Neither are dealt with.
Here is your response:
You understand of course that I was not attacking atheist but simply answering the question posed in the thread. This represents what I did not like about atheism, which is why I have chosen a different path. Of course I realize that not every atheist believes everything that I referred to in why I do not care to be an atheist. And I defend your right to disagree. What I know about atheist are the things that I learned on this forum the few months I have been here. It has been an enlightening experience. My education on atheism has been at the hands of atheist. They can be a hard bunch but I like most of them, especially the ones willing to share their beliefs.
Unlike any religion, atheism is not a religion. Atheists might be zealous or emotional about atheism, but it does not alter the status of atheism. Atheism is a conclusion or position. Like theism it is not a religion of itself.
I agree that some, not all atheist, are very emotional. It does not alter any conclusions to be emotional. But ultimately, when facts are reduced down or deduced as far as evidence will take one, I have yet had an atheist to come to a concrete conclusion. All they say is that you can not prove anything for sure or 100%. That is as close as they come to a position. It sounds like an argument of faith to me. But if that is all you have, use it.
This is a problem with atheists and not atheism. For the record the Problem of Evil is not a problem for atheism.
I am not sure what you mean about atheism does not have a problem with evil but the atheist on this forum certainly discuss it often. It seems to me like they have a problem in explaining it. I would agree with you if you said everybody has this problem and maybe some don't, but that is not the experience expressed here on this forum.
Again this is a problem with atheists. A fictional one.
It is more than fictional, humanism is by default the standard of morality for an atheist, unless he does not think that man exist either.
Atheism, by the way, does not offer a stable criteria for morality because it is not an ethical theory. I'll try to demonstrate why this is,
Don't bother to demonstrate why atheism is not a moral theory because I agree with you, which also proves my point. Humanism or any other idea of atheists do not meet the criteria for moral and ethical conduct in the Western Civilization. Now that is a fact, and many on the moral fringe would like to reverse it so they would be free to do whatever their lust and passion would lead them to.
That's what I do not like about atheism. It fails, in this case, to recognize the greatest evil of the last century, which is communism, as evil. That might be because all the little commie atheist stick together against the morals of the Western Civilization. Again, that is simply fact.
Let's see, your reference to chocolate does not make sense to me. I am sure it is not your fault, I just don't know what you are saying. Now, about the golden mean, we agree, it is meaningless to atheist.
Ontology, the theory of being, we agree. Atheist have no ontology and epistemological theories have little or nothing upon which to base knowledge, logic or reasoning in the world of atheist. It makes me wonder how they survive in a cosmological world they can not adequately explain. But, I have hundreds of eyes with which to see (that fly thing).
Now let me say again, I know many atheist will want to take me to task over my opinions, but these are my opinions and represent what I do not appreciate about the beliefs of atheist. Other than these things atheist are just like me, except they can not fly or bite.
:angel2:
GadFly