Can Atheists be Moral?

[badger2]

'However, as we might expect, most Christian theologians who are attracted to Deleuze are also strongly attracted to the iconoclastic lines of flight already present within Christianity. That is, they are more willing to allow logical reflection, egalitarian concern, or intense contemplative experience to challenge traditional formulations and ecclesial practices. They tend to be on the cutting edges of the deterritorialization of their religious coalitions. Nevertheless, insofar as such efforts at liberation also include appeals to divine revelation and ritual engagement with Christ as the ideal representative of God, whose moral judgements and promises are the basis for holding together religious Groups, they are held back by the forces of the sacerdotal trajectory. This weakens the plausibility of their hypotheses by (partially) immunizing them from the critique of those who do not share their imaginative engagement with this supernatural Agent. This strategy functioned relatively well from the axial age to the early modern period, but it is rapidly losing its vitality (and proving itself detrimental) in our current globally interconnected, ecologically stressed environment.'
(Shults, op cit, p. 194)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I disagree, physiology is an example where the metaphysical created a physical substance to support an individual spirit that when removed its physiology disappears and is a substance not native to planet Earth but to the universe.

And yet nobody needs any of that to explain anything, you have no good evidence, and it yields no useful predictions whatsoever. It has met the standard for an idea to be discarded as wistful nonsense.

 

[badger2]

The first amino acids of life that were formed at the mouth of an earthly volcano disputes a universal substance, unless samples from Martian volcanoes reiterate the same mechanism.

 

[BreezeWood]

The first amino acids of life that were formed at the mouth of an earthly volcano disputes a universal substance, unless samples from Martian volcanoes reiterate the same mechanism.

.
disputes a universal substance ...

it is a substance of the universe not of planet earth, physiology and is a metaphysical occurrence that does not occur without it being as a life form.

your statement fails in that it has occurred on Earth as proof not only of a physical presence but the ability of the metaphysical to manifest itself when the (inorganic) conditions are conducive.

And yet nobody needs any of that to explain anything, you have no good evidence, and it yields no useful predictions whatsoever. It has met the standard for an idea to be discarded as wistful nonsense.

you have no good evidence ...

your entire statement is false - there is no physiology on Earth that is not living and when the metaphysical life is removed the physiology disappears is the proof of the metaphysical and those properties that make it possible and the physical form it has created.

and therefore the precepts of morals for life's emergence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

when the metaphysical life is removed the physiology disappears is the proof of the metaphysical

Oh really? Show me 5 examples, then. Show me when and how the metaphysical was removed, and how this is not explained by other means that don't require your metaphysical nonsense. Please be specific with all 5 examples.

Then we can examine this "good evidence" you claim to have. Or, we can all have a good laugh at your expense.

 

[cnm]

disputes a universal substance ...

it is a substance of the universe not of planet earth, physiology and is a metaphysical occurrence that does not occur without it being as a life form.

your statement fails in that it has occurred on Earth as proof not only of a physical presence but the ability of the metaphysical to manifest itself when the (inorganic) conditions are conducive.

Anyone?

 

[cnm]

your entire statement is false - there is no physiology on Earth that is not living and when the metaphysical life is removed the physiology disappears is the proof of the metaphysical and those properties that make it possible and the physical form it has created.

Isn't that merely an exercise in tautology?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Isn't that merely an exercise in tautology?

That's precisely what his nonsense is. It's an ever expanding tautology that can be slopped onto any hard earned knowledge, after the fact. It explains nothing, yields no useful predictions, comes without a shred of evidence, and could never be falsified or confirmed. It's a useless, steaming pile.

 

[ding]

Isn't that merely an exercise in tautology?

That's precisely what his nonsense is. It's an ever expanding tautology that can be slopped onto any hard earned knowledge, after the fact. It explains nothing, yields no useful predictions, comes without a shred of evidence, and could never be falsified or confirmed. It's a useless, steaming pile.

Angry much?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Isn't that merely an exercise in tautology?

That's precisely what his nonsense is. It's an ever expanding tautology that can be slopped onto any hard earned knowledge, after the fact. It explains nothing, yields no useful predictions, comes without a shred of evidence, and could never be falsified or confirmed. It's a useless, steaming pile.

Angry much?

No...why? What do you think I am? Yahweh? It's not as if I am going to to rub out some kids just because I got my feelings hurt.

 

[ding]

Isn't that merely an exercise in tautology?

That's precisely what his nonsense is. It's an ever expanding tautology that can be slopped onto any hard earned knowledge, after the fact. It explains nothing, yields no useful predictions, comes without a shred of evidence, and could never be falsified or confirmed. It's a useless, steaming pile.

Angry much?

No...why? What do you think I am? Yahweh? It's not as if I am going to to rub out some kids just because I got my feelings hurt.

Because religion pisses you off. It’s obvious. Or maybe it’s people who have religion that pisses you off.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because religion pisses you off.

And atheism pisses you off. That's why you throw nightly fits and lie and deceive and plagiarize specious reasoning from idiot bloggers...

 

[ding]

Because religion pisses you off.

And atheism pisses you off. That's why you throw nightly fits and lie and deceive and plagiarize specious reasoning from idiot bloggers...

Not at all. I oppose militant atheism. It doesn’t piss me off.

 

[ding]

Because religion pisses you off.

And atheism pisses you off. That's why you throw nightly fits and lie and deceive and plagiarize specious reasoning from idiot bloggers...

I have not thrown any fits or plagiarized anything. The reality is there is no one you can quote that you wouldn’t be ashamed of quoting. I don’t have that problem.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not at all.

Well, you're a liar then.

I oppose militant atheism.

Yes, another charlatans term. This, of course, means any atheist who dares to speak against people trying to claim the truth of , for instance, your hilariously stupid iron age fairy tale. It's just your way of trying to rig the game for yourself. When it's people who favor your particular brand of magical voodoo, you call them "proselytizers". Because you are such a sensitive little sissy that you have to even baby yourself with special terms.

 

[ding]

Because religion pisses you off.

And atheism pisses you off. That's why you throw nightly fits and lie and deceive and plagiarize specious reasoning from idiot bloggers...

Why do the beliefs of others piss you off?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because religion pisses you off.

And atheism pisses you off. That's why you throw nightly fits and lie and deceive and plagiarize specious reasoning from idiot bloggers...

Why do the beliefs of others piss you off?

Why do they piss you off?

 

[ding]

Not at all.

Well, you're a liar then.

I oppose militant atheism.

Yes, another charlatans term. This, of course, means any atheist who dares to speak against people trying to claim the truth of , for instance, your hilariously stupid iron age fairy tale. It's just your way of trying to rig the game for yourself. When it's people who favor your particular brand of magical voodoo, you call them "proselytizers". Because you are such a sensitive little sissy that you have to even baby yourself with special terms.

No. I am not lying.

A militant atheist is someone who behaves a certain way and meets certain requirements.

1. They condemn respect for people of faith.

2. They attempt to subordinate religion.

 

[ding]

Because religion pisses you off.

And atheism pisses you off. That's why you throw nightly fits and lie and deceive and plagiarize specious reasoning from idiot bloggers...

Why do the beliefs of others piss you off?

Why do they piss you off?

They don’t.

But when I asked you why people who have religion piss you off rather than deny it you responded that atheists piss me off.

So why do people who have religion piss you off? It’s quite obvious that they do.

 

[ding]

Isn't that merely an exercise in tautology?

That's precisely what his nonsense is. It's an ever expanding tautology that can be slopped onto any hard earned knowledge, after the fact. It explains nothing, yields no useful predictions, comes without a shred of evidence, and could never be falsified or confirmed. It's a useless, steaming pile.

Angry much?

No...why? What do you think I am? Yahweh? It's not as if I am going to to rub out some kids just because I got my feelings hurt.

If you allow your anger to keep building up you very well may do something you will regret.