant? Maybe we should refer back to the previous comments and see if this 'myth' holds any validity. "Pretending to know things one does not know is a liability in science.", yet Atheist state there is no such thing as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being when in fact the ONLY way one could know that was if one WAS omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Are Atheist pretending to know there is no God or are they pretending to BE God? Note: pretending is a liability to your credibility also.



No Mr Harris. Those are claims science can't authenticate or maybe YOUR definition of 'spiritual experience". There are many things science can't authenticate. If you ever see a question beginning with "Why" there is a good chance science can't authenticate the answer. This doesn't mean, as you imply, that there is no answer or that it can't be authenticated in some other manner. And suffice it to say that we don't have to subscribe to your definition of "spiritual experience" nor do we.



Fact: Most atheist don't believe in anything supernatural.
On the deepest questions of life regarding origin, meaning, morality and destiny, their answers are bleak and would correspond as such
Origin: time plus matter plus chance
Meaning: what ever you decide
Morality: see Meaning
Destiny: death is the end. Back you go into the cosmic recycle bin



Been there. Done this.



Again. What if someone decides cruelty is right. In atheism nothing impedes that from happening. There's no transcendent law of right and wrong to judge one by. Everyone is their own judge. More people were slaughtered in the 20th century as a result of moral relativity than all other centuries combined. Is that the progress he speaks of.

You know, Sam Harris is held as a prominent Atheist thinker by many. I see this stuff and as a Christian I realize that it can't stand up to God's truth. That's the reason for all the distortions, fallacies and duplicity. Without those atheism is exactly what we see it as: a lie, nothing more, nothing less.

Just tried to read through this and the stuff that did not show on here where you quoted what I posted and then your answers are right in there with the quotes.....
After getting through all that there is nothing new in any of those answers that you have not asserted before and then have not backed up with any sort of examples.
It is just too messy to try to break it down.
Instead of me speaking for Harris, I'll let you email him directly.

 

[stringmusic]

Yeah String and if I wrote an article about Chinese people and I said Chinese people have 2 ears....
Then what I meant was ONLY Chinese people have 2 ears. Or maybe because the article was about Chinese people they are the only ones I mention because, well, the article was about Chinese people.
One of those makes sense. You are picking the other one.

How about just give me a one word answer on who he was talking about in that sentence about life and meaning.

 

[WaltL1]

How about just give me a one word answer on who he was talking about in that sentence about life and meaning.

Atheist.
Again because the article was about Atheist. He didn't include or exclude anybody else because the article wasn't about anybody else.
That was my last shot.

 

[stringmusic]

Atheist.
Again because the article was about Atheist. He didn't include or exclude anybody else because the article wasn't about anybody else.
That was my last shot.

He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.

But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that he was only talking about atheists.

If every atheists life is full of meaning, then logic follows that meaning is inherent in every atheists life.

If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews is living life to the fullest and is his meaning in life, is that really what his life was meant for?

 

[WaltL1]

He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.

But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that he was only talking about atheists.

If every atheists life is full of meaning, then logic follows that meaning is inherent in every atheists life.

If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews is living life to the fullest and is his meaning in life, is that really what his life was meant for?

String obviously I am unable to communicate to you in a way that you understand. Several other people have tried to tell you the same thing I have. Maybe they can do a better job than me so please direct your questions to them.

 

[bullethead]

He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.

But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that he was only talking about atheists.

If every atheists life is full of meaning, then logic follows that meaning is inherent in every atheists life.

If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews is living life to the fullest and is his meaning in life, is that really what his life was meant for?

Why do you find it so easy to pick through every word written in here to find out what it means, how it is used, it's implication, who it pertains to and how logic gets you to these questions and conclusions, yet you don't even so much as raise an eyebrow at the Bible???.... because if you did you would be the leading Atheist in the country.

 

[bullethead]

He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.

But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that he was only talking about atheists.

If every atheists life is full of meaning, then logic follows that meaning is inherent in every atheists life.

If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews is living life to the fullest and is his meaning in life, is that really what his life was meant for?

Correct me if I am wrong but in the book you follow didn't God break out his big 'ol pencil eraser called a FLOOD and kill tens of millions of people because he was "unhappy"? Wouldn't that imply logically (and inherently possibly)that killing all of those people made him "happy"...???

I am just not sure where your loaded question of an "Atheist" killing 6 million Jews comes into play when the person you are eluding to practiced Christianity...the people pulling the triggers and lifting the gas nozzles and following orders were Christians, the country in question was Christian, and the representatives of the Christian Church gave their blessings to the cause.
Maybe you just used the wrong example huh??

 

[660griz]

It is at least obvious to me that the OP quote was about a 'meaningful life'.

There is meaningful life, meaning of life(philisophical question related to man's existence), and meaning of live for me(personal philisophical question).

Meaningful life is defined as life with a purpose. That purpose is/can be unique to the individual. Some folks may like hanging with family and reading Shakespear. Some may want to hanglide as much as possible. Some may want to eat at every Cracker Barrell in the U.S.A. That is their purpose in life. It doesn't have to be some grand acheivement. As long as they are happy, then so be it.

Kind of like the meaning of success.
Success to some may be having millions of dollars, others, it may be having a roof over their heads and food on the table.

My point is you can have a purpose in life and not know the meaning of life. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the meaning of life, just LIVING it takes up most of my time.

 

[WaltL1]

It is at least obvious to me that the OP quote was about a 'meaningful life'.

There is meaningful life, meaning of life(philisophical question related to man's existence), and meaning of live for me(personal philisophical question).

Meaningful life is defined as life with a purpose. That purpose is/can be unique to the individual. Some folks may like hanging with family and reading Shakespear. Some may want to hanglide as much as possible. Some may want to eat at every Cracker Barrell in the U.S.A. That is their purpose in life. It doesn't have to be some grand acheivement. As long as they are happy, then so be it.

Kind of like the meaning of success.
Success to some may be having millions of dollars, others, it may be having a roof over their heads and food on the table.

My point is you can have a purpose in life and not know the meaning of life. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the meaning of life, just LIVING it takes up most of my time.

Slow down. You have to start here -

He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.

You have to get him to understand that since the article was about Atheists that does qualify the authors statement. Much in the same way a Ford manual doesn't mention Toyotas, Chevys etc because obviously its about Fords.

 

[stringmusic]

Slow down. You have to start here -

You have to get him to understand that since the article was about Atheists that does qualify the authors statement. Much in the same way a Ford manual doesn't mention Toyotas, Chevys etc because obviously its about Fords.

The article was about atheists, but he also talks about Christians in it. Am I to assume that he was really talking about atheists when he mentions believers as well?

 

[stringmusic]

String obviously I am unable to communicate to you in a way that you understand. Several other people have tried to tell you the same thing I have. Maybe they can do a better job than me so please direct your questions to them.

I granted you that he was talking about atheists for the sake of discussion, I'm not sure what else you want me to do.

Do you not find my question valid?

 

[WaltL1]

The article was about atheists, but he also talks about Christians in it. Am I to assume that he was really talking about atheists when he mentions believers as well?

Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

This week, atheist philosopher Sam Harris

 

[stringmusic]

Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

This week, atheist philosopher Sam Harris

He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.

But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that he was only talking about atheists.If every atheists life is full of meaning, then logic follows that meaning is inherent in every atheists life.

If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews is living life to the fullest and is his meaning in life, is that really what his life was meant for?

I granted you that he was talking about atheists for the sake of discussion, I'm not sure what else you want me to do.

Can we be done with that?

 

[WaltL1]

Can we be done with that?

Your question was -

The article was about atheists, but he also talks about Christians in it. Am I to assume that he was really talking about atheists when he mentions believers as well?

That's what I answered.
New/different questions -

So only atheists lives are "imbued with meaning"?

He didn't say that. That is your assumption based on not understanding what he actually said. What he said was -

Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived

Its a philosophy that says you don't need a god for your life to have meaning. Really and fully living your life is meaning. Its an Atheist philosophy. Did you need him to state that its not a Christian philosophy or is that just a tiny bit obvious? Actually maybe its not obvious or I wouldn't be typing this.

If every atheists life is full of meaning, then logic follows that meaning is inherent in every atheists life.

He didn't say that. Its a conclusion you are making based on your incorrect understanding of what he actually said. However yes I think your statement is logical. However that logic is dependent on EVERY Atheist following the philosophy.

Do you not find my question valid?

Your questions are based on not understanding its a philosophy. However as random questions that has nothing to do with what he actually said, MY OPINIONS are -
No
Invalid assumption
Not valid to the article in discussion.

 

[WaltL1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madman View Post


Well lay out your FACTS not beliefs as to why it isn't factual and I will do the same and that will change to this