Is the Tide Turning on Religious Belief?

[Mister D]

Wow. Just wow. This is a true milestone in tPF history.

[Dr. Who]

I find this incredible. I can't understand why this took months for you to acknowledge. Right, if atheism is true, we exist in a meaningless, amoral universe. Nothing is true, nothing has meaning, nothing has value unless human beings decide it does. Yes, objective truths, moral facts and so on are inapplicable in an atheistic context. Why did you make such a fuss?

You just completely twisted the meaning of what I was saying. Have a good evening.

[Mister D]

You just completely twisted the meaning of what I was saying. Have a good evening.

Nothing has any inherent meaning or truth! You just $#@!ing said that! We, as human beings, give this existence meaning!

Round and round we go.

You make your own truth, principles and meaning out of an otherwise meaningless existence. Right? We are the source of truth. We are the source of meaning. Correct?

Therein lies the fundamental difference between theism and atheism, with the exception that atheists don't see their existence as meaningless, but yes, we are the source of our meaning. You appear to be using truth to connote a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality, which is of course inapplicable in an atheistic context.

Yes, I am using these terms to reference a reality that exists regardless of what we think about it. You aren't. Indeed, that is the difference between us.

[Dr. Who]

The problem ain't my assumptions given that you're just repeating what I said. The problem is you think you can define your way to an answer. Definitions are like analogy, good for clarification of the unknown by the known. Neither are arguments.

And you are oblivious to the point I was making, which really amounts to the fact that you've been treating atheism like it should have answers to theistic questions or alternatively asserting that not believing in god or gods equates to not believing in anything, therefor rendering nonbelievers incapable of finding true meaning in life.

Homo sapiens found meaning in their existence for the 196,000 years before the advent of monotheism and most for the entire 200,000 years, since monotheism isn't even the only type of religious belief around. At that, there are and have been billions of atheists living their lives and somehow finding meaning in their existence without benefit of belief in the supernatural.

With that I will bid you good night.

[Mister D]

And you are oblivious to the point I was making, which really amounts to the fact that you've been treating atheism like it should have answers to theistic questions or alternatively asserting that not believing in god or gods equates to not believing in anything, therefor rendering nonbelievers incapable of finding true meaning in life.

Homo sapiens found meaning in their existence for the 196,000 years before the advent of monotheism and most for the entire 200,000 years, since monotheism isn't even the only type of religious belief around. At that, there are and have been billions of atheists living their lives and somehow finding meaning in their existence without benefit of belief in the supernatural.

With that I will bid you good night.

No one asked you any "theistic" questions.
No one asserted that you believe nothing.
There is no "true" meaning. You admitted that. In your view, human beings make meaning.
It's not a matter of monotheism versus atheism.

[Chris]

I find this incredible. I can't understand why this took months for you to acknowledge. Right, if atheism is true, we exist in a meaningless, amoral universe. Nothing is true, nothing has meaning, nothing has value unless human beings decide it does. Yes, objective truths, moral facts and so on are inapplicable in an atheistic context. Why did you make such a fuss?

The postmodern critical theory philosophy.

[Chris]

I think there is a conceptual difference between the individual deriving his or her own meaning from life and the individual being the measure of all things. We interact with others, so we must have consensus on what is correct and true and one of the reasons that we have laws.

Nope. Mankind thought that "man is the measure of all things" centuries ago and it was shown wrong. Where's the progress? Again, seems like regress.

[Chris]

And you are oblivious to the point I was making, which really amounts to the fact that you've been treating atheism like it should have answers to theistic questions or alternatively asserting that not believing in god or gods equates to not believing in anything, therefor rendering nonbelievers incapable of finding true meaning in life.

Homo sapiens found meaning in their existence for the 196,000 years before the advent of monotheism and most for the entire 200,000 years, since monotheism isn't even the only type of religious belief around. At that, there are and have been billions of atheists living their lives and somehow finding meaning in their existence without benefit of belief in the supernatural.

With that I will bid you good night.

I posted what you repeated. How's that oblivious?

I have asked you atheists (non/anti-theists) to account for evil, not as atheists, for we all know that's an empty shell, a vacuum with nothing in it, and it offers no answer, but how you yourself account for evil. You're the one confused, and likely because you keep checking the dictionary and grammar for an answer.

Indeed mankind has found various answers in belief in a higher power. Enlightened man tossed that out with the baby water.

I haven't asked you for the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. That's 42. I challenged you to account for evil.

[Dr. Who]

I posted what you repeated. How's that oblivious?

I have asked you atheists (non/anti-theists) to account for evil, not as atheists, for we all know that's an empty shell, a vacuum with nothing in it, and it offers no answer, but how you yourself account for evil. You're the one confused, and likely because you keep checking the dictionary and grammar for an answer.

Indeed mankind has found various answers in belief in a higher power. Enlightened man tossed that out with the baby water.

I haven't asked you for the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. That's 42. I challenged you to account for evil.

You still don't understand that asking someone to account for evil is asking a theistic question. Evil (as in bad deeds, reprehensible behavior or moral depravity) is a function of the behavior of individuals. There is no accounting for the behavior of others other than by examining their individual lives and determining the reasons why they are the way they are and I've already given you that answer twice before. You don't accept it, yet if one doesn't believe in the supernatural, there can be no other response.

[Chris]

You still don't understand that asking someone to account for evil is asking a theistic question. Evil (as in bad deeds, reprehensible behavior or moral depravity) is a function of the behavior of individuals. There is no accounting for the behavior of others other than by examining their individual lives and determining the reasons why they are the way they are and I've already given you that answer twice before. You don't accept it, yet if one doesn't believe in the supernatural, there can be no other response.

Because evil exists. It's not a theistic phenomenon. So, no, I don't get your view. As I've already pointed out you're trying to define away any responsibility for accounting for evil. Definition is not an argument.