Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Oh, do tell. What does evolutionary theory say about the meaning of life and accidental mutations.

Rare indeed is the atheist who accepts the inescapable existential implications of "science" - ie, that life and morality are meaningless. On the other hand, all those atheists who can't face up to these bleak implications and delude themselves that life and morality do have meaning, can take comfort in knowing that "science" also says it doesn't matter what a man believes, it life adds up to the same thing in the end - nothing.

Hang on now, let me get this straight ... you can see no difference in value between(a) the life of a meaningless machine that was fashioned by a meaningless process of evolution and that will last only a few short meaningless years,and(b) a life created in the image of a loving God, an omnipotent God who created the entire universe out of nothing and who has the power to grant that human being eternal life and eternal happiness in a paradise where ageing, ugliness, boredom, worry, fear, disability, illness and pain don't exist?Wow.

PaulK: "We can value ourselves for what we are."Ok, what are we? According to science we are a bunch of atoms assembled by a series of blind accidents to form a meaningless machine. We live a meaningless life of a few years and die, disintegrating into the meaningless atoms we're made of and into eternal oblivion. What's valuable about that?

I'm sorry but that is just another example of your abysmal ignorance. Science says nothing about morals. Morals are the construct of thinking beings. Plus the God described in the Bible says that humans have the same capability to know right from wrong as God does.Have you ever read the Bible?Humans have and do determine morality and thank God we are more moral than the God in the Biblical fables. Again, it is only the ignorant that claim science contradicts morality.And of course it is more than just my opinion; the immorality of the God character in the Bible is supported by the testimony of the people who wrote the Bible fables.But wait, there is more. The Genocidal God character in the Bible killed off everything, humans, bugs, little kids, unborn feti with no more consideration for humans than for any other critters.And it's not a matter of what I think; I simply report what is written in the Bible.

Do I advocate capital punishment for women who have abortions? No.

Not if they're the exactly the same thing, no. 'Cos of what "exactly the same" means.

No, don't make stuff up.

The things you've made up are not inescapable implications. Don't make stuff up.

It says nothing about the meaning of life. About mutations, it says that they occur and are random.

Stop making stuff up.

Amazing, isn't it, how they can deny the obvious? You've stated it quite well, however. Weird how you can be said to be making up what is not only obvious but has been said in other ways by people who believe in evolution. (Besides, how can one "make up" what is in fact an inference or a conclusion from facts?).

Faith, if it was obvious then you and Dredge between you would have found it possible to argue for it instead of just saying it over and over again. Since you do not refer us to these people, I take leave to doubt that. Well, when he writes "Science says human beings are no more important than bugs" this is made up, since science does not say in fact say that. So he made it up. I don't see what part of this concept is giving you problems.

"Science says" is just a way of saying it is clearly inferable from (evolutionary) science that... I know that's what it means, why don't you?We've both argued it. It is inferred from the fact that we are considered to be merely animals evolved from earlier animals, an accident of the blind arrangement of chemicals. Bugs are too, worms are too, wildebeests are too. That is a fact, right? So what's your problem?. There's nothing in the ToE to make us any more important than any of them.I've mentioned the idea that Darwin, Freud and either Marx or Einstein, deflated the human ego with their theories; this used to be mentioned in lots of stuff I used to read. Darwin demoted us to animals, Freud took away our superior understanding of reality and turned us into unconsciously-driven ignoramuses or something like that and I forget about the other one. I don't know how old you are but perhaps enough younger than I am not to have encountered this common understanding.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And this is something that Dredge has made up. It is not clearly inferable, which is why Dredge cannot infer it, he can just say it over and over. As I have pointed out, the problem is that just because two things have one quality in common, you cannot "infer" that they have everything in common, or any given thing you please in common. That is not inference, that is insanity.Yes, like a bug I am a product of evolution, and an arrangement of chemicals. If someone were to "infer" from that that I have the same weight as a bug, or the same number of legs as a bug, or the same diet as a bug then we would think --- would we not? --- that that person was deranged, Faith, loopy, mentally ill, incapable of reason, a gibbering buffoon.So when a creationist loon "infers" from the same premises that I have the same value as a bug, this too is not actually an inference; this too is insanity.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.