Total Posts:235|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is there any real benefit to being an atheist

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

"In my opinion."

It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 1:10:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Depends on how what your conception of moral is. If moral is linked to well being well believers like ISIS are not more moral than say a western education secular humanism atheist liberal.


Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

God won't help you here much. Sure for unthinking people you can just use the line if there is no God then child rape isn't really wrong..................atheists blah blah blah.

But think about it..........

If child rape is wrong.........then it is wrong, adding God doesn't make it now wrong.

If child rape is not wrong.......then adding an invisible person who exists outside of time and space doesn't help. (eg God)

* Wrong here in objective moral sense


"In my opinion."


It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating

I am not too sure "inherent value" makes any sense (God or no God), on the surface it seems that for something to have value it needs a valuer (read person or at least intelligence) to value it, without such it just is.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 3:13:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

"In my opinion."


It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating

Define "benefit". Lol.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 3:41:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating*

* Ben afraid to talk about atheism and truth: http://www.debate.org...
* Ben afraid to investigate motivations for atheism: http://www.debate.org...
* Ben drops the ball about atheism and reality: http://www.debate.org...

What is it that's self-defeating again? Atheism, or theologically-motivated inquiry?
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 3:56:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is there any benefit in being atheist?

I can think of a couple:

- there's less pressure to act morally, and there's more room to misinterpret what's moral since there probably isn't an objective grounding for morality.

- especially among young people, you can fit in more because most young people nowadays live secular lives

But apart from these, I really cannot see what benefits there are to being an atheist.
Pascal's wager, on the other hand, would suggest that there is much more potential benefit to being a theist.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 4:01:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 3:56:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
Is there any benefit in being atheist?

I can think of a couple:

- there's less pressure to act morally, and there's more room to misinterpret what's moral since there probably isn't an objective grounding for morality.

- especially among young people, you can fit in more because most young people nowadays live secular lives

But apart from these, I really cannot see what benefits there are to being an atheist.
Pascal's wager, on the other hand, would suggest that there is much more potential benefit to being a theist.

Pascal's wager you can just invert and it becomes a useless argument, since the God you are thinking of is not the only possibility, a God which sends you to hell if and only if you believe in God would yield the opposite results with the exact same number of attributes. Thus Pascal's wager is a stalemate.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 4:09:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

"In my opinion."


It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating

On the other hand faithfulness and gratitude to the God who created everything has massive, eternal benefits, some now, most for the future.

And what is more it is true..

However it does make us responsible to God, Christ, and each other, as well as for each other.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 7:57:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 4:01:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:56:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
Is there any benefit in being atheist?

I can think of a couple:

- there's less pressure to act morally, and there's more room to misinterpret what's moral since there probably isn't an objective grounding for morality.

- especially among young people, you can fit in more because most young people nowadays live secular lives

But apart from these, I really cannot see what benefits there are to being an atheist.
Pascal's wager, on the other hand, would suggest that there is much more potential benefit to being a theist.

Pascal's wager you can just invert and it becomes a useless argument, since the God you are thinking of is not the only possibility, a God which sends you to hell if and only if you believe in God would yield the opposite results with the exact same number of attributes. Thus Pascal's wager is a stalemate.

It's incoherent that God would send you to hell for believing in him; since hell is supposed to be the place that is chosen by those who reject God and choose not to remain with him after death.

To reiterate, hell isn't a place where one is condemned by God, it is a free choice based on whether we choose to either accept or reject God.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:22:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 7:57:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 3/24/2015 4:01:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:56:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
Is there any benefit in being atheist?

I can think of a couple:

- there's less pressure to act morally, and there's more room to misinterpret what's moral since there probably isn't an objective grounding for morality.

- especially among young people, you can fit in more because most young people nowadays live secular lives

But apart from these, I really cannot see what benefits there are to being an atheist.
Pascal's wager, on the other hand, would suggest that there is much more potential benefit to being a theist.

Pascal's wager you can just invert and it becomes a useless argument, since the God you are thinking of is not the only possibility, a God which sends you to hell if and only if you believe in God would yield the opposite results with the exact same number of attributes. Thus Pascal's wager is a stalemate.

It's incoherent that God would send you to hell for believing in him; since hell is supposed to be the place that is chosen by those who reject God and choose not to remain with him after death.

To reiterate, hell isn't a place where one is condemned by God, it is a free choice based on whether we choose to either accept or reject God.

Not according to scripture.

According to scripture it

Hell / Hades / Sheol is nothing more than the grave we all go into when we die.

Not a place of torment, but a state of non-existence awaiting the resurrection.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:28:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ben is yet another theist who conflates one facet of belief with a person's entire system of thought. He makes these sweeping generalizations about atheists that have not grounding in fact and are nothing but poor attempts to demonstrate that his beliefs are better. It's as bad as a 1st grader saying "My Dad can beat up your Dad".
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:36:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Theists are more moral than Atheists.

Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

"In my opinion."


It just seems that Theism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that objective morality can be consistently deciphered and implemented in a manner which all theists can agree upon, it is irrelevant.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:37:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 8:28:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
Ben is yet another theist who conflates one facet of belief with a person's entire system of thought. He makes these sweeping generalizations about atheists that have not grounding in fact and are nothing but poor attempts to demonstrate that his beliefs are better. It's as bad as a 1st grader saying "My Dad can beat up your Dad".

I wouldn't go so far as to say tat Atheism has no grounding in fact, but the way of thinking that the education gives them biases them towards a false idea of what that evidence means.

Basically because he influences the education system, as he does everything else, he has had us taught to think his way.

I see the same evidence they do, and I see God's hand behind it all.

That is why I say that their problem is simply one of leaving God out of the equation.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:42:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 8:37:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/24/2015 8:28:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
Ben is yet another theist who conflates one facet of belief with a person's entire system of thought. He makes these sweeping generalizations about atheists that have not grounding in fact and are nothing but poor attempts to demonstrate that his beliefs are better. It's as bad as a 1st grader saying "My Dad can beat up your Dad".

I wouldn't go so far as to say tat Atheism has no grounding in fact, but the way of thinking that the education gives them biases them towards a false idea of what that evidence means.

Basically because he influences the education system, as he does everything else, he has had us taught to think his way.

I see the same evidence they do, and I see God's hand behind it all.

That is why I say that their problem is simply one of leaving God out of the equation.

Yes, that is why you are biased and others are not.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:50:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 8:42:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/24/2015 8:37:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/24/2015 8:28:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
Ben is yet another theist who conflates one facet of belief with a person's entire system of thought. He makes these sweeping generalizations about atheists that have not grounding in fact and are nothing but poor attempts to demonstrate that his beliefs are better. It's as bad as a 1st grader saying "My Dad can beat up your Dad".

I wouldn't go so far as to say tat Atheism has no grounding in fact, but the way of thinking that the education gives them biases them towards a false idea of what that evidence means.

Basically because he influences the education system, as he does everything else, he has had us taught to think his way.

I see the same evidence they do, and I see God's hand behind it all.

That is why I say that their problem is simply one of leaving God out of the equation.

Yes, that is why you are biased and others are not.

I choose not to respond to MCB or BoG. Their responses are predictable and they live in towers of Invincible Denial so even attempting to discuss thing with them are useless.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:52:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

"In my opinion."


It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating: :

There's no benefit to being an atheist or a theist. All flesh will perish during this first age.

Ecclesiastes 3
17: I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for he has appointed a time for every matter, and for every work.
18: I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men that God is testing them to show them that they are but beasts.
19: For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity.
20: All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:56:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
When I was a 'born again' Christian as a young person, it was not a pleasant experience. Being a non believer in much more pleasant.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 9:05:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 1:10:55 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Depends on how what your conception of moral is. If moral is linked to well being well believers like ISIS are not more moral than say a western education secular humanism atheist liberal.

Depends. You'd need to weigh the pleasure of the torturers against the pain of the tortured.


Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

God won't help you here much. Sure for unthinking people you can just use the line if there is no God then child rape isn't really wrong..................atheists blah blah blah.

But think about it..........

If child rape is wrong.........then it is wrong, adding God doesn't make it now wrong.

If child rape is not wrong.......then adding an invisible person who exists outside of time and space doesn't help. (eg God)

* Wrong here in objective moral sense

When we say that something is "morally wrong" we're talking about the (1) disposition or (2) will of a mind. So some "morally wrong" thing doesn't exist apart from the mind. If God is the source of objective morality, whatever we ought to do is in accordance with God's disposition and will. It wouldn't make sense without God.


"In my opinion."


It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating

I am not too sure "inherent value" makes any sense (God or no God), on the surface it seems that for something to have value it needs a valuer (read person or at least intelligence) to value it, without such it just is.

What criteria do we use to value human beings?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 9:09:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 3:13:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

"In my opinion."


It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating

Define "benefit". Lol.

Any progress of mankind
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 9:11:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 3:41:50 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating*

* Ben afraid to talk about atheism and truth: http://www.debate.org...
* Ben afraid to investigate motivations for atheism: http://www.debate.org...
* Ben drops the ball about atheism and reality: http://www.debate.org...

What is it that's self-defeating again? Atheism, or theologically-motivated inquiry?

How does that make me afraid? I'm an outspoken critic of atheism but only because it has no real benefits to speak of. The irony in your question is that you're implicitly supposing "truth" has some definitive value.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 9:23:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 3:56:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
Is there any benefit in being atheist?

I can think of a couple:

- there's less pressure to act morally, and there's more room to misinterpret what's moral since there probably isn't an objective grounding for morality.

- especially among young people, you can fit in more because most young people nowadays live secular lives

But apart from these, I really cannot see what benefits there are to being an atheist.
Pascal's wager, on the other hand, would suggest that there is much more potential benefit to being a theist.

I understand what you're saying and that's true, but since "real" or objective benefit doesn't exist in an atheistic worldview (because we all exist for no reason) then any proclaimed morally superior, idealistic, or preferred way of going about things by being an atheist falls apart by becoming subjective and arbitrary.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 9:30:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 8:28:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
Ben is yet another theist who conflates one facet of belief with a person's entire system of thought. He makes these sweeping generalizations about atheists that have not grounding in fact and are nothing but poor attempts to demonstrate that his beliefs are better. It's as bad as a 1st grader saying "My Dad can beat up your Dad".

They aren't generalizarions.

Atheism necessarily entails that mankind exists for no reason at all. True or false?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 9:34:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 7:57:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 3/24/2015 4:01:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:56:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
Is there any benefit in being atheist?

I can think of a couple:

- there's less pressure to act morally, and there's more room to misinterpret what's moral since there probably isn't an objective grounding for morality.

- especially among young people, you can fit in more because most young people nowadays live secular lives

But apart from these, I really cannot see what benefits there are to being an atheist.
Pascal's wager, on the other hand, would suggest that there is much more potential benefit to being a theist.

Pascal's wager you can just invert and it becomes a useless argument, since the God you are thinking of is not the only possibility, a God which sends you to hell if and only if you believe in God would yield the opposite results with the exact same number of attributes. Thus Pascal's wager is a stalemate.

It's incoherent that God would send you to hell for believing in him; since hell is supposed to be the place that is chosen by those who reject God and choose not to remain with him after death.

You are stuck in your specific version of God, I am flipping God here. You do realise your God is but one of many possible Gods, right. And hence any pascal's wager argument needs to account for these putative Gods.

To reiterate, hell isn't a place where one is condemned by God, it is a free choice based on whether we choose to either accept or reject God.

Irrelevant to flipping pascal's wager.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 9:35:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 9:09:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:13:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

"In my opinion."


It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating

Define "benefit". Lol.

Any progress of mankind

Define "progress of mankind". Lol.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 9:51:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 9:11:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm an outspoken critic of atheism but only because it has no real benefits to speak of.

And yet, you have only created fallacies and falsehoods with your alleged criticisms. Nothing you've said has much at all to do with atheism. It would appear you really don't even understand it.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 9:57:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 9:35:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 9:09:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:13:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

"In my opinion."


It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating

Define "benefit". Lol.

Any progress of mankind

Define "progress of mankind". Lol.

forward or onward movement toward a destination for human beings considered collectively.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 10:00:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 9:51:50 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/24/2015 9:11:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm an outspoken critic of atheism but only because it has no real benefits to speak of.

And yet, you have only created fallacies and falsehoods with your alleged criticisms. Nothing you've said has much at all to do with atheism. It would appear you really don't even understand it.

Bare assertion (1) "only created fallacies and falsehoods"

Bare assertion (2) "nothing you've said has much at all to do with atheism"

Bare assertion (3)" it appears you really don't even understand it"
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 10:06:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 9:57:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/24/2015 9:35:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 9:09:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:13:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

"In my opinion."


It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating

Define "benefit". Lol.

Any progress of mankind

Define "progress of mankind". Lol.

forward or onward movement toward a destination for human beings considered collectively.

Then no, atheism is not beneficial, since atheism doesn't entail physical movement. It doesn't hinder it either.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 10:13:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 10:06:38 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 9:57:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/24/2015 9:35:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 9:09:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:13:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

"In my opinion."


It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating

Define "benefit". Lol.

Any progress of mankind

Define "progress of mankind". Lol.

forward or onward movement toward a destination for human beings considered collectively.

Then no, atheism is not beneficial, since atheism doesn't entail physical movement. It doesn't hinder it either.

Lol movement defined as "a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 10:20:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 10:13:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/24/2015 10:06:38 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 9:57:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/24/2015 9:35:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 9:09:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:13:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:28:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism is true.

Does "truth" have objective or arbitrary value?

Arbitrary value.

.....

Atheists are more moral than believers in God.

Subjectively or objectively?

Subjectively.

....

"Raping an infant is, and always will be wrong"

Subjectively or objectively?

"In my opinion."


It just seems that atheism has no real benefits to speak of. If you can't proceed with assumption that anything has inherent value then atheism, as a belief, is self-defeating

Define "benefit". Lol.

Any progress of mankind

Define "progress of mankind". Lol.

forward or onward movement toward a destination for human beings considered collectively.

Then no, atheism is not beneficial, since atheism doesn't entail physical movement. It doesn't hinder it either.

Lol movement defined as "a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas."

http://atheists.org...

They seem to have a shared political/social/artistic idea, which they seek to advance, and them being atheists indeed helps advance that idea...

Do I win?