Note: My words/replies (apetivist) will be in purple and his/her (Meta Christianity) words will be in red. Later my commentary will appear below the purple text and red text and will appear in white text.
-----------------Are you trying to say that atheist don't have any convictions or morality? If anyone does anything that reduces or harms the well being of another person then it is technically evil. It doesn't matter the religious or non-religious beliefs of who does the evil.— Apetivist (@apetivist) September 29, 2018
--------------------....technically evil....— MetaChristianity (@M_Christianity) September 29, 2018
Try being honest. Like intellectually un-afraid Non-Theists:
What does any of that have to do with my questions?
My Commentary: I am correct in asking this question. As he did not state what was wrong with my question or added commentary but all he did was refer to two links.
Only addressing your claim of “...technically evil...”
More and more Non-Theists such as Carroll, Hume, Ruse, and Rosenberg give arguments to the contrary.
Again- he/she doesn't state any specifics but loosely points authorities saying something to the contrary. I really appreciate the vagueness of his/her replies. He/she is real busy sounding like he/she knows what he is talking about without pointing out specifically anything at all.
You have to give me examples and provide the context. Citing where they said these things would also be quite helpful.
I am asking for him/her to do more than provide what he/she has and in particular show specifically what he/she is trying to say in response to my questions and statements and in particular the context of these responses by said authorities.
No I don’t. They’ve robust and honest arguments and of late the younger, braver Non-Theists are eager to deconstruct, to get to the bottom line. Silliness like Harris’ “I choose but I do not choose what I choose” quickly shines and twice as quickly fades. Why? Well for reasons.👍
I am not surprised that he/she will not provide what I am asking for. Then he/she goes off into a diatribe about Sam Harris in an attempt to further distract from my requests.
So you won't cite where these claims are made? Telling.
Need I say much more? If he/she really had the goods he/she would happily provide it.
1. The quotes were given earlier ➡️
2. I’m satisfied if you’d like to claim that they’re not actual quotes.
Do you have the source from where these quotes are derived?
The last one was linked.
The first 4 weren’t.
You’re still avoiding the actual topic. Perhaps they’re all fake quotes, yes?
Give me all the links to all the sources of the quotes.
guess he won't so I've done research on my own and have come across some level of quote mining and also some appeals to authority. I will address all of this with proper address of the quotes, context, and other implications regarding morality. When complete I will post it to my blog and provide a link in this tweet thread as well as a new tweet. This is all an example of Brandolini’s Law – “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” Alberto Brandolini @ziobrando
Present premises and arguments with respect to Knowledge, Mind, Reason, Perception, and Being as such relates to:
1. the Christian Metaphysic and
2. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html … and
3. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/08/five-proofs-is-out.html …
—Then debunk them....
I’ve clearly stated my goal of demonstrating that critics either avoid Christian premises or dive in and tweak until a Christian X becomes a Non-Christian X, and when called on it they level F-bombs & insults.
If you ever present one of these debunk-ing-Thingamajiggers........
Note that all of this is MetaChristianity's attempt to flood me with research over non-specific material in an attempt to not specifically respond to my questions, statements, and also by appealing to authority he feels no need to actually articulate his points. He fails to do anything but obfuscate. I will breakdown the following so to show that MetaChristianity is misrepresenting the quotes, taking them out of context or not even being interested in the context, and making appeal to authority that doesn't even address the questions or statements that I have made.
Once again, MetaChristianity is isolating a quote free from its context and surrounding words. MetaChristianity so wants to paint atheists as moral nihilists or immoral people incapable of making sound and ethical judgments. He really seems committed to grinding a non-existent axe. Feel free to read Michael Ruse's full article in The Guardian entitled God Is Dead. Long Live Morality. Ruse speaks of the reasons why morality is a natural part of our social interaction and that it is independent of a person's belief in a god. Ruse also refers to Hume in the article saying- "Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense. But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral. It has been said that the truth will set you free. Don't believe it. David Hume knew the score. It doesn't matter how much philosophical reflection can show that your beliefs and behaviour have no rational foundation, your psychology will make sure you go on living in a normal, happy manner."
The remaining two links seem useless. One opens up to a strange defense of Christianity (see for yourself) and the other is a copy/paste of these same 5 points.
However, I looked into Alex Rosenburg's position on scientism and nihilism and deferring to an expert in the field that does a far better job than I, Jeffrey Jay Lowder, explains what is wrong and/or weak about Rosenburg's argument. See link: Rosenberg's 2012 Argument for Nihilism Lowder points out that Rosenberg makes several statements that aren't true particularly toward what other atheists believe.
I think MetaChristianity should re-exam his/her "war" against atheism or atheists. Why must we be painted as some immoral "other"? I suspect it because he/she has bought into the idea that without his deity belief one can't be moral. This goes against almost everything we know about morality, psychology, science, and history. If this is not his/her grind against atheist/atheists then what would cause him to post such things?
- I think this is about as exhaustive I will be regarding these quotes. If you have anything to add feel free to do so in the comments below.
The End? 😑