(Original post by PhilosophyBabe)
My answer was directly to a reply by a Christian on here telling us Atheists to wake up. That there were no morals without 'God', that there was no point to life without 'God'. I just hit send in main comments rather than a reply to a comment which you obviously weren't aware of so I do applaud you for your, erm, 'bon mot' reply.
Yes I am certain that there is no god of which the Christians speak. Have I touched a nerve here? I am glad my reply amused you.
You seem to be a little confused by my reply....morality is subjective. There are no moral facts that we can follow. So yes i stand by my point in replying to her comment about morality. The person i was replying to suggesting was that only God can provide us with moral laws...I am not believer of absolutism and i was expressing that.
Scientific methods for investigating of course not applicable in all fields of inquiry. My reply came from science...and reasoning. Objective and subjective.In my reply i said to look to science for answers. Nothing to do with the original question but just was just a nudge towards science and logic.
No need to name-call either here. You seem angry, and yes it was rude but no offense taken. Every point you have made has been incorrect. You seem to have taken offense to my reply. FYI I am well read in Theology. I am a former devout Christian now devoted Atheist. Age 25 and currently completing a pHD in Metaphysics.
Excellent, I love discussing these things with people well read in theology. Who have you read? I'm curious.
Because as a struggling Christian and open inquirer to the possible multi-valent nature of truth, I as well do not believe in a "God" as a figure in the sky. That by no means indicates certainty that the Christian God doesn't exist (or that I can be certain that what I believe or don't believe is correct).
I'm a tad confused about your stance on morality as it being subjective. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the terminology, but wouldn't claiming that all morality is subjective, be an objective claim? And therefore self-contradictory?
I was not frusterated in any sense with your views or beliefs. Naturally, I have great respect for athiests. What bothered me, was the high degree of certainty you seem to hold with your views.
And yes, naturally it is quite amusing reading a 25 year old claim that he is certain that a 2000 year old tradition (filled with thought and uncertainty) is certainly false, based on his narrow (and perhaps basic) understanding of the subject at hand.
And while you may be 25 and studying metaphysics, I stand by what I said before. You still sound like an angry teenager on a high dose of new athiesm, who has got it all figured out.
Posted from TSR Mobile