Yes, your arguments are religious nonsense.
Are you actually incapable, or simply making excuses?
Again: Do you have anything to offer that
doesn't depend on theists?
Stop and look at what you're arguing:
Atheist 1: Human values as alternative to religious belief.
(#208↑)
Inquiry: Human values, sure, but what is the rational justification of those values?
(#209↑)
Atheist 2: Explain the theist's "rational justification of these human values".
(#215↑)
No, really, you're demanding one project a theistic rational justification of an atheist's counterpoint to religious belief.
And let's just be clear, here:
You call that behavior showing respect and courtesy?
How about the perpetual vendetta, not being able to discuss this subject without perpetually bawling what about theists? No, really, you appear to have entered the thread with it at
#195↑, in which it's pretty much the whole of the post (less one paragraph telling someone to read something, and apparently perceive everything just the way you do); then pushed the bit again in
#206↑, in which it is the whole of your argument. So, we've just accounted for it in #215; the rubber-glue tit for tat is the whole of
#213↑, eighty-two percent (nine of eleven apparent paragraphs) of
#212↑. You keep it up in
#221↑, and
#222↑. I did want to congratulate you, though, on
#225↑, in which you broke form long enough to appropriate the Golden Rule.
(Does anyone ever wonder why Desmond Dekker said, "Golden Rules", or does that only stand out to people who know there is more than one, and the one most commonly in circulation is an inversion of its original form? Or does nobody listen to Dekker, these days?)
But, yeah; you're back to it in
#231↑.
And we should note, in the moment, that you accidentally got close in
#234↑, but you're also making a certain point for me, and I thank you, about the bigotry of a prejudicial zealot replacing one irrationality with another. "Common sense"? Really? In a society that is mostly theist? Common sense: In a time featuring Afro Celt Sound System, Willie & Lobo, Carrie Akre, Tanita Tikaram, &c., people bought Britney Spears. Just saying; left to common sense, music performance instruction in the future won't be about breath control, form of the wrist, or efficiency of motion; it will be about making sure the unit is powered and turned on, finding the appropriate software library, and how to send your demo portfolio archive to which businesspeople, and if young musicians are lucky, they won't have to pay extra for the course in releasing their own album and booking their own shows. Remember: Actual musical instruments are inefficient, or, at the very least, can be said to be so according to any number of theses that might address "music" and "society".
Nonetheless, take that moment in which you're looking at the Deadly Sins and how they work in society, and please understand that such examinations are indeed possible once you get beyond your tit-for-tat, rubber-glue vendetta.
The atheist rejecting the subjectivity of projected divinity is what it is, but replacing it with the subjectivity of personal aesthetics is no less irrational or dangerous.
#237↑ ... oh, hey, depoliticize
#240↑, and you're nearly in a useful range; the next thing to do is offer more than mere vagary: "The question thus becomes if atheists would be unable to come to transcendental conclusions, without the aid of transcendental literature written by theist humans." Yeah, actually, you're pretty close to a starting point. Because the next thing to do is start identifying those questions, conclusions, and discursive processes, and as I noted in #209:
If one puts anything on the table, it is subject to the same rational scrutiny as anything else, such as, oh, let's say, a religious argument. Actually defending against that rational scrutiny means having a clue about history and philosophy, and that requires effort.
If the punch line would be that it must suck to have only one story to write, I would point out that this eye-for-eye jealousy is in other threads, too. Check the freedom of religion thread; my critique of your post at
#554↗, to Billvon, would have something to do with imposing definitions on people in history; watch the transformation, though, in
#555↑↗—Jeeves was insufficiently condemning of religion in a response to Iceaura, so you jumped in with tit-for-tat rubber-glue. (And then you're back to sympathy with Billvon in
#567↗, imposing your definitions on history.) And then, as I'm going rounds with Jeeves, you decide to get in on that, in
#576↗, with more tit-for-tat vendetta.
Can we just confirm that you really do describe this behavior as "respect and courtesy"?
You're just trying to quash discussion you're not up to participating in. That's neither courteous nor respectful. Hell, even when you're not doing that, you're imposing fallacies on history, which is hardly respectful or rational, though it might qualify, behaviorally, under some iteration of commmon sense according to how much people do it. Kind of like making an uncreative song the foremost example of a society's musical culture because it gets middle aged men hard. Y'know. Britney Spears.
#242↑. Oops, you did it again?
At least you went for variation in
#243↑, but refusing to address the question is neither respecful nor courteous, though to cover the pedantry it's true, you said me and nothing about Musika.
So what's that? You "have shown you only respect and courtesy"?
No, seriously, the one who can't stop crashing discussion with petty vendetta? The one who disrupts discussions for slothful
non sequitur fallacy?
And you
are a bigot.
(Diversion, aspersion! You sound like a theist!)
I would think someone ostensibly advocating some manner of rational argument would know better than to try that cheap fallacy to be applied in circumstances you are ignorant of. What, you want the summary without the green ink?
• Go read the rules. We're still ostensibly on about rational discourse. Your bigotry and fallacy fails that standard. We can either put on our hats and kick pretty out pretty much the entire Religion subforum, or we can do what we've been supposed to do for years, which is constrict as little as possible prejudices that reflect Administrative sentiment, and just deal with it. And this is how we deal with bigoted politics we're otherwise supposed to go out of our way to take it easy on. There are certain groups we're not supposed to accept this behavior out of, and then there are certain groups who get some manner of pass under the rules.
So don't don't give me that self-righteous political bullshit. Seriously, this piss-poor advocacy is the sort to make us wonder if simply expecting an identifying atheist to have a clue is somehow violating his or her civil rights, and whether that applies to all political advocates, or just atheists. The coddling everyone else needs to put on in order for these atheistic advocates to feel smart is unacceptable; everyone else should not have to run around and put more effort into kissing your ass than you're willing to put into complaining, and you might notice I didn't even limit you to rational complaint. Your bigoted bawling, above all else, lazy.
If an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind, I don't understand why you would gouge yourself. Watching people embarrass themselves in pursuit of moral satisfaction is a strange experience. Remind me again, why should theists have a rational justification of atheistic argument?
......................................
