maybe morality is only partially objective

[shunyadragon]

Where is their future or hope after the last sun dies?

Not really relevant when it is billions of years away. I do not know many people other than you and possibly 'Chicken Little' who are seriously concerned about this. Oh yeah! The followers of the Pleadians believe a space ship will come and save them from such a horrendous teeth knashing fate.

Where is their future or hope when they die?

Atheists and agnostics, as well as thousands of years of Chinese have never had a problem with this. Their immortality is in their future generations. You should not project your unresolved fears and uncertainties on others who live, love and enjoy the world as it is unencumbered by such handicaps.

[seer]

Atheists and agnostics, as well as thousands of years of Chinese have never had a problem with this. Their immortality is in their future generations. You should not project your unresolved fears and uncertainties on others who live, love and enjoy the world as it is unencumbered by such handicaps.

But their immortality is not in their future generations - they are dead. And I'm not projecting anything Shuny - just stating a fact. The dead have no future or hope - if atheism is correct.

[shunyadragon]

But their immortality is not in their future generations - they are dead. And I'm not projecting anything Shuny - just stating a fact. The dead have no future or hope - if atheism is correct.

I am not referring to your insecurities and fears. I am referring how others view their immortality if they do not believe in an after life. It is useless to tell others what their beliefs mean.

[Angra Mainyu]

Is it possible that you are the one who is confused Angra? If you want to get into Craig - certainly he makes a distinction between epistemology and ontology when it comes to ethics. When it comes to epistemology the theist is on less firm ground, when it comes to ontology the atheist has no ground at all, and the theist has the high ground (for the obvious reasons I gave).

No, the theist who defends a metaethical argument is confused, for the reasons I explained.

But repeating the same points would be fruitless, so I'm going to leave it at that, at least for now.

What would be more useful would be for someone to post a thorough refutation of theistic metaethical claims, or better yet, an article named “If objective morality exists, then God does not exist”, and which would first refute the claims, then make a first-order metaethical argument, assuming objective morality.

But that probably would not attract enough attention unless it's written by a renowned atheist, and unfortunately I'm not sure of any of them who could do that, and I'm not sure of a more effective course of action.

I'll think about it, but for now, the explanations I've given in this thread should be enough.

[Hamster]

Not really relevant when it is billions of years away. I do not know many people other than you and possibly 'Chicken Little' who are seriously concerned about this. Oh yeah! The followers of the Pleadians believe a space ship will come and save them from such a horrendous teeth knashing fate.




Atheists and agnostics, as well as thousands of years of Chinese have never had a problem with this. Their immortality is in their future generations. You should not project your unresolved fears and uncertainties on others who live, love and enjoy the world as it is unencumbered by such handicaps.

Creationists have an explanation for stars. Their light was created in transit. Your argument will not work on them. Creationists have no problem with stars

[Angra Mainyu]

No, the theist who defends a metaethical argument is confused, for the reasons I explained.

But repeating the same points would be fruitless, so I'm going to leave it at that, at least for now.

What would be more useful would be for someone to post a thorough refutation of theistic metaethical claims, or better yet, an article named “If objective morality exists, then God does not exist”, and which would first refute the claims, then make a first-order metaethical argument, assuming objective morality.

But that probably would not attract enough attention unless it's written by a renowned atheist, and unfortunately I'm not sure of any of them who could do that, and I'm not sure of a more effective course of action.

I'll think about it, but for now, the explanations I've given in this thread should be enough.

Sorry I misspoke; I meant "first-order ethical argument".

[seer]

I am not referring to your insecurities and fears. I am referring how others view their immortality if they do not believe in an after life. It is useless to tell others what their beliefs mean.

Ok I can't question what they believe but you can turn around and tell me what I believe? The fact is Shuny, if there is no afterlife they are dead - they are not immortal. They do not live on. Done, dust, forever lost.

[shunyadragon]

Ok I can't question what they believe but you can turn around and tell me what I believe? The fact is Shuny, if there is no afterlife they are dead - they are not immortal. They do not live on. Done, dust, forever lost.

I am not talking about what you believe. I am referring to the meaning and purpose of life based on what one believes. You are making assumptions of others concerning what life means to them. I made no assumptions, nor did I attempt to tell you what you believe. Please read my posts and respond appropriately.

[shunyadragon]

Creationists have an explanation for stars. Their light was created in transit. Your argument will not work on them. Creationists have no problem with stars

The logical problems with fideism, existence created with the appearance of age and time are to overwhelming to even consider viable. This includes problems with time, laws of nature, and the evidence we have concerning the nature of the universe.

Our Creation may be miraculous, but it is unlikely that God is a trickster, leaving a natural universe complete with evidence of age, using miracle tricks to make it fit the Biblical account literally.

[seer]

I am not talking about what you believe. I am referring to the meaning and purpose of life based on what one believes. You are making assumptions of others concerning what life means to them. I made no assumptions, nor did I attempt to tell you what you believe. Please read my posts and respond appropriately.

Of course you attempted to tell me what I believe - you said I was projecting my own insecurities and fears. Which is false. Second, I don't care what they "believe" the FACT is, if there is no afterlife then they are NOT IMMORTAL. They are DEAD!

[shunyadragon]

Of course you attempted to tell me what I believe - you said I was projecting my own insecurities and fears. Which is false. Second, I don't care what they "believe" the FACT is, if there is no afterlife then they are NOT IMMORTAL. They are DEAD!

Projecting your own fears and insecurities is not telling you what you believe. You are assuming the motive for the fear that there is not an afterlife impresses or concerns atheists. It does not. They are not concerned about the existence of an afterlife as you are. Their purpose and meaning in life does not entail an afterlife.

Actually, even though I am a theist, my belief is not dependent on the concern for an afterlife either. It is a non-issue since there is no objective evidence as to the existence of such a journey.

[seer]

Projecting your own fears and insecurities is not telling you what you believe. You are assuming the motive for the fear that there is not an afterlife impresses or concerns atheists. It does not. They are not concerned about the existence of an afterlife as you are. Their purpose and meaning in life does not entail an afterlife.

Actually, even though I am a theist, my belief is not dependent on the concern for an afterlife either. It is a non-issue since there is no objective evidence as to the existence of such a journey.

Right, then the atheist has no future or hope - like I said. They only future he/she has is death.

[shunyadragon]

Right, then the atheist has no future or hope - like I said.

No, not like you said, this is only your perspective judging other peoples sense of meaning and purpose. Virtually ALL world views have hope, meaning, purpose and a future. You just will not acknowledge this, and claim only what you believe has meaning and purpose, which is terribly egocentric.

They only future he/she has is death.

People of differnt world views define their meaning and purpose in many different other ways than an after life.

[Hamster]

Shunya, the argument is there's no valid reason for 'hope,' just re-asserting that they have an emotional experience called 'hope' is not an rebuttal. No one is suggesting that atheists are depressed gray blobs

[psif]

Shunya, the argument is there's no valid reason for 'hope,' just re-asserting that they have an emotional experience called 'hope' is not an rebuttal. No one is suggesting that atheists are depressed gray blobs

I think you guys may be talking past each other.
Do those who deny there's an afterlife -- again some atheists are open to the survival of consciousness after death -- have hope that goes beyond this life? No. Do they have hope for this life? Yes.

I don't see what would be so horrible about life not continuing after death (except for those who die early or who have lived immoral lives or lives of great suffering). This life is as much a gift from God as the next. It's certainly a whole lot better to pass into a new existence at death, but I don't see why someone who doesn't believe that we do couldn't be content -- or even grateful if he were a theist -- with the good that is this life. The better does not make the good, bad.