Apologists wasting their talent

[_Coggins7]

See my PM to you and my reposting of my extensive arguments elucidating and defending exactly what you are asking for, and this stuff was posted hours and hours ago.

[_Runtu]

See my PM to you and my reposting of my extensive arguments elucidating and defending exactly what you are asking for, and this stuff was posted hours and hours ago.

It's a simple syllogism. Why are you so unwilling to provide it?

[_Coggins7]

This is one syllogism that stands at the heart of his argument, though it may not be the one you see:


In a randomly generated universe, all values are meaningless.

Dawkin's holds value judgments about Wise (choice of vocation and religious beliefs)

Therefore, Dawkin's value judgments regarding Wise are meaningless.

[_gramps]

Yah, id have to observe that there is a great deal of inability to perform proper citations, whether they be of professionals or douchebags.

Put down the joint, close the centerfold, and turn off the old Nirvana records. You might actually be able to contribute something to this forum someday if you can just control all the distractions...

Hey Coggins, if you don't want people talking about your use of the bottle, then why such a juvenile response as the above?

I believe, Mercury has made it plain and clear he doesn't smoke now (if ever), so why keep making such insinuations?

Now, gramps, on the other hand does smoke, so your "put down the joint" schtick at least would be directed to the right person.

So, I guess it is O.K. for us to tell you to "put down the bottle" at the beginning of each response to you, right?

[_Coggins7]

You need to follow Mercury out of the deep end of the pool.

[_gramps]

You need to follow Mercury out of the deep end of the pool.

And join the kiddie pool, with you?

[_Coggins7]

Blow off...

[_gramps]

Blow off...

Rough day today, huh?

[_guy sajer]

I disagree fundamentally with you and Stalin. I don't believe in God, yet I find tremendous meaning, moral and otherwise, in the death and suffering of others.

That's nice, but in Dawkin's world, Stalin disagrees with you, and there is no frame of moral reference by which you can determine which value system is to be granted greater legitimacy. Your perception of meaning in the death and suffering of others is utterly subjective and illusory. Its yours and yours alone, and stands over against say, a Nazi moral system that has just as much claim to legitimacy, in a meaningless, accidental, randomly generated universe, as does yours.

Capability for abstract moral thought and feeling is what makes us human and what, IMHO, differentiates us from animals. This innate capacity, and tendency, for investing actions, beliefs, etc., with moral significance is easily explained within an evolutionary framework; one that does not rely at all on any notion of God.

And if you can explain this purely within an evolutionary framework (a circular, ex post facto procdure that has nothing to do with empirical science per se, but not to divert the subject...), then fine, but if you do, the statement "I find tremendous meaning, moral and otherwise, in the death and suffering of others" has no moral meaning beyond your subjective belief that it does.

This is nihilism, and this is what evolutionary theory implies if it is conceived of as any more than a mechanical explanation for the development of organic life. If evolutionary theory is conceived of as a total and encompassing explanation of not only how, but why and that there is existence, then morality, as free will, is an illusion, and our beliefs in these abstractions the fantasies of complex brains who conceive of them and believe in them only because they can and they are useful psychologically in negotiating a harsh world. But nothing in such a world can ever be right, wrong, or moral in and of itself outside of and extracted from the subjective and relative human belief that it is or isn't so.

DNA can be passed on quite effectively by earthworms; it does not take civilization or systems of moral philosophy.

I'd attempt a rebuttal of this, but I think that it's nonsensicalness pretty much stands on its own.

Suffice to say that as I construe morality in my atheistic mind, I see human empathy as its basis. Empathy is a human trait that is made possible by the capacity for abstract moral thought.

I'm comfortable that a system of morality based on empathy carries greater legitimacy, on its face, than that of, say, Nazism.

[_Runtu]

This is one syllogism that stands at the heart of his argument, though it may not be the one you see:


In a randomly generated universe, all values are meaningless.

Dawkin's holds value judgments about Wise (choice of vocation and religious beliefs)

Therefore, Dawkin's value judgments regarding Wise are meaningless.

Thank you. How long did it take you to articulate such a simple argument? I wasn't insulting your intelligence but I'm tired of your cut-and-paste tactics and fairly routine refusal to defend what you cut and paste other than simply repeating the argument.

Now it's up to you to defend each part of the syllogism.

Why is it that "in a randomly generated universe, all values are meaningless"?

Which value judgments does Dawkins hold and why?

And the kicker is Dude's question: in what way are Dawkins' statements contradictory?