Why atheism cannot be correct

[Rye]

Because if they are not the same kind of thing, we have to ask: what is the source of our belief that mass murder is wrong? It seems to me that there are only four possibilities:

1) There is no source. It’s just there, somehow. (To paraphrase Ayn Rand’s way of dismissing this kind of thinking.)

2) It has a source which is impersonal, such as the source of the Grand Canyon

3) It has a personal source, namely man: for example, we recognize that it is beneficial to refrain from murder.

4) It has a transcendental Personal Source, Who is the ultimate moral authority. That is, the Authority introduces us to morality, and enforces it.

1) is clearly inadequate; being analogous to the atheist’s claim that the big bang had no cause, it just happened.

2) is an improvement, but it fails to recognize that moral principles are clearly intended for personal beings who have the capability of choosing their behavior. And how can the impersonal have authority over the personal? If scrabble tiles are tossed on the ground randomly and they happen to spell out “don’t go”, am I obligated to not go? Obviously not!

At this point, we may be looking at an issue that cannot be explained further, but can only be grasped by intuition: personal beings can only be guided by precepts originating from another personal being. Of course, to the atheist there is no clear-cut difference between personal and impersonal: a man is just a more complicated version of a bacterium, and a bacterium is just a more complicated version of a bucket of chemicals, and thus he fails to recognize the truth of my assertion.

3) is even better, but it presupposes that the standard for determining what is “beneficial” for society has been clearly established. Hitler says that eliminating Jews is beneficial, and Auster disagrees. But if there is no Higher Authority to resolve the dispute, then it is just a matter of who is physically stronger. This may seem distasteful: Mass murder just seems wrong, and apparently that’s all there is to it. But saying “that’s all there is to it” is really a reversion to (non) explanation 1) above.

4) is even better, but it presupposes that the standard for determining what is “accurate to the God's wishes" has been clearly established. God says that eliminating Midianites, including defenceless children is beneficial, and a moral person disagrees. If there is a Higher Authority to resolve the dispute, then it is just a matter of who is physically stronger. This may seem distasteful: Mass murder just seems wrong, and apparently that’s all there is to it. But saying “that’s all there is to it” is really a reversion to (non) explanation 1) above.

Fixed.

[Crown]

...just defies any logic whatsoever. How the hell did mathematics become expunged from the scientific method? And "knowledge that our senses are basically reliable" is perfectly well with empricism, which is also one of the tenets of scientific exploration. Solipsism (the notion that our senses are lying to us all the time) isn't scientific.

Because math has 'imaginary' numbers don't you know?

[salm]

What a load of fucking bullshit.

[Frank Hipper]

The essay starts with the sentence "Liberalism must be opposed ..." At that point, I stopped reading.

I got a full paragraph into it before I couldn't take it anymore.

Strawman simply isn't damning enough for baldfaced lies that ballsy...makes me want to stoop to his level.

The philosophical foundation of modern Theocratic American Conservatism is National Socialism, because National Socialism makes state institutions like the Church supreme, and the final arbiter in all absolutes like "fact" and "fiction".