I never admitted to any fallacies in my reasoning. You are putting words in my mouth. I have reasons for you to believe. But you will not be motivated to listen without some good old-fashioned fear of God.
I didn't claim you did, I said you don't care even if someone pointed them out, you're all about seeming convincing rather than being intellectually honest. And fear of an imaginary entity is superstition and nonsense, unlike a fear of something real, like that I will die
Moral high ground? Is the global warming the moral high ground? We must spend 60+ trillion dollars, that would cripple our economy and make us a third-world country, BECAUSE IF WE DO NOT DO THAT WE ARE GOING TO DIE IN 12 YEARS! And Trump is colluding with Russia. If we do not impeach him he sell Alaska to Russia! AND WE WILL ALL DIE IN TWELVE YEARS!
Yeah, put positions in my mouth I never asserted, that's helping you to seem genuine and not just scrapping for a fight
Anyway, it is not an argument. I said that fear of judgment is not an argument that God exists. It may be an argument to think long and hard about it - because if you are right then you will never know but if I am right you will know it. The best you can hope for is that you will become worm food and that is it.
No, I can "hope" there's some afterlife, but the evidence doesn't suggest it. Problem is you aren't seeming to care about evidence in the slightest, just rhetorical spin about vague notions. And again, you fail to even see the contradiction in your thought because you're already fixated on seeming convincing rather than critically examining the argument and criticisms of it. If I'm right, I lose nothing, if you're right, I still lose nothing, because I made an effort to affect genuine change and do good for itself, not for a reward from a deity
Anyway, I do not understand what you, an atheist mean by "moral high ground". I thought atheists believe that morality is just a social construct. If that is the case, then what is moral for you may not be moral for me. Now, I myself believe in objective morality. But since you do not believe in God, I do not see how you can throw terms around like "moral high ground" or "moral hypocrisy". How do you determine these things? Is there an objective standard? And what is the evidence for that standard?
No, you're utterly mischaracterizing based on stereotypes, so again, you're only undermining your own point, showing that you just quote mine and otherwise cherry pick to serve your preconceptions about atheism to be true rather than admit you could be wrong.
I don't believe in objective moral, I believe in objective moral standards, because, surprise, objective has more than one meaning which you don't seem to be aware of. Objectivity in epistemology can be seeking the most unbiased position given arguments possible, you're seeking objectivity in a metaphysical sense alongside epistemology, wanting something to be true and asserting it as such even though you cannot demonstrate it anymore than I can demonstrate that my senses are 100% reliable (they're not, especially in low light like most people)
You're derailing and throwing a red herring out, that's not germane to this particular topic, I've discussed morality having a demonstrable and rational basis without God already, I'm not falling further into your rhetorical trap
I was in a near-fatal accident. While it was happening, I was not scared even a little bit. That is because I know that I am going to heaven. And it probably saved my life. I was calm enough to avoid getting killed. I am almost 67 years old. I doubt I will live much longer. I am not worried at all at death. But as the saying goes: there are no atheists in foxholes. Your fear of death is not going to get easier.
Your beliefs about some future afterlife are irrelevant as a factor in regards to your survival, at best you're correlating something that's barely pertinent to the context, given I know virtually nothing about the situation and would need an expert that knows what they're talking about to even judge how dangerous your accident supposedly was. But your survival is still not any indication of the truth of your beliefs merely because it fits your preconception
I didn't claim my fear of death was gone and your absurd adage is incorrect, because there are demonstrable examples of atheists fighting in the military and not becoming theists after the fact, so you're already effectively wrong, the best you can do is goalpost shift to suggest they're not atheists or some other nonsense
I have a surprisingly lack of fear of death because of my love for God, and a healthy amount of fear of God as well. This makes me not fear other things, especially the fear of death. I know that the best is yet to come for me. I will soon be in heaven with the God whom I adore. You have no hope. That is why you fear death. You will be either just dust or in hell. Neither one is a pleasant thought. This is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument to listen carefully to the argument for the existence of God.
You realize a lack of fear is far more irrational than possessing a fear and facing it, right? Or do you really think that being fearless is equivalent to having courage?
And you don't "fear" God in the sense one fears death, you revere it. Unless you ARE admitting you are afraid of God because of the effective threats it presents to your credulous mind in regards to the afterlife and how you should fall in line. I'm not so naive to simplify the idea of fear, I'm aware of the distinction apologists make in regards to fear of a god versus fear of death and such
I don't need your hope to not fear death, but, as I already noted, my fear of death is not the same as despair or such. I can accept death as a part of nature and not have to deny that I'm afraid or such things, utterly irrational and insane (buying into FDR's notion of fearing fear itself, which arguably just encourages reckless abandon and foolishness)
False dichotomy and hasty generalization that my feelings about death make ANY difference as to the reality of what happens afterwards, double threat of fallacies
No other animal fears its own mortality. A bird does not ponder it. Neither does a dog. Only mankind does. So if there is no God then nature has played a cruel joke on us. How can we be the highest species in evolution when we are the only ones who fear our own deaths? We seek meaning in a meaningless world. How are we better off than the other species? How can we be the most adapted species to this world when we seek meaning and immortality in a meaningless world that gives nothing but non-existence at the end?
What is it with putting words in my mouth? I never claimed other animals feared their mortality and you're anthropomorphizing nature, which reflects the irrational tendencies you still engage in and consider yourself "rational"
We aren't the highest species in evolution, that's not remotely how that works, because it isn't a competition in that respect. We might be more evolved in mental capacity, but that is what allowed our particular population to survive and evolve over vast generations, that doesn't mean we are more evolved in physical capacity, a cat can see better in the dark, can hear better, can smell better, can survive better in cold climates. You're assuming you have knowledge about something based on the misinformation spread by others and seem incapable of critically examining those things further, just accept them as truth, credulous and simplistic
I don't even need to address the rest, because you're conflating evolution with purpose, which is not what any scientist remotely does. My search for meaning is due to being a thinking entity, not because of my evolution
Of course I have a right to that. Here in the U.S. we are free to think and say what we think.
Atheists themselves convince me that they are scared of hell. The atheist Thomas Nagel admitted that he and other atheists are scared of hell. Your own actions convince me that you are scared. If you were not scared you would say "Hey, of course if it turns out that the Christian God exists that I am going to hell!". But you cannot admit that because it scares you. You cling to hope that even if you are wrong that God would be good sport and still would let you in heaven.
You have the right only insofar that others can rightly criticize an point out how wrong you demonstrably are. And again, you quote mine, this is pathetic attempts at arguments.
Not to mention you try to assume you know my state of mind, which I have not done in regards to your mentality in remotely any conclusive notion, it's provisional at best that you're deluded
No, I definitively said I did NOT claim that if heaven was real, God would put me there, because I'm not that dishonest to try and spin your bible to say otherwise. It pretty much reduces salvation to belief and, unfortunately, I'm not foolish enough to just believe based on dogmatic authority and threats, so I'm going to hell, but I'll have good company if it is the case, rather than self righteous sanctimonious sycophants who try to assume how others believe based on their preconceptions instead of, you know, looking at them as individuals.
Not at all. I can admit that if the Islamic God exists then I am going to hell. I can say that because I am convinced that the Islamic God does not exist. So I can say this without losing sleep over it. If you really believe that the Christian God does not exists, then you would have no qualms to say that if hypothetically this God does exist that you would go to hell.
The atheist Richard Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion that if God does exist that he is sure that God would let him in heaven. So if Dawkins can think hypothetically about God's existence then there is no reason for you to not to think that way as well.
You believe it, you have no evidence for your own God that isn't inferential and fallacious, far as you've presented.
I don't believe it doesn't exist, I'm not convinced by any evidence put forward in support of its existence, the burden of proof and claim is not on me.
This isn't the simple discussion you make it out to be, but you're so ridiculously stubborn and sticking to talking points, it's not wonder you can't see the rhetorical trap you put yourself in by fallaciously generalizing me based on the words of other atheists. If I used your logic, I might as well just lump you along with Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell, but I don't, because I don't generalize or take the words of one and apply them to someone who may very well not agree. Crazy idea, right? Looking at people on their own instead of fitting them into compartmentalized boxes in your deluded mind?
