Why I am not an atheist

I don't think I've ever seen a single interesting or useful post from you in this forum.

Please don't think I'm abusing my moderator status, because I'm not. I would say this whether I was a moderator or not. But come on, do you really think that was needed? And jeeprs, why did you thank that post? As a senior member, I wouldn't think you would advocate such insults.

Let's all take a break and regroup, guys. Cool our heads a bit and try to have a rational discussion later.

And North, if you see this, please do the mature thing and don't insult back.

You think north's post #51 was anything other than a stupid and obnoxious personal insult?

You always think that. But that's not the case. You consistently make this a spiritual vs. X debate. It's really tiring.

^ It is in the clip. Craig said that if we suppose the principle that every explanation needs to be explained, then science will be destroyed.

Well then Craig is dumb. I'm sure Craig is a nice guy. But Craig is dumb.

...we might as well ask Amazon to pulp his books. They're probably dumb, too. Amazon.com: William Lane Craig: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

The probability is great, I'd say. And after seeing that five out of the first ten titles have the word "God" or "Divine" in them, I'd say that probability is even higher. Just a guess, could be wrong.

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist known for his contributions to the philosophy of time, philosophy of religion, and historical Jesus studies. He is one of the most visible contemporary proponents of natural theology, often participating in debates on the existence of God. In 1979, Craig authored The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is today the most published-on contemporary argument for theism in philosophy.

While Craig holds that theism can be demonstrated, he also embraces the Plantingian view that argument is unnecessary for justified belief in God. A leading philosopher of space and time and metaphysics, Craig advocates a tensed or A-Theory of time and a Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of the Theory of Relativity. An enthusiastic proponent of Molinism, Craig's theological research has focused on divine omniscience, as well as divine eternity and aseity.

But nevertheless I think this does indicate a general prejudice against religion, doesn't it?

You think north's post #51 was anything other than a stupid and obnoxious personal insult?

I don't want to derail this thread.

on my post # 51 it should be taken as it is

I'm sick and tired of the god crap

I'm a Human Being , that is what I am

and I am proud of being a Human Being

That's hilarious. Instead of trying to give me lessons in how to think and behave, why don't you look at how everyone else in this thread, with the exception of you and (now) north, before jeeprs came along, responded to me, every single one of them disagreeing with me, but without causing any fuss or ill-feeling; and then compare their responses with how you responded? You might, just might, start to notice something.

That's hilarious. Instead of trying to give me lessons in how to think and behave, why don't you look at how everyone else in this thread, with the exception of you and (now) north, before jeeprs came along, responded to me, every single one of them disagreeing with me, but without causing any fuss or ill-feeling; and then compare their responses with how you responded? You might, just might, start to notice something.

I've said nothing within this thread of which I am ashamed.

The atheist has to represent in his own person the human values in which he believes. This inevitably results in one of four outcomes: (1) inflation, because of all the human values which he rightly feels called upon to contain;(2) explosion, under the pressure of all the human values which he cannot contain; (3) denial, and effectively destruction, of some or all vital human values; or (4) the only sane option, but an irrational one, which is the expulsion from his own person (and into the persons of others, whether they consent to the projection or not) of all those necessary human values which his own person cannot contain.

what now is your thinking on the thread ?

That it started off disappointingly for all concerned, but remained civil for a while, then became mostly an appalling waste of time and energy. It's an even bet whether I'll bother continuing to read and post to this forum. I've learned a few things here, but adding them up doesn't really counterbalance this kind of pointless unpleasantness. That might seem like an overreaction, but it's been touch and go several times over the past few months whether I was going to bother continuing here; this might just have decided the question negatively. I'll have to sleep on it.

It's not only to do with this forum. I've relied on the Internet a lot for about 18 years now, as a kind of substitute social life, and that is a terribly bad idea, although understandable when there is little else going on! I seem to be gradually withdrawing from this sort of online communication generally. There is far more noise than signal, on the whole. This place is better than most, but I think I really need to either become a recluse or get a real life. I'm not much good at talking to people in real life either, but this digital filtering of human communication through a keyboard and screen, although it eases some of my social anxiety, does so at the price of enabling silly personal misattributions to occur, in a pattern which becomes wearisomely familiar (even if not actually understandable) after a few repetitions.

I'm not a very frequent poster here (about 3 posts a day), but even so, I think it's too much, and I either have to give it up altogether, or else cut down considerably, perhaps posting only occasionally when some point comes up in my reading which I want to discuss. My use of this forum (or any other) should be more peripheral; I've been taking it too seriously.

That it started off disappointingly for all concerned, but remained civil for a while, then became mostly an appalling waste of time and energy. It's an even bet whether I'll bother continuing to read and post to this forum. I've learned a few things here, but adding them up doesn't really counterbalance this kind of pointless unpleasantness. That might seem like an overreaction, but it's been touch and go several times over the past few months whether I was going to bother continuing here; this might just have decided the question negatively. I'll have to sleep on it.

It's not only to do with this forum. I've relied on the Internet a lot for about 18 years now, as a kind of substitute social life, and that is a terribly bad idea, although understandable when there is little else going on! I seem to be gradually withdrawing from this sort of online communication generally. There is far more noise than signal, on the whole. This place is better than most, but I think I really need to either become a recluse or get a real life. I'm not much good at talking to people in real life either, but this digital filtering of human communication through a keyboard and screen, although it eases some of my social anxiety, does so at the price of enabling silly personal misattributions to occur, in a pattern which becomes wearisomely familiar (even if not actually understandable) after a few repetitions.

I'm not a very frequent poster here (about 3 posts a day), but even so, I think it's too much, and I either have to give it up altogether, or else cut down considerably, perhaps posting only occasionally when some point comes up in my reading which I want to discuss. My use of this forum (or any other) should be more peripheral; I've been taking it too seriously.

My presenting to you this interpretation, is simply to probe you into providing me a clearer thought.

You say "The atheist has to represent in his own person the human values in which he believes", and quite honestly, I do not know what this means. But what I think it insinuates is that where atheists find their values is different from where theists find their values.

"The atheist has to represent in his own person the human values in which he believes".

My take: with the collapse of belief in the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic, and the transition to the 'scientific worldview', the individual finds himself in a mechanistic universe within which human value systems are seen as the product of adaptive necessity (to be understood via the discipline of 'evolutionary psychology')

There is no question of values being found in nature, for nature is fundamentally blind and inert.

What if all vital human values are reducible to something that is easy to understand? Something along the lines of "From love, all good things follow"?