Sunday, 7 May 2017

Spam...Spam

qash maz to Bill Johnson… this Comment by qash maz was removed by Google as spam
On the issue of atheists and morality
Lol, it seems you haven't understood my point. If you are claiming to be an atheist by definition then you do not really have an adequate worldview to begin with anyway. By definition, a worldview is your view of everything inside (and possibly outside) the universe: truth, religion, beauty, war, morality etc.
You, as an atheist will claim that there is no definitive worldview, but you all share the same fundamental beliefs as core to your personal world views. You state that atheism is simply a disbelief in the existence of a god, but there really is more to it than just that. Every expression of atheism necessitates at least three additional affirmations:

1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).
2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.
3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.

Denial of any one of those three affirmations will strike a mortal blow to atheistic belief. Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is meaningless. A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for because he doesn't confirm to the national religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained but never given any meaning or value.
If you were a good atheist, you would be a consistent atheist and recognise this dilemma. You only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling you “good” in the moral sense is nonsensical. You cannot be a morally good atheist, because there really is no objective morality. At best, morality is the mass delusion shared by humanity, protecting us from the cold sting of despair.
Before you start screaming straw man, consider the following:

“Modern science directly implies that there ... is no ultimate meaning for humans.”
—William Provine

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. ... DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
—Richard Dawkins

“No species, ours included, possesses a purpose beyond the imperatives created by its genetic history.”
—Edward O. Wilson

Based on the non-negotiable premises of atheism, these are the only logical conclusions. But no atheist can live this way. All the atheists live as if there is objective meaning and morality. How is this explained? In a Hail Mary like attempt to reconcile the inescapability of objective morality and your assurances of atheism, two possible answers are launched.

1. Morality is the result of socio-biological evolution. This is a two-pronged attempt at justifying moral claims. First, a sense of morality evolved to ensure human survival. Much like an eye or tooth, it is necessary for the human race to continue. If this were true, for any claim to be moral, it would have to serve the practical purpose of advancing the human race. So compassion for the dying would be immoral, and killing mentally handicapped children would be moral. Perhaps the most moral action would be men raping many women and forcing them to birth more children.
Morality, in this view, can only mean those actions that are helpful to make more fit humans. It does nothing to help us grapple with the truth that it’s always wrong to torture diseased children or rape women.
Second, morality was developed to ensure the success of societies, which are necessary for human survival and thriving. Like the rules of a board game, morality is contrived to bring us together for productivity and happiness. If this were true, there is nothing to which we can appeal when we find the behavior of other societies repugnant and reprehensible. Because morality is the construct of a social group, it cannot extend further than a society’s borders or endure longer than a society’s existence.
Furthermore, within our own society, the most immoral are not merely the ones who transgress our code but the ones who intend to change it. This would make those fighting for marriage equality the most immoral — that is, until they become the majority and institute change. I suppose they then become moral, and traditionalists become immoral. But it’s the math that determines rightness or wrongness of a side, not the content of any belief or argument.
So this view of morality does nothing to provide a reasonable answer for why it would be objectively wrong to torture diseased children, rape women or kill those who don’t affirm a national religion. It only provides a motivation for continuing the delusion of objective morality.

2. Morality is logical. Atheists who take this route start in a position of checkmate without realizing it. First, the temptation is to pervert this conversation into a debate about whether atheists can be moral. Of course they can. That is not the question. The question is how we make sense of moral claims if we play by the rules that atheism demands.

Morality may be logical, but logic does not equate to morality. The only way to make a logical moral argument is to presuppose morality and meaning to start with. Try making a logical argument that slavery is wrong without presupposing morality. It is impossible. A woman’s claim was that slavery is logically wrong because it diminishes other human beings. The problem is that that argument presupposes human dignity. In the strict framework of atheism outlined above, what reason is there to ever assume human dignity?
All logical arguments for morality assume that human thriving, happiness and dignity are superior to contrary views. The strict framework of atheism does not allow for those starting points. So any person arguing for 1 or 2 would not be a good atheist. That is, he lives in contradiction to the mandates of his worldview.
The conclusion is that intelligent people ask serious questions. Serious questions deserve serious answers. There are few questions more serious than the one I’m asking. How do we explain objective meaning and morality that we know are true? If a worldview can’t answer this question, it doesn’t deserve anyones attention.
One sign that your worldview may be a crutch is that it has to appeal to an answer outside itself — becoming self-contradictory, unable to reasonably account for the question. Any atheist who recognises objective meaning and morality defies the atheism that he contends is true.
If your worldview can’t makes sense of the things that make most sense to you (like objective morality), then it’s not worth even looking at.

Bill Johnson to qash maz
This reply is reference to the above comment qash maz made his comment was considered spam by Google and removed
There was another comment of your’s qash maz that seems to have disappeared, it was rather long for a comment practically an essay, maybe you copied and pasted the content from another source...anyway it’s gone now so I am unable to respond to you directly.