Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists.

[_Sam Harris]

And the point you were trying to make by first assuming how people would react to your screen name, and secondly by posting this tidbit is?

I don't think you read what I said carefully. I said my thread title. The reason I expected, not assumed, that reaction is because it is the commonplace one on boards dominated by secular humanists, agnostics, atheist types, when someone suggests that their views demand one be a nihilist. The reason I posted what I did is to bring the argument to the fore of discussion by using a major atheist philosopher to make the argument himself.

I gather you are fixated on my screen name and the condescension you doubtless perceived in it. Possibly coupled with an innate lack of talent, this prejudice distorted your reading comprehension and caused you to attack my motives rather than respond to my point. Hilariously, this kinda shows that my expectation was spot on.

Um, do you know what my screen name is an acronym for? And if you are trying to make a point, do you think you can do so effectively by ad hominem? I asked you a question, you passed an inaccurate judgement.

[_Sam Harris]

Look, I don't know you, but at least attempt to be polite. GIMR is recovering from a serious health issue, and you kind of proved her point by being condescending and rude.

Either way, the link you gave me keeps timing out, so much as I'd like to, I can't read the article and respond to it, so I'll have to go by what you wrote.

Seems to me that "moral truth" is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? Moral at root denotes customary behaviors that societies have agreed on. Insisting that there's an a priori truth behind society's decisions is putting the horse before the cart, in my opinion. I suspect the definition of "meaning" is what underlies your perspective. Is it really a case of all or nothing? Total transcendent meaning, or nihilism? I tend to think not.

That said, I'm not an atheist.

Thanks Runtu. If I were nearby, I'd smack this dude with my cane.

That said, I'm not an atheist either, and if this person is trying to make a point from a Christian point-of-view, he's showing his drawers, and they aren't very clean.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Hmmm...yeah, how would one do that? Maybe something like, "Is atheism necessarily nihilist? Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith make[s] this argument."

I'm not asking. I'm making a positive argument. I'm supposed to water down a conclusion by presenting it as if it were a question simply because the board is filled with people who won't like the assertion?

Well, that's debatable. Philosophy is one my areas of academic expertise, and Smith is not on my radar. But then again, I don't deal in metaphysics, which is where, judging by his own website, most of his work tends (even his work on language).

I don't think that is very debatable. Qua atheist, Smith is one of a handful of the most famous and respect atheist philosophers out there. His name is what a name like "Plantinga" is to Christian philosophy. He's the head of Philo, for goodness sake. Now you might try to argue that there are other philosophers who happen to incidentally be atheists who are more influential, but that would either be a disingenuous argument by a person competent in philosophical rigor or a honest one that typically does not suggest having such competence.

I don't see the possibility for reasoned discourse here.

So you choose to attack and derail instead. Noble. Thanks for the lecture in tact, though.

[_grayskull]

He is pointing out what Christian scholars have noted for years: that a godless, finite life when compared against the backdrop of an infinitely long universe is meaningless.

Can you name one Christian scholar who argues that a finite life when compared against an "infinitely long universe" is meaningless and therefore there are no morals? I only know of one person who has ever argued this, a pharmacist on FAIR who was overly proud that he took a business calculus class in college and who had never studied ethics on even the most basic level.

One of the problems with this line of argument is that it shifts the metaethical framework from deontology to consequentialism, which rules out most "Christian scholars" in the first place. It also lumps in two discussions, the question of meaning and the question of morals, into one convoluted whole. While they are related, the relation needs to be explicated clearly as does the metaphysical questions, "what does meaning, mean?" and "What does morality mean?"

[_Sam Harris]

Look, I don't know you, but at least attempt to be polite. GIMR is recovering from a serious health issue, and you kind of proved her point by being condescending and rude.

I had no idea that GIMR is recovering from a serious mental health issue. That better helps explain why she misread and attacked me. But it is rather unfair for you to then join in and say it is rude for me to respond by pointing out that I was misread and dismissed with an attack on my motives. I mean, are you recovering from a serious mental health issue too?

Seems to me that "moral truth" is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?

"Moral truth" means that moral statements are truth-apt: they are true or false regardless of people's opinions on them. You might deny this, but all that goes to show is that you deny moral truth. That a statement like, "Let's kill all Jews" isn't really right or wrong. The argument still stands for those who purport to believe in it.

Moral at root denotes customary behaviors that societies have agreed on.

So you are a moral relativist, possibly a contractarian. Fine. That doesn't address the argument here. Unfortunately, you haven't read that argument, since the link didn't work for you. If it helps, do a search for "MORAL REALISM AND INFINITE SPACETIME IMPLY MORAL NIHILISM"

Um, I had a stroke. Assuming that I had a mental health issue is again ad hominem. I asked you a question, I did not attack you. I asked because again, your screen name denotes that you either percieve yourself or something outside yourself that you believe in to be a light in the darkness, and yet your words say something different. If you are a Christian (are you?), you're making a very sorry case for Christ here.

What are you here for? Again I ask. Is it to pick fights in the name of the Lord with people you percieve to be in darkness?

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Um, do you know what my screen name is an acronym for? And if you are trying to make a point, do you think you can do so effectively by ad hominem? I asked you a question, you passed an inaccurate judgement.

No, I don't know what your screen name is an acronym for. Does it matter? You said several false things, then attacked me. I corrected you on both accounts.

I'm not engaging in ad hominem. If so, point out where I am. I don't think you understand what ad hominem is. It's a cliché that atheists and self-styled "skeptics" are masters at ejaculating logic 101 fallacy names without any appreciation for the nuances of human communication and understanding arguments in context. Don't embody the stereotype. If you think it is ad hominem simply to argue that a position entails some other position that you find insulting, then you are flat wrong. If you think it is ad hominem to express that one expects to be met with dismissives for making an argument, that is also wrong. Even if it were insulting, it's still not ad hominem fallacy.

[_Sam Harris]

For those interested:

Our so-called Light in the Darkness is exactly what we've been discussing in my worldviews class. Well, what I've been discussing.

The need to be right is so strong, that we start discussions asking questions that we answer before the post is over, and then when true thinkers question us, we assume we've been attacked. We then make all sorts of insinuations about people's minds and characters in a vain attempt to defend ourselves. Quite amusing.

Darkness:

All you have done is come here and tried to intellecutalize your disdain for atheists. Coming from a Christian (me), that's low. If you care to start the discussion over again devoid of your presuppostions, there are plenty here who would love to speak to you and welcome you into dialogue.

Oh, and since I know you won't ask, my screen name means God Is My Refuge. And I cannot stand legalists.

[_Mister Scratch]

Look, I don't know you, but at least attempt to be polite. GIMR is recovering from a serious health issue, and you kind of proved her point by being condescending and rude.

I had no idea that GIMR is recovering from a serious mental health issue. That better helps explain why she misread and attacked me. But it is rather unfair for you to then join in and say it is rude for me to respond by pointing out that I was misread and dismissed with an attack on my motives. I mean, are you recovering from a serious mental health issue too?

(emphasis added)

Hello, A Light in the Darkness, and welcome to the board! I'm just curious, did you deliberately insert the word "mental" into your post, or was that merely a Freudian Slip? Either way, it seems that many of the posters here are quite right in questioning your motives and assumptions.

[_Sam Harris]

Look, I don't know you, but at least attempt to be polite. GIMR is recovering from a serious health issue, and you kind of proved her point by being condescending and rude.

I had no idea that GIMR is recovering from a serious mental health issue. That better helps explain why she misread and attacked me. But it is rather unfair for you to then join in and say it is rude for me to respond by pointing out that I was misread and dismissed with an attack on my motives. I mean, are you recovering from a serious mental health issue too?

(emphasis added)

Hello, A Light in the Darkness, and welcome to the board! I'm just curious, did you deliberately insert the word "mental" into your post, or was that merely a Freudian Slip? Either way, it seems that many of the posters here are quite right in questioning your motives and assumptions.

LOL Scratch, my eccentric nature is that apparent!

I hope that our friend here will back down a little bit and come again. He has a point he wants to prove, and I don't think anyone here is really adverse to it. I won't engage him much because he's too Cog-esque in his behavior, but he might have something interesting there if he'd let go of the superiority complex.

And he's got to be Christian. Only Christians treat atheists with such disdain.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Um, I had a stroke. Assuming that I had a mental health issue is again ad hominem.

I didn't assume this. I was told this by the very poster who you praised for defending you. I took it at face value and said it might help explain why you reacted to me the way you did. I didn't make the argument, "X has serious mental health issues, therefore we should find X's reasoning wrong."