Why do so many atheists not understand?
Offline I am agnostic/an atheist but it seems that so many people do not realise that being an atheist means that there cannot be any purpose in life, and there is no objective morality...
I have read some of the posts on this forum, and there are atheists saying 'i can create my purpose in life'; Why do you say this? Does this mean you are being your own God? and creating purpose? Without God, we cannot presume that there is any objective reason in our lives..
Sure, you can say:
'oh, im creating a purpose in my life... that i have to make the world as peaceful as possible, and to live the most fullfiling life possible',
But this isnt a purpose.. this is just making a plan for yourself to acheive nothing.. you live a fullfiling life and then die... nothing achieved, no purpose reached.. what is the point in that? You may as well be religious, seeing as religious people spend a lifetime praising God and then they just die.. having wasted there lives.
Also, how can an atheist assume that there is objective morality?
For instance 'murder' cannot be said to be an objectively wrong or right thing. No one decided that it is 'wrong' to murder.. this is what morality is.. the definitive conclusion on wether an action is wrong, or right in relation to everyone.
Sure we can have subjective morality.. but this is simply something we decide is best not to do or vice versa...
'It is wrong to murder' is simply a social contract.. but this is not MORALITY, it is a decision.. by a group of people to help benefit each other... (although, seeing as we don't have a purpose... it is hard/impossible to have any reason to want to benefit a society)
No one has declared murder to be wrong.. no God.. but it is simply something that society chooses not to do.
Murder is something that we may choose to do in other situations.. like in war.
The combination of there being no morality, and no purpose in life however puts the atheist in a difficult position.. as every decision they make may be seen as pointless.. this is the paradox of life that an atheist chooses to live with.. and perhaps the reason why so many people are afraid of this freedom and create false hope in life.. or in other words 'religion'.
Murder is wrong because it's a violation of rights. You own yourself, no one else has a right to take away your life from you because you own it.
Objective morality does exist because all people agree that for example, stealing (Which is involuntary by definition) is wrong. No one wants you to steal their stuff - if they didn't mind, it wouldn't be called stealing.
There may be no "big" or preset purpose in life for the atheist, but there are these small purposes and goals. I don't need a preset purpose to live a meaningful life.
As long as I live a good life, other people I care about will be touched and after my death they'll still remember me and have memories of me. No god needed here.
[quote=noor]Murder is wrong because it's a violation of rights. You own yourself, no one else has a right to take away your life from you because you own it.[/quote]
Yes, it is violation of rights. But it is violation of rights made up by people. No God decided what rights human beings have. Just because you, or a majority of people tell me that there are a set of human rights that you have decided on, doesnt mean that they are 'The infallible' and 'Correct' rules of society... just as if i told you murder was something that everyone must commit in their lives, you would not accept that either. 'Rights' do not mean objective morality, they are simply opinion of the masses.
Yes i own myself, but just because (for whatever reason) you have decided that it means no one can take my life away, doesnt mean that it has to be so for everyone.
[quote=noor]Objective morality does exist because all people agree that for example, stealing (Which is involuntary by definition) is wrong. No one wants you to steal their stuff - if they didn't mind, it wouldn't be called stealing.[/quote]
Objective morality means that something is definetivley 'wrong' or 'right' regardless of if anyone believes it or of how many people believe it. Just because the majority/or all of the world does not like being stolen from does not mean that it is objectively wrong.. but simply that alot of people happen to have the same SUBJECTIVE view.
[quote=noor]There may be no "big" or preset purpose in life for the atheist, but there are these small purposes and goals. I don't need a preset purpose to live a meaningful life.[/quote]
Yes you can create meaning, but the meaning that you have created (created being the important word), has no meaning itself. For example, i can say, my small goal is to stay awake all of tonight. I may suceed.. but there was no objective meaning.. or outside meaning to that goal... i havent gained anything.. i will die in the end anyway so why have big goals let alone small goals.
[quote=noor]As long as I live a good life, other people I care about will be touched and after my death they'll still remember me and have memories of me. No god needed here.[/quote]
A good life? the meaning of a good life is different, or can be different to every single individual on the planet.. If i say that a good life is one of pain and suffering... then for me it is. And if i change my mind and say that a good life is one that is full of eating chocolate then it is that which is a good life.
So in this case.. you have no scale on which to judge a good life as being.. A christian, for example may use the ten commandments as a guide to what a good life would be, but you being an atheist have no guide and so the idea of 'good' dissapears, and your are left with simply 'what happens, happens'.
Perhaps you need to reconsider?
[quote=edyb123]Yes, it is violation of rights. But it is violation of rights made up by people. No God decided what rights human beings have. [/quote]
Rights come from ownership. Ownership is control you have over something. I own myself, I have a right over my body. You don't have a right to do what you want to do with it because you don't own me.
[quote]Just because you, or a majority of people tell me that there are a set of human rights that you have decided on, doesnt mean that they are 'The infallible' and 'Correct' rules of society... just as if i told you murder was something that everyone must commit in their lives, you would not accept that either. [/quote]
Murder is always wrong no matter which civilization you're in. Why? Because murder by definition is involuntary and if a person doesn't want to be killed it's wrong for the attacker to murder. The person owns himself/herself, the attacker has no control over the person's body.
Stealing is by definition involuntary also - I own my property, you have no right to take it away from me. I have control over it, I have a right to do what I want to do with it.
As a side note, why is it that you don't murder others? Where is your source for morality? Altruism?
[quote]'Rights' do not mean objective morality, they are simply opinion of the masses.[/quote]
All people don't want you to violate their rights. Because violation of rights is by definition involuntary. If say, you don't mind me "stealing" your stuff, then it's not called stealing.
[quote]Yes i own myself, but just because (for whatever reason) you have decided that it means no one can take my life away, doesnt mean that it has to be so for everyone.[/quote]
No one can take your life away [b]involuntarily[/b]. If someone took away your life involuntarily (you didn't want to die) you would term that wrong.
If it doesn't apply to everyone, then go and try murdering other people. And don't be surprised when they attack back. If you don't want to be murdered, you have a good reason to believe others don't want to be murdered either.
[quote]Objective morality means that something is definetivley 'wrong' or 'right' regardless of if anyone believes it or of how many people believe it. Just because the majority/or all of the world does not like being stolen from does not mean that it is objectively wrong.. but simply that alot of people happen to have the same SUBJECTIVE view.[/quote]
ALL people don't want their stuff to be stolen. If they didn't mind, it's not theft! Theft is always involuntary by definition. If some people didn't mind their stuff being taken away, it's not called stealing.
[quote]Yes you can create meaning, but the meaning that you have created (created being the important word), has no meaning itself. For example, i can say, my small goal is to stay awake all of tonight. I may suceed.. but there was no objective meaning.. or outside meaning to that goal... i havent gained anything.. i will die in the end anyway so why have big goals let alone small goals.[/quote]
You did gain a moment of your life. A good moment of my life means a lot to me especially when I look back at the memories later in my future. When you help someone, say, you touch that person. You can live life in the present and enjoy life as much as you can.
When you die, that's it. I don't have a problem with that and I'm not going to resort to invisible giant puppetmakers to add meaning to my life.
[quote]A good life? the meaning of a good life is different, or can be different to every single individual on the planet.. [/quote]
I meant a good life as in helping others and respecting their rights.
[quote]If i say that a good life is one of pain and suffering... then for me it is. [/quote]
Fine. Then go out and harm others and you'll get dragged to the court or blown up. Other people don't agree with your view of a good life, they might want a life full of helping others for example. If you find someone else that agrees that a good life means pain and suffering, then great! You can fight with him and hurt each other since that means a good life for both of you. It's mutually voluntary.
[quote]And if i change my mind and say that a good life is one that is full of eating chocolate then it is that which is a good life. [/quote]
Eat chocolate all you want as long as you aren't harming others that don't want to be harmed.
[quote]So in this case.. you have no scale on which to judge a good life as being..[/quote]
My worldview is don't mess with others' rights and you're living a good life.
[quote] A christian, for example may use the ten commandments as a guide to what a good life would be, but you being an atheist have no guide and so the idea of 'good' dissapears, and your are left with simply 'what happens, happens'.[/quote]
Read above. I can have a guide. Religion isn't needed at all.
[quote]Perhaps you need to reconsider?[/quote]
Same goes for you too.
I posted a whole reply here? but it only posted the first part.. ?
Ignore the above post.. managed to figure it out.
[quote=noor]Rights come from ownership. Ownership is control you have over something. I own myself, I have a right over my body. You don't have a right to do what you want to do with it because you don't own me.[/quote]
From wikipedia: 'In jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society. Compare with privilege, or a thing to which one has a just claim. Rights serve as rules of interaction between people, and, as such, they place constraints and obligations upon the actions of individuals or groups - for example, [b]IF[/b] one has a right to life, this means that others do not have the liberty to murder him.
1.Someone must decide that humans have a 'right' to life.
2. You have decided, or agreed, that rights come from ownership
3. Seeing as there is no God to declare that rights come from
ownership, and that majority view does not mean objective view then your argument is based on nothingness. OR it is your subjective belief that rights come from ownership, in which case murder or anything for that matter is not objectively wrong.
4. Where did you obtain the view that rights come from ownership? education? gut feeling?
5. Ownership itself is subjective - why do we own ourselves? why doesn't say.. george bush own us all? If i declared that i owned the USA then i hold no more rights over it than the
inhabitants and vice versa.
6. Therefore you seem to be basing your view that there is objective morality on your subjective morality.. which doesnt add up.
[quote]Murder is always wrong no matter which civilization you're in. Why? Because murder by definition is involuntary and if a person doesn't want to be killed it's wrong for the attacker to murder. The person owns himself/herself, the attacker has no control over the person's body..
[/quote]
You say that murder is WRONG because it is involuntary.
No were besides relgious text etc is there anyway for you to come to that conclusion.
As i said before - wrong and right are subjective.
It could be said that it is right for people to be murdered because it is involuntary.
[quote]Stealing is by definition involuntary also - I own my property, you have no right to take it away from me. I have
control over it, I have a right to do what I want to do with it.[/quote]
As before, it makes no sense to assume that stealing is wrong simply because it is involuntary or that you have control over the thing being stolen.
[quote]As a side note, why is it that you don't murder others? Where is your source for morality? Altruism?[/quote]
I am indifferent, or at least my philosophy is indifferent to any decision. I do not see any reason to, or to not commit any action. Therefore i have no impulse to go and murder. However i have been influenced by society, and i have emotions.. so i tend to, or my philosophy tends to be to just go with the flow of my society and do whatever makes me happy. Also, i am open for new ideas and am not competely convinced by the philsophy i am argueing with here.
[quote]All people don't want you to violate their rights. Because violation of rights is by definition involuntary. If say, you don't mind me "stealing" your stuff, then it's not called stealing.[/quote]
You contradict yourself here.
1.Earlier you argued that rights are objective and therefore killing is always wrong.
2.But here you you say that violation of rights is by definition involuntary.
3.So if someone wants to be killed (so it is voluntary) it is not a right anymore? because it is not involuntary? so therefore rights are in fact NOT objective????
[quote]If it doesn't apply to everyone, then go and try murdering other people. And don't be surprised when they attack back. If you don't want to be murdered, you have a good reason to believe others don't want to be murdered either.[/quote]
All you have stated here is that others don't want to be murdered. I know this. Does a mass murderer not wanting to go to prison for his life mean that it is wrong to send him away?
There is nothing to say that [b]want[/b] has any relation to an [b]objective[/b] moral.
[quote]You did gain a moment of your life. A good moment of my life means a lot to me especially when I look back at the memories later in my future. When you help someone, say, you touch that person. You can live life in the present and enjoy life as much as you can.[/quote]
Any goal, in a life that ends, logicaly seems absurd.
[quote]I meant a good life as in helping others and respecting their rights.[/quote]
Again, it is subjective to say that helping others and respecting there rights is a good life.
[quote]Fine. Then go out and harm others and you'll get dragged to the court or blown up. Other people don't agree with your view of a good life, they might want a life full of helping others for example. If you find someone else that agrees that a good life means pain and suffering, then great! You can fight with him and hurt each other since that means a good life for both of you. It's mutually voluntary.[/quote]
This isn't a personal debate - I didn't say i like pain and suffering, or inflicting it.
[quote]My worldview is don't mess with others' rights and you're living a good life.[/quote]
Therefore your worldview is based on nothingness as you could not have concluded from anywhere that not messing with others rights means you are living a good life.
These two philosophical points of view give a better description of where i am coming from:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism]one[/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism]two[/url]
[quote=edyb123]Ignore the above post.. managed to figure it out;From wikipedia: 'In jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society. Compare with privilege, or a thing to which one has a just claim. Rights serve as rules of interaction between people, and, as such, they place constraints and obligations upon the actions of individuals or groups - for example, [b]IF[/b] one has a right to life, this means that others do not have the liberty to murder him.[/quote]
I agree for the most part, only that I believe you can have a right over other objects as well.
[quote]1.Someone must decide that humans have a 'right' to life.[/quote]
Non sequitor. I own myself, I own my life since if I didn't anyone would have the right to take my life away. They don't because I own myself.
[quote]2. You have decided, or agreed, that rights come from ownership[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]3. Seeing as there is no God to declare that rights come from
ownership, and that majority view does not mean objective view then your argument is based on nothingness. [/quote]
Rights are when you have a just claim over something. If people don't have rights then why can't I just go out and shoot at everyone I see? If rights don't exist then there's nothing wrong with murdering others, is there?
[quote]OR it is your subjective belief that rights come from ownership, in which case murder or anything for that matter is not objectively wrong.[/quote]
Not everyone believes rights come from ownership. Some people believe it's wrong to murder because the bible says so, that sort of thing. But we all agree that murder is wrong, only that the sources are different.
[quote]4. Where did you obtain the view that rights come from ownership? education? gut feeling?[/quote]
Through reasoning. If I own something, I have a just claim to it. That's what ownership is about - control you have over an object. If I control something it's fine for me to do what I want to do with it since I have a just claim over it.
[quote]5. Ownership itself is subjective - why do we own ourselves? why doesn't say.. george bush own us all? If i declared that i owned the USA then i hold no more rights over it than the inhabitants and vice versa. [/quote]
If I don't own myself, then who the fuck owns me? Do you own me? You have no control over my thoughts or actions, you have no control over my brain. If you own me, then by deductive reasoning you also have to be owned by someone else. In this system we each own someone else which is absurd. And who we own is also based on an arbitrary system Not so if I own myself, you own yourself. George Bush can set laws for all he wants, but it's my choice whether I want to break them or follow them. You can't say you own the US because if you do, then by deductive logic the same thing applies to you too which means you don't own yourself either.
[quote]6. Therefore you seem to be basing your view that there is objective morality on your subjective morality.. which doesnt add up.[/quote]
I'm not.
[quote]You say that murder is WRONG because it is involuntary.
No were besides relgious text etc is there anyway for you to come to that conclusion. [/quote]
Wrong is when you violate rights involuntarily. Murder is the violation of the right to life.
[quote]As i said before - wrong and right are subjective.
It could be said that it is right for people to be murdered because it is involuntary.[/quote]
No. Because the victim owns himself and the attacker is violating that right.
I don't care if your source for morality differs from mine, but if you violate my rights I'll retaliate.
[quote]As before, it makes no sense to assume that stealing is wrong simply because it is involuntary or that you have control over the thing being stolen.[/quote]
Wrong is a violation of rights. Stealing is the violation of the property right.
If wrong is not a violation of rights, then it should be perfectly fine for me to go out and steal everyone else's stuff and blast them to pieces, right?
[quote]I am indifferent, or at least my philosophy is indifferent to any decision. I do not see any reason to, or to not commit any action. Therefore i have no impulse to go and murder. However i have been influenced by society, and i have emotions.. so i tend to, or my philosophy tends to be to just go with the flow of my society and do whatever makes me happy. Also, i am open for new ideas and am not competely convinced by the philsophy i am argueing with here.[/quote]
Oh, okay.
[quote]You contradict yourself here.
1.Earlier you argued that rights are objective and therefore killing is always wrong.
2.But here you you say that violation of rights is by definition involuntary.
3.So if someone wants to be killed (so it is voluntary) it is not a right anymore? because it is not involuntary? so therefore rights are in fact NOT objective????[/quote]
There's a difference between killing and murder. Killing may be either voluntary or involuntary, but murder is always involuntary by definition. If the victim wants to be killed, it's fine because the victim has a right over his/her future. He/she can do whatever he/she wants to do with his/her future. When a person states he/she wants to die, he/she is still manifesting a right over his/her future by taking control of it and deciding to end it.
[quote]All you have stated here is that others don't want to be murdered. I know this. Does a mass murderer not wanting to go to prison for his life mean that it is wrong to send him away?[/quote]
A mass murderer doesn't have a right over himself/herself because he/she isn't respecting others' rights, essentially rejecting the concept of ownership and has no rights over himself/herself.
[quote]Any goal, in a life that ends, logicaly seems absurd. [/quote]
Point out the absurdity. It's even more absurd to say that you should make goals if you're going to live forever in an eternity of bliss after death, right?
[quote]Again, it is subjective to say that helping others and respecting there rights is a good life.[/quote]
Fine by me. I don't care if others define a good life differently, as long as they don't violate others' rights involuntarily.
[quote]This isn't a personal debate - I didn't say i like pain and suffering, or inflicting it.[/quote]
You said that if you defined a good life as harming others it should be okay. I countered your point. I'm not trying to attack you personally or anything.
[quote]Therefore your worldview is based on nothingness as you could not have concluded from anywhere that not messing with others rights means you are living a good life.[/quote]
Messing with others rights => Violation of rights.
Violation of rights => Wrongdoing.
Wrongdoing => Not a good life.
If violating others' rights isn't wrong, then why can't I just go out and murder everyone else?
[quote]These two philosophical points of view give a better description of where i am coming from:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism]one[/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism]two[/url][/quote]
If moral relativism is true, then why is it that virtually every culture (Even the animal kingdom) holds it that murder is wrong?
I'm not a nihilist. I might be an atheist and anarchist but I believe in positives. Reason, liberty, science, logic, individualism are the positives that I hold are essential.
I'm not too active over here because I'm still attached to atheistforums, but this thread was brought to my attention and I have to ask why edyb123 was banned. This looks like an unfinished debate.
[quote=transientangent]I'm not too active over here because I'm still attached to atheistforums, but this thread was brought to my attention and I have to ask why edyb123 was banned. This looks like an unfinished debate.[/quote]\
He was banned because he seemed to be a dishonest theist under a disguise.
I wonder why people are making their first posts asking why someone was banned when it's pretty clear. (Edyb said that he's an atheist/agnostic but he's saying things that practically no atheist would say. Unless he's a nihilist or something like that, which I doubt.)
Seriously, whoever is banning people, CUT IT OUT!
Even if he is a "dishonest theist" banning people is hurting this forum more than helping.
As for me, I am moving on to the RRS, where it appears to be safe to post as a theist and not get banned.
[quote=Sir Valiant for Truth]Seriously, whoever is banning people, CUT IT OUT!
Even if he is a "dishonest theist" banning people is hurting this forum more than helping.
As for me, I am moving on to the RRS, where it appears to be safe to post as a theist and not get banned.[/quote]
He wasn't banned for being a theist, he was banned for being dishonest. Lying is against the rules.
I'm pretty sure dishonest atheists have been banned from here and the RRS, too.
[quote=noor][quote=transientangent]I'm not too active over here because I'm still attached to atheistforums, but this thread was brought to my attention and I have to ask why edyb123 was banned. This looks like an unfinished debate.[/quote]\
He was banned because he seemed to be a dishonest theist under a disguise.
I wonder why people are making their first posts asking why someone was banned when it's pretty clear. (Edyb said that he's an atheist/agnostic but he's saying things that practically no atheist would say. Unless he's a nihilist or something like that, which I doubt.)[/quote]
I don't know why it says this is my first post. I could swear I've posted a few other times before, and even still, I've been an active forum member since before there was this split into multiple sites. I'm not new.
I don't understand why it matters whether he's an atheist or not, or whether "practically no atheist" would hold his positions. (Did you ask him if he was a nihilist?) I thought part of being a freethinker was moving beyond simple labels and just thinking. He's presented an argument here, a criticism of the position of some atheists here. That's what really matters, and so far as I've seen, both sides have been engaged in a civil debate.
He was a theist pretending to be an atheist.
THAT IS AGAINST THE RULES!
[quote=Sir Valiant for Truth]Seriously, whoever is banning people, CUT IT OUT!
Even if he is a "dishonest theist" banning people is hurting this forum more than helping.
As for me, I am moving on to the RRS, where it appears to be safe to post as a theist and not get banned.[/quote]
I'll repeat this again.
He was a theist pretending to be an atheist.
THAT IS AGAINST THE RULES!
[quote=transientangent]I don't know why it says this is my first post. I could swear I've posted a few other times before, and even still, I've been an active forum member since before there was this split into multiple sites. I'm not new.[/quote]
Oh, okay.
[quote]I don't understand why it matters whether he's an atheist or not, or whether "practically no atheist" would hold his positions. (Did you ask him if he was a nihilist?) I thought part of being a freethinker was moving beyond simple labels and just thinking. He's presented an argument here, a criticism of the position of some atheists here. That's what really matters, and so far as I've seen, both sides have been engaged in a civil debate.[/quote]
He first claims to be an atheist, and then he starts criticizing the worldview of most atheists.
For example, look at his starting post:
[quote=edyb123]the combination of there being no morality, and no purpose in life however puts the atheist in a difficult position.. as every decision they make may be seen as pointless.. this is the paradox of life that an atheist chooses to live with..[/quote]
How can that be coming from an atheist?
And if you'll look carefully, he said, "the atheist" implying all atheists are contradictory. If he was a nihilist or something like that, he would've said "most atheists" instead of implying that all atheists live in paradoxes since that would include himself too.
And it isn't about civil debates, it's about lying.
[quote=Sir Valiant for Truth]Seriously, whoever is banning people, CUT IT OUT![/quote]
Actually, whoever is making sock puppets, trolling, or pretending to be an atheist just to start these theistic arguments should CUT IT OUT!
[quote]Even if he is a "dishonest theist" banning people is hurting this forum more than helping.[/quote]
Dishonesty is ok with you, huh?
[quote]As for me, I am moving on to the RRS, where it appears to be safe to post as a theist and not get banned.[/quote]
Uh yeah. Members at the RRS forum also [url=http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/6321]agree with me[/url].
Yeah, I hate to break it to you edyb, but it looks like you're gonna fry for this one (along with the rest of us real atheists). You've denied the Lord. It's all over for you. Eternal damnation awaits.
You see, God requires honesty from his Christian children. You can rape little boys, burn people alive, spew hate and bigotry until the cows come home, just as long as you're intentions are honest.
God also requires your unwavering faith. You really dropped the ball here.
Oh no! Lordy lordy! You're gonna be one crispy critter come judgment day.
But really, you're paradox scheme is laughable (you'd need to validate your baseless assumptions before completing the logic chain- utter failure) and your understanding of morality is twisted. We shouldn't be too tough on you though. You're just regurgitating the same drivel you've been fed your entire life. Obviously you never gave it any real thought.
Morality is a principle closely tied to evolution. Without "doing right for the sake of right", humans would never be able to co-exist. Morality is indeed instinctual and necessary for the survival of our species. A healthy mind is naturally empathetic (empathy being the base for moral conduct).
You attribute your morals to your own fear (not healthy my friend). That is: you fear hell fire so you'll "do the right thing" to avoid damnation. It's a selfish mindset and it shows how innately immoral you and many of your fellow "God fearers" may be.
It's perfectly reasonable so long as he feels conflicted. To claim to be an atheist, one need not have reconciled every perceived problem of atheism. Plenty of theists hold doubts about their faith, and even don't understand the given answers to their questions. Should we mislabel these theists as atheists?
As for the ban, was there a warning? Is this a first offense? Was he really hurting the forums? By banning him you prevent him from continuing to make his case or clarify his position. This is contrary to the very idea of freethought!
[quote=transientangent]As for the ban, was there a warning? Is this a first offense? Was he really hurting the forums? By banning him you prevent him from continuing to make his case or clarify his position. This is contrary to the very idea of freethought![/quote]
We don't need to warn him. If a man joins the site with the name "youngsexy21", and is talking to girls about puberty. we have to ban him.
And it's not contrary to freethought, dude.
[quote=transientangent]It's perfectly reasonable so long as he feels conflicted. To claim to be an atheist, one need not have reconciled every perceived problem of atheism. Plenty of theists hold doubts about their faith, and even don't understand the given answers to their questions. Should we mislabel these theists as atheists?
As for the ban, was there a warning? Is this a first offense? Was he really hurting the forums? By banning him you prevent him from continuing to make his case or clarify his position. This is contrary to the very idea of freethought![/quote]
Common! I was born at night, not last night. The guy is obviously posing.
But I agree with you. Banning the guy would be counter productive. Let him drivel away I say.