I am getting reports about your responses to Gnu. Gnu has every right to report you for violations of forum rules and your insulting him for it is childish.
I was a little exasperated when Gnu wrote
You seem to be saying that all the atheists on this forum who are not nihilists are somehow being inconsistent. Is that correct? If so, could you explain precisely how, please?
because I thought I've made it fairly clear how I get from atheists -> nihilists. I still haven't heard anyone discuss my line of reasoning there, so I thought it was a given, and to have someone ignore what I wrote was... annoying.
But.... you're right, it was childish of me to liken reporting a comment to the mods as 'tattling.' Gnu, for what it's worth, I sincerely apologize. My actions were childish, but nonetheless I hope you can find it in yourself to accept my apology.
From what I can tell, you seem to be more interested in trolling the forum than engaging in actual discussion.
I'm disheartened that you feel that way because that most assuredly has not been my intention. It's been to investigate a different worldview to my own, and occassionally to pipe up with my comments and opinions and reasoning. If I push hard occassionally, it's because I'm wondering what rebuttals the atheist worldview has against the typical Christian arguments. It's also fun to discuss these things with real live human beings, of course.
You need to get with the program or be confined to the ER.
I'd rather you didn't, of course.
All that being said....
Gnu, you really and truly did miss my argument. Let me restate it again one more time:
Were I a materialist, I'd believe that this current material reality is all there is. That means that the sun, moon, stars, the earth, you, and I are all just matter, just various patterns of atoms that interact according to the laws of physics. Beauty, free will, even good and evil are all just illusions, just lies we tell ourselves for whatever reason. That means that just as it's not 'wrong' or 'evil' for, say, a black hole to devour a galaxy, or for me to snuff out a candle, neither is it wrong for a cannibal to devour another fellow human, or a sociopath to snuff out a human life. Humans, on materialism, are just a (admittedly complex) pattern of matter, an ongoing chemical reaction that's "figured out" a way to self-replicate. Pain is just neurons sending signals warning the brain that this process of self-replication is in danger of halting. There's certainly nothing evil about pain or death, it's just another mode that the matter that makes us up can take. Thus, fellow materialists can talk about good and evil, they can talk about the most good to the most people or avoiding the most harm or doing unto others what we'd want done to ourselves, and it'd get a big fat 'meh' out of me. I don't see that there's any reason I, or anyone else, ought to care about life, death, pain, pleasure, good, or evil. We're all just matter.
You say about my statement "The existence of inconsistent atheists does not make them consistent." that it makes no sense. I'm saying that though atheists are on this board that disagree with the above reasoning (the existence of inconsistent atheists) so far as I can tell the above reasoning is sound, and they really ought to agree with it. (does not make them consistent.) In other words, I acknowledge that atheists on this board disagree with me, but, well, I think they're wrong. Such is the nature of disagreement.
You said that you didn't know what my argument was. That was exasperating, because I thought I laid it out in this thread a couple of times, and I hadn't (and to date, haven't) seen a response to it. It was my central argument, the one thing I was trying to say, the one thought I was trying to get across.
There it is above, again.
You mentioned other sources of morality, such as "Pro-socialism, Natural Law, Utilitarianism, Consequentialism. Libertarianism, and the Golden and Silver Rules." But those don't impact my argument at all. If I were a materialist, I'd respond to Utilitarianism, for example, with "The most good for the most number of people? Why should I, or anyone else, care about affecting the most good for a bunch of people that are at the end just chemical reactions? What does "good" mean for a chemical reaction, anyway?" The others fall in a similar way.
You try to imply that I feel atheists don't do bad things because of ickiness. I don't think I said that. I said I
don't do evil things because they are, to use a terrible term, icky. Murder just feels wrong, somehow, and so I don't do it. I'm sure other atheists don't murder because of the Golden Rule, say, but my question to them is why even follow the Golden Rule?
You said you don't want to discuss my embezzler, but earlier you asked for my backing to the argument, and he's it. The above paragraph is my reasoning, it's why I think atheism and materialism lead to nihilism, and my embezzler personifies it. Your refusal to discuss him is a refusal to engage with my argument, another reason I was exasperated with your post.
In any case, this thread has gone on for far to long in my opinion anyways. I suspect the mods agree with me, there's a reason it's in The Bottomless Pit. I really don't feel either side has said anything new in quite a while. I think if it's all right with you folks I might bow out of this one.