clumsystuntmonkey
New member
I have two thoughts to share with you and I am curious what you think.
I only ask that you withhold any demeaning comments that will reflect your own insecurities (according to some psychologists, thats why we use insults). I dont wish to upset you, so please show me the same respect. It seems that even the simplest question for an atheist on R&S provokes a multitude of insults and rants that do not merit my attention. Any of that will be reported.
I respectfully continue...
Consider,
1).
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision (I know many claim it wasnt an accident...however, starting from absolutely nothing, and having an unfathomable amount of matter in the universe is indeed recognized as having no purpose and being the result of chance by Scientists), then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident (organic life from a rock...another recognized "chance" by scientists), and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too (random selection, a product of chance). If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made, what its exact shape was, and why it was upset.
Second thought,
2).
If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter (as discussed above). If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty random sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
Where is your ultimate authority to say what is right and what is wrong? What right do we have to tell those that do anything "immoral" that it is indeed immoral? What if the very act they are doing is moral to THEM? Shouldnt we then let them be, since it is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain?
Or is there something more?
Respectfully...
Clumsystuntmonkey.
I only ask that you withhold any demeaning comments that will reflect your own insecurities (according to some psychologists, thats why we use insults). I dont wish to upset you, so please show me the same respect. It seems that even the simplest question for an atheist on R&S provokes a multitude of insults and rants that do not merit my attention. Any of that will be reported.
I respectfully continue...
Consider,
1).
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision (I know many claim it wasnt an accident...however, starting from absolutely nothing, and having an unfathomable amount of matter in the universe is indeed recognized as having no purpose and being the result of chance by Scientists), then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident (organic life from a rock...another recognized "chance" by scientists), and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too (random selection, a product of chance). If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made, what its exact shape was, and why it was upset.
Second thought,
2).
If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter (as discussed above). If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty random sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
Where is your ultimate authority to say what is right and what is wrong? What right do we have to tell those that do anything "immoral" that it is indeed immoral? What if the very act they are doing is moral to THEM? Shouldnt we then let them be, since it is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain?
Or is there something more?
Respectfully...
Clumsystuntmonkey.