Atheism is Morally Bankrupt

He completely ignored my epistemological arguments of self-performative incoherence of atheism or with the argument presented by de Sade, Nietzsche or Max Stirner. Some things have been helpfully clarified; unfortunately we have only one more response to cut between the fog. "If he thinks that I am in fact saying that, then it is Pro who is unfortunately mistaken. I am not even concerned with the epistemological claim (which he misunderstands in itself), and never even so much as claimed its relevance in this debate. " Whether that is what you were claiming or not is immaterial that is what I am claiming. I did elaborate on at least one of the above Atheist"s argument. Nietzsche. Nietzsche claimed that Christian morality and the existence of God are a packaged deal and that on cannot accept the latter without accepting the former. My discussing incoherencies I was elaborating on Nietzsche. If he finds it unconvincing that is fine, but to claim I did not respond at all to his charge to elaborate is false. "Hence, even if Pro were correct in his assessment that "atheism is morally bankrupt," (which I do not think he is) that still does not show atheism as false. " I never attempted to show that atheism is false, if Con is laboring under this misconception I hope to disabuse it of him. I only set out to prove that atheism is morally bankrupt not that it is false. "Pro has demonstrated nothing! " Con has shown nothing? He has not shown use how, from nature, we can sustain ontology of morality. He has not shown that atheism is not morally bankrupt. He has not shown, even after two responses, that de Sade, Stirner or Nietzsche"s arguments are false. "What Pro needs to understand is that although the naturalist is committed to atheism, the atheist is not committed to naturalism" While Con"s digression into Buddhism and Jansenism are interesting, I was not talking about them. I was talking about naturalist atheists, which my references to de Sade, Stirner and Nietzsche should have indicated. Fine if he wants to include Buddhism and Jansenism as atheistic he can, but I was never arguing against that sort of "atheism" if we can even call it that. My definition of atheism is the classical one used by Marx, Lenin, Spencer and Kropotkin. Philosophical materialism. "Surely, his more naive definition of atheism as merely being "one who denies the existence of a deity" is not so fair a definition as the one I have used above in my first rebuttal - since I allow for the existence of nihilists to even moral atheists. " If Con wants to use a definition of atheism that is not found in the dictionary he is free to, but brining it up does not good since I do not agree to that definition of atheism. For the sack of concord I will narrow it further, if it will please Con, I am specifically talking about the materialist naturalist Atheism of the western tradition. I thought: "the doctrine that there is no deity" was clear enough to express such a position. It is also rather tendentious to believe that Asiatic religions are atheist in the same way Nietzsche or Richard Dawkins is they are clearly not. Buddhism and Jansenism both grew out of Hinduism and all three share a pantheist or panentheist foundation. It would probably more accurate to define Buddhists and Jansensits as pantheists rather than atheists. Etymologically atheist does not mean Buddhist or Jansenist. See: "1570s, from French ath"iste (16c. ), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]"[1] If Con wants to use a word in complete rupture with its etymological meaning that is his prerogative, but not good debating practice. Are we to believe that 16th century Englishmen and Frenchmen had Buddhists in mind why they coined this word? "This response is rather ignorant. From this statement alone that Pro has quoted, it cannot be deduced that she is describing how our faculties might have developed and thence conclude that moral concepts generated by evolutionary processes' are in fact true (that is jumping the conclusion a bit - a conclusion that is not even Antony's actual position). " If it was not here conclusion that appeared to be the conclusion you were drawing from it. If you lack of understanding on the etymology of atheist knowlegable? This whole tirade on defining Buddhists as atheists, which he did not do previously is rather tendentious since I am not his definition of atheist, but the classical definition. "I could care less what those men/women said on the subject of morality and its relationship with atheism, it does not add to the substance of (or even, probability of) accepting the proposition "Atheism is morally bankrupt. "" Using Con"s logic I could care less what anyone could say about the ability of atheism to ground morality in nature such as Louise Antony, Kai Nielsen or Michael Martin. A certain consistency arises here. If he can use Mrs. Antony, Mr. Nielsen, and Mr. Martin to produce arguments, than he has no right to deprive me of Mr. Sade, Mr. Stirner or Mr. Nietzsche. If we accept Con"s terms then I couldn"t care less of the sources he uses. Since Con is so eager for me to elaborate on the arguments of the above mentioned atheists I shall. The basic argument is this: If Man is merely an animal (A), than morality is not a consideration (B). If morality is not a consideration (B), then nothing is forbidden. (C) If Man is merely an animal (A), then nothing is forbidden. (C) Premise 1 is obviously true. Are animals moral? No. A good dog is not a dog that keeps the moral law, but a dog that obeys the demands of its master. As a good hammer is a hammer that pounds nails well. Animals by nature perform acts we would consider murder, cannibalism or rape. When a male lion "conquers" a pride he kills all the male cubs from the previous lord. Male crocodiles as well as some species of male fish will eat their own young. Etc. Furthermore if an animal kills humans it is not tried for murder, but merely disposed of as a nuisance. B and C follow from A. If we observe the animal kingdom none of the moral prohibitions that exist between humans exist between animals, and in some cases even with species. The atheist specifically denies ultimate meaning in the universe. If the universe is ultimately meaningless than how can any relative meaning be found? If the whole is made up of the sum of its parts, and the universe as a whole is meaningless, then so are all of its parts. One cannot affirm what one explicitly denies. One cannot affirm objective morality if one specifically states that all morality is relative. Mr. Sade claims that since all things are dissolved into dust and nature (we might also say evolution) progresses through death and predation that when men kill each other they are serving natures demands and forwarding evolution. How can any atheist stand in the way of biological progress? Richard Dawkin"s states: "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. " [2] This is the fundament claim of modern atheism. Yet if they assume it to be true than they cannot say that we can make our own meaning. For if the whole is meaningless than so are all of its parts. Nothing in a meaningless universe can be imbued with meaning. None of our moral faculties are found in the animal kingdom or the workings of nature itself. Nature is a violent struggle for survival with death coming in many shapes and sizes, predation, famine, plague etc. As my coherency argument showed, which Con completely ignored, on the basis of there own assumptions atheism cannot ground morality. We see from Lenin that the struggle of the materialist dialectic is not moral since matter is not moral. Morality and the moral law are not attributes of matter. Just as syntax and grammar or linguistics are not properties of matter. At what temperature does matter become moral? At what pressure level does matter have syntax? Moral concepts as well as laws of physics are ideas or information. Information is not and cannot be material. For example if we have a hard drive loaded with data and then erase that data does the hard drive after the operation contain any less mass than before? No. Thus the information is not material. Moral laws cannot be justified materially since matter lacks the very properties necessary to ascribe to information. Information cannot be tasted, touched, sniffed or heard. They are ineffable and hence immaterial. For example what is "oneness"? On what coordinate plan does the number 1 exist? Can I hold the number 1? "Oneness" and the number 1 do not exist materially in this universe. I have shown from incoherency that atheist cannot produce a foundation of morality consistent with their own world view. In conclusion Con has not shown: 1. That any of the arguments produced by my selection atheists are false. 2. Continues to miss use the definition of Appeal to Authority. 3. That my argument from logical incoherency is false. [1] . http://www.etymonline.com... [2] River Out of Eden pg 133