boasts of Athiests II

Yes, I think it applies to everyone. I don't understand this convoluted sentence, but if I seem to be so negative, it's in an attempt to balance the picture, so to speak.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

What "time context"? People have always been selfish--me, you, everybody. At least I have never met any unselfish saints in MY life. I answered it. I hear so much about how wonderful everyone is on this forum--having such great moral character and the like--that I thought I needed to go in the other direction to balance the picture.

I agree with this statement by Chapman. There's always some kind of "personal gain" involved, even if it's only a feeling of self-satisfaction: "I'm a good guy." Nothing wrong with that, of course.What period of time was Chapman talking about?

We need to make a distinction between the motive (the reason why one does something) and the result.All motives are personal. There is no such thing as a political or group motive except in a manner of speaking. One does things for oneself, but sometimes it results in good things for other people too. If you make yourself useful to others, good things will likely come to you. But I was speaking of the motive, not the results. I wasn't suggesting that people would say, "I'm a good guy." They would just think it. But I guess you're right. Nowadays, boasting seems to be socially acceptable, since we are supposed to love ourselves.This doctrine of loving ourselves came out of the sixties. It had to do with building people's "self-esteem." This mantra took hold and is now apparently universally accepted. It's rather silly since we have no problem at all in loving ourselves. Now we are supposed to be PROUD that we love ourselves. I don't see it as something to be particularly proud of. It's so easy to do. I never had a problem with loving myself.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

What did this abuse consist of?

What "inherent value"?

No reason, unless you care about the truth.

That's like saying that "2+2=5" is just as valuable as "2+2=4."Of course, 2+2=5 might have some aesthetic value.

The subjective we make up ourselves. We can't make up that which is objective. We don't make up the law of gravity. We discover it.

It was of value to YOU. That's subjective.Whether it had objective value or not is another matter. In order for it have objective value, it would have to be valuable generally, not just to you.We don't know for certain whether your experience has objective value or not. But if one is an atheist, one would have to say, to be logically consistent, that any "value" is purely subjective and thus ultimately arbitrary.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

It has everything to do with it, but you apparently do not understand this because you are not sufficiently appreciative of the difference between that which is subjective and that which is objective. The distinction is crucial when trying to figure out what's true.I understand your experience had value to YOU.But the question is, whether it was something that was to be valued by everyone, in the same way that 2+2=4 is true for everyone, anywhere, any time.For all I know, there might be such a thing as objective values. But I see no evidence of it. So I conclude that all values are subjective. That means they are ultimately arbitrary.

Yes. Infinitely.There's no comparison.Suppose I prefer the color red to the color blue. And suppose I do so because I associate red with a favorite color of a long lost girlfriend, whom I still love. So when I see the color red, I am enthralled.Now if I make a generalization, and say, "Red is a superior color to blue," my judgement is purely subjective. It has no truth-value at all in that it has no logical basis. It's purely a subjective matter.Of course, there is always the possibility that red really is superior to blue. But that would be a coincidence if it were true.So you can see that my argument that red is superior to blue has no merit. In the same way, your argument that your experience has value has no merit.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

It may make no difference to me, but it makes a huge difference in regard to the value of the color. Just because it's valuable to me doesn't mean it's valuable. I might as well have picked another color. My judgment of it is meaningless.This is true of life in general. It really doesn't matter what we do or don't do, what we prefer or don't prefer--objectively. This would be our conclusion, if we wish to be consistent, if we are atheists.Some atheists want to have it both ways. They want to say that we are derivations of a mindless process, and yet somehow or other there are objective values. They want to say that our morals are subjective, and yet they are very vociferous with their politically correct moral dictums. Why is this? You would think they would tone down the moralism. After all, it's all subjective.

As far as I know, there are no objective values. So I had to make an analogy with math.You judged your experience to be valuable. That was subjective. I was explaining to you that it was meaningless.

I meant your judgment of it as valuable was meaningless.