My argument earlier in the thread (which concluded with post #76) was to show the connection between atheistic assumptions and the undermining of knowledge and morality (although the topic of morality was more of an afterthought). You can reflect for yourself on the absurdities and otherwise unpleasant implications that logically flow from a naturalistic, materialistic, atheistic worldview, a worldview which necessarily entails the possibility, as Nietzsche suggested, that unrecognized deception is simply the condition under which life is lived. If someone thinks I don’t know what I am talking about because I am not an atheist, that would be a prejudicial conjecture. Christians understand, perhaps better than atheists themselves, what it means to take God out of the equation. We know what we would have to lose. People, being made in God’s image, are profound mysteries to themselves and to each other, and that includes atheists. I don’t claim to understand my neighbor much less a passel of internet strangers. But atheism itself is pretty transparent. However, atheists seem reluctant to own the implications of what atheism logically entails. This is particularly evident in the moral sphere. Why not be cruel? An atheist might reply because cruelty is wrong. That is the correct answer, but materialism provides no authoritative basis for right and wrong. The brain simply secretes thoughts, opinions, and feelings the way the liver secretes bile. Or again, if an atheist asserts the right to life, that would be great, but such a moral assertion has no justifiable basis in a world of only matter and force acting according to necessity. Moral assertions cannot rise above being merely human preferences, on a level with asserting a preference for coffee over tea or wine over beer. What logically consistent atheism entails without any evasions or inconsistencies incongruously tacked on, is what Duke university philosophy professor Alexander Rosenberg says in his candid catechism:
Is there a God? No.
What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
What is the purpose of the universe. There is none.
What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck…
Is there free will? Not a chance.
What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
What should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.
Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or something obligatory? Anything goes.
(as quoted by philosopher and author Mitch Stokes, who, I think it's safe to say, is not actor Michael Cudlitz, despite the resemblance)
If a man doesn’t like the implications of his own worldview, finds them too bleak to live out consistently, and instead must borrow things that only another worldview can rationally justify, why not seek a better wisdom?
. If we can't tell a difference... then what is the difference?
