I'm with #2;  who else?

That's why I added the "just in case" - keeping my options open.

 Atheism is not a worldview.  Nothing follows from atheism.  Observe:

1. There probably is no god.

2. ????

3. Therefore ????

QED.

Now go away, idiot.

For a core member, I wouldn't thought you'd be more agreeable to a challenge and more professional in your conduct.

I'm not an idiot, you're not an idiot, only your WORLDVIEW is foolishness. You can call it anythng or nothing at all, but like the saying goes, a rose by any other name is still a rose; thus a worldview is what it is even if you deny it or call it by any other name.

Also "there probably is no god" ??? I would've thought you'd be more certain about your position.

Are you suggesting that God possibly exists?

Oh, jeez, is this for real? There's been a guy pranking this site named Matt ... I guess you knew that ... anyway ...

Uh, yeah, I'd be a material atheist, owing to the incoherence of the ontology of the immaterial. Was that good enough, or should I explain?

I'm not actually sure why that would be. I mean, it's a philosophical question. There's no reason someone couldn't work as an evolutionary biologist and still believe in fairies.

Okay, now I'm getting suspicious that there's a playbook. You, Paisley and Truden are making exactly the same arguments, and they vary enough from the standard neoplatonic stance (whence they most assuredly arose) to be a relatively new school.

Material is what exists, and immaterial is what does not exist, so as a kind of mental placeholder, "immaterial" will do just fine. To believe in the existence of things that are not material is to do so without evidence. So ... that's odd.

I'm totally answering! First, atheism isn't so much a religion. 

Gods never show up. Believing in something that has yet to show up is fine, but if you were betting, and you wanted to bet on the probability of a god showing up, I'd imagine you wouldn't part with your money. That's rational.

Excellent. Confused theist number three joins the club of those who don't know the definition of enlightenment. Enlighten yourself and look it up. I'm very disappointed in you. Did you know that the only theist group on Earth who has had dispute with my signature are the christians? Strange how everyone else knows.

Although I'm not really being fair. After all, thousands of christians have seen my sig, and only 3 now have tried to make an issue of this segment. With you being the third. And with me using that sig since 1999. Don't you just feel special now?

You would have had better luck attacking the "Gaming God" portion. It is no less defensible, but theists don't tend to have anything like the education they would need in order to understand that.

Wrong. The definition of atheism is nothing more than a lack of theism.

It is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.

Hence it cannot be a world view.

Not quite accurate, but close. We don't hold to any belief regarding the universe en masse. We each have our own conclusions based on our own knowledge and experiences. Some of these conclusions are a lack of conclusion.

And hence the rest of your post is again mitigated into irrelevancy via ignorance.

"God' is a label on ignorance.

There is no eveidence for God, it only represents an invalid attempt to provide an 'explanation' for a number of things which we currently don't have plausible non-theistic (ie non 'magical') explanation for, or things which don't actually require an explanation for, because they are not really problems at all when considered clearly, such as our moral sense, or our feeling of purpose.

God certainly can't serve as an explanation for our existence, since his existence is even harder to explain than ours. Scientifically, ie, rationally, complexity is known to arise from less complex systems. complexity only requires a set of very basic but consistent patterns of interaction between elementary entities.

In the absence of any evidence for God, and the FACT that the concept actually introduces an idea which is itself actually complicates and contradicts our observations of the Universe, atheism is entirely rational.

Postulating the existence of an invisible super-being which can magic a whole Universe into existence by just thinking about it, is just primitive ignorance.

IOW the existence of the Universe as we understand it from Science contradicts no known 'laws' of science, ie patterns of behaviour of other observed entities, whereas God does. It is a 'no-brainer'.

Let me imitate you.

I know you are but what am I!

I'll ask you the same question also to prove to all you atheist how ridiculous atheism is:

Explain atheistic morality and I don't mean what you think is right or wrong, good or evil. I'm asking can right or wrong, good or evil even exist in an atheistic universe? I want you to think long and hard about it, make sure you know the implications of whatever answer you give us.

Lots of moral philosophies and theories are atheistic.

IS that your real picture, cause you look a lot like the Undertaker (Compliment intended)

There is ample evidence for God's existence. The fact that we're engaging in intelligent conversation, make moral choices, think and operate scientifically are all evidences of God's existence.

What is not intelligent is ignoring having to explain the foundations for rationality, how we know what we know, and how we should live our lives. Atheists ignore all of that and say, you don't have to know that, cause I'm being rational (but not in this situation), I'm doing science, I'm making moral judgments, so I don't have to explain it, but all the while they demand that you have a quantitative and qualitative answer for anything in order to believe or think it's true. I don't know how you find coherency in that.

Have you proven that only things that can be quantitatively and/or qualitatively measured exist or have significance?

Can you explain the existence of morality, knowledge, or logic or how they can exist in an atheistic universe?

As a Christian I can explain these things, I can make sense of my experience as a human being, why I make moral judgments, conduct scientific experiments, and think coherently (rationally).

My argument against atheists is that you can't.

So my challenge to you is explain how morality for starters is even possible in an atheistic universe. Not what you think is right or wrong, good or evil, but how can right or wrong, good or evil exist.

And please, stop referring to science as if only atheist have exclusive rights to it.

I will grant that Atheist have more drive and have achieved more in this field than even Christians have (referring to scientific inventions and the sort) because money is a mighty motivator.

what you write:

"complexity is known to arise from less complex systems"

Is this always the case with everything in every category.

"In the absence of any evidence for God, and the FACT that the concept actually introduces an idea which is itself actually complicates and contradicts our observations of the Universe"

How so? saying so doesn't make it so.

"Postulating the existence of an invisible super-being which can magic a whole Universe into existence by just thinking about it, is just primitive ignorance."

I have a better answer than this "everything came from nothing!"

"Postulating the existence of an invisible super-being which can magic a whole Universe into existence by just thinking about it, is just primitive ignorance."

I'd love to hear the atheist's answer to the origin of the universe.

Religion does not explain or define morality. It is mainly a quasi-legal system of prohibitions and requirements, with rewards and punishments attached. It is actually inferior to most human devised legal systems in that it doesn't provide for appeals, and the punishments are typically way out of proportion to the 'crimes'.

Morality does not exist outside our own human society, so there is no absolute morality to explain.

Whereas a rational system of morals is based on an extension of our inbuilt sense of fairness and empathy, which clearly derives from our evolutionary path as a social species, which requires cooperative behaviour for success in reproducing and nurturing our offspring for the long time it takes them to mature.

Whereas on the other hand we have only a set of proclamations (allegedly) from 'God' with no way of knowing independently whether they are 'good' or 'bad' in any sense. We have absolutely no way to know or comprehend the ultimate motives of such an entity, so to assume he is 'good' is the purest supposition, or more likely simply a submissive response to perceived power.

IOW, God-based 'morality' is simply the principle that 'might makes right', that of absolute obedience to authority, the ultimate totalitarian regime, the antithesis of true ethics and morality, which should be based on empathy and compassion for others, along the lines of the Golden Rule, but thought thru somewhat more carefully to allow for the great variation of our individual wants, desires, and things which cause us suffering and pain.

Morality is one of the weaker arguments for God. Religion contradicts true morality, which is based on minimising actual harm and maximising positive aspects our existence, ie , ultimately our own shared nature, not that of some completely incomprehensible entity which is utterly beyond our understanding.

Only things which can be observed to have consistent effects, even if they can't be measured like a physical object. For example, we observe and note what people say and do under various conditions, both spontaneous and contrived, to understand the realities of human psychology, the commonalities and individual differences.

All we require to accept that some proposed entity may exist is some consistent set of observations of anything from simple physical effects to any consistent pattern in behaviour and /or reported sensation or experience which cannot be explained in any other plausible way, and is only explicable with the particular 'non-physical' explanation proposed. Since there are virtually an infinite number of conceivable 'non-physical' ideas which could be proposed as consistent with any observation, this is virtually impossible to establish.

Once you are going beyond what we have naturalistic evidence and theories for, then literally anything is 'possible'. There is simply no way one can establish the superior credibility of any given supernatural concept over any other, assuming it has at least some coherent and non-contradictory definition. So the realm of the 'non-natural', un-observable, is only honestly labelled as 'We don't know'.

I'm quite surprised that you actually responded to my post.

Hello, welcome to the forum.

Define immaterial.

Evolutionists can be theists. 

To quote a post, click the "quote" button at the bottom left of the post you wish to respond to.

Or, see here: Quote Function

I suppose that's true. However, I personally don't see any practical difference between something non-existent and something that is impossible to detect. Although, you did write, "cannot be experienced by the basic senses," as opposed to the shorter, "cannot be experienced." Considering this, do you believe that there are any ways to determine whether a supernatural thing exists? If so, how?

We just had a really interesting thread discussing the definition of religion.

Logic is not a thing that 'exists', it is the label we give to a set of principles which spell out the absolute minimum requirements for there to be a describable environment, for there to be distinguishable entities or objects in what we perceive, so that there can be A and not A as distinct concepts. The 'existence' of such structure is what gives rise to our idea of logic, so logic is implied by existence of a Universe of entities rather than a totally featureless void.

Some form of supernatural entity as such may not be intrinsically in contradiction to what we observe, since supernatural is just a label for the background origin of ideas and experiences we have yet to fit into some sort of coherent logical framework, consistent with everything else we have established.

But once you are talking about anything generally corresponding to traditional God concepts, we see no  plain and unambiguous evidence for the intervention of some such entity, and we see no examples of anything approaching the willed creation of something out of nothing, and the very concept of an infinite being is utterly inconsistent with all we observe, as well as any logic not based on the a priori assumption that it does make sense.

An interventionist God would make it impossible to derive any coherent naturalistic theories as Science has achieved, since at any point the expected outcome of some combination of events and states of the environment could be completely different to what we would predict.

So the success of science seems to preclude the existence of a 'God' who intervenes in any significant degree, or else arranges that things happen exactly as they would without intervention, which makes a God idea simply superfluous.

Put it another way, what we find as we investigate reality at every level is things behaving according to some combination of purely deterministic causes with a degree of pure statistical randomness. Evidence for a God would require regular observation of deviations from deterministic expectations in a non-random and unpredictable manner suggestive of some sentient intent or purpose.

Inserting a 'God' into the picture just complicates this picture, while proposing some intrinsically incomprehensible entity with not even the possibility of explanation. It means we could no longer count on things happening according to predictable rules and principles. The regularity of the Universe is evidence against God. All we require is elementary simple entities interacting in very simple but regular and consistent ways at the fundamental level of reality to allow for what we observe.

Ideas that somehow a God is required to define these regularities is simply incoherent, since a sentient powerful being of any sort requires the pre-existence of a similar basic substrate to make up its structure.

You are dodging Atheist, I never claimed to the know what the properties of the immaterial are. I was simply making the point it doesn't automatically imply non-existence. Why don't use the phrase non-atomistic from this point on, so as not to upset you.

But the fact that you will not answer the questions I have asked you strongly suggests that you can't. Because I've already made the claim in this thread that Atheism is nonsensical because its contradictory and incoherent. The atheist explanation for the foundation of morality, knowledge, and logic is laughable because it doesn't even begin to give us an account for them.

Know that the Bible has a lot to say about the universe, not only about morality, ethics, or the history of the Israelite nation. It makes metaphysical claims. Claims about the nature of reality, how we know what we know, and certainly how we should live our lives.

For example on the theory of knowledge. I don't have to know about something exhaustively to know something truthfully about it. As I'm sure you hold to that claim also. But at least my worldview can account for why that's possibly. God alone knows everything exhaustively and completely because He created it, governs it, and directs its course. He's omniscient and omnipotent. But because he knows everything exhaustively, I don't have to and not only that. I have a point of reference to begin with.

If atheism were true, first you don't have God or a God like figure who knows everything exhaustively, secondly you don't even have a man who knows all things exhaustively and certainly you don't yourself. So I have to ask, where is the point of reference? Imagine the first intelligence human on planet earth in an atheist universe (even at this point I would argue its impossible, but for argument sake I will grant atheism takes man this far), he has no point of reference, he makes interpretations of his experiences but again has no reference point and worse yet has no way of telling if the future will be like the past to predict/project his experiences in the past to the future to learn from them.

Let's remove the problem of the uniformity of nature. To proceed he has to make himself the point of reference, himself who is not omniscient, so he interprets his experiences (note he can never be certain if he's right or wrong in his conclusion because he doesn't know and there's no one who knows who can tell him) and takes giant leaps of faith. Can you imagine that. The thought is so scary that if it were true, could we be 100% right about anything even after a course of thousands of years? I mean, even to measure probability assumes you know some truth about the thing in question or have the correct reference point which again you couldn't know.

Now you might think to yourself, OK maybe the atheist is faced with a dilemma; however you Mr. Christian haven't explained how this information of the facts reaches you from God in your Christian worldview.

My answer is:

According to the Bible, God created all things (material and non atomistic). He himself is not created, he's infinite and eternal. He governs (makes his creation uniform) his creation and directs (purposefully carries it down a specific path to a certain outcome) it's history.

All this tells us his revelation is all about us (read Psalm 19 as an example). The artist's signature is on his work.

He creates us in his image. We are rational and moral even as he is perfectly logical and coherent, he places us in his creation which bombards us with this revelation mentioned above.

Over all of this, He communicates to us verbally (even before the fall of man, in the garden. He gives us his mandate to man to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion over the earth and everything in it. He gives Adam the responsibility of naming his creatures and has him tend the garden - note that this is all that is revealed to us in the written word so that there was likely tons more).

Even after the fall, God communicates what things will be like for man. Genesis Chapter 3.

In all of this Man learns who he is, his relationship to God, his relationship to the world.

However man is corrupted after the fall. His nature is corrupted. He still has the image of God in him, so he continues to rationalize and behave morally even though, as in the garden the adversary convinced him to think independently of God for man to make himself the point of reference instead of God, he continues to do it to this today. Making himself the point of reference in his prediction, he did this in the garden and it ruined him and his posterity. But it's not as bad as in the atheistic scenario, because he still has the revelation of God in him and around him (being made in the image of God is a form of God's revelation). He as a consequence of his continuous rebellion doesn't rationalize and judge correctly all the time (more often not).

Misery, violence, and suffering continue to this day because of this reluctance to use God as the point of reference. He disobeys God, curses, and raises his fists in the air toward him blaming him for his misery when all the while, he and his kind are to blame even when God reaches out to him with a way to be forgiven and be saved the penalty of sin.

Well, atheist I gave an answer regarding knowledge. You give me yours on Morality. Again I don't want to know your opinion on what's right or wrong, good or evil, but explain how right or wrong, good or evil can even exist or not exist and be honest about the implications of your answer.

Afterward I'll explain how morality makes sense in Christianity but not in atheism.

God Bless.

God's material now? Because you claimed to know about God.

But that's not a question; that's a statement. What's your question?

No, I don't. If you mean "exhaustively" in the philosophical sense of knowing all things, then of course, but since there is no demonstrable absolute truth, our truths take the form of statistical expressions.

That, I would say, is a positive statement about the immaterial.

The point of reference is the falsifiability of hypotheses. I predict that gravity will continue to work. Oh look, it does! If it turned out I was wrong, then that hypothesis would be falsified. Try that with God, and you may see my objection.

Step one for said creature is to make up mystical explanations for what's going on.

Step two is a scientific method.

But not if he follows the hypothesis -> test -> falsify method! That way, he knows.

Oh, I doubt we'll have 100% probability on anything in 1,000 years. Close to, but not exactly 100%.

Oh really? Have you tried gravity recently?

This first "human" on earth requires definition in an atheistic viewpoint.  Through evolution there would be no "first" in a definitive sense, gradual changes do not lend themselves to black | white.  At least it would not be what we call a human today.  So this "human" would have parents and would learn much like tigers learn about hunting... from their parents and other members of their social structure.  God is not a requirement of knowledge.  Social animals learn socially.... we know this.

You have to use first man in a xtian sense to even propose the question.  (Poof Magic -> man -> man has no point of reference)

Dogs seems to have no understanding of the uniformity of nature.  They can still learn.  Man first learned by trial and error.  I don't think anyone is here to make the claim that the "first man" wore a labcoat and understood anything to be 100% true or proven.  Likewise today any scientist worth his merit would not say he is 100% on anything just that there is a massive amount of evidence supporting his understood reality.

do to a unforseen difficulties i was force to take a hiatus from my online activites  i got back and i see the same crap  again again  almost to the point of lunacy    anywho who  hope all is well with everyone  hope to get back in the swing of things

and to the original poster  i know its been said before  but think before you open your mouth please   

those evil atheists you speak of did not do the atrocities in the name of atheism did they but for there personal gain  but the atrocities by the christian and religious person  had accured in the name of religion for the benifeit of said religion

anywho i know its been said      lol  Have a Iq use it please before you run your toungue

Well, if that's the case, you can't talk about it. You don't even know a single thing. That makes the 'immaterial' indistinguishable from the non-existent. You have failed to put out, so shut up.

*sigh*

To the OP, if you came in here with the notion that you could dominate all the retarded atheists, your time here will be about as productive as trying to fish out of a bucket with no fish in it. Instead, why not try to have a real discussion?

I don't know who this is addressed to, but I answered all of your questions. If there are any questions I didn't answer, please point them out or post them again, and I will address them. There are also, of course, several other points I need to point out. The first thing is, undoubtedly, you continue ranting about how atheism is internally inconsistent and incoherent, but you have yet to show how this is the case. Please expand on your paragraphs claiming that atheism is contradictory and incoherent. Why is it internally inconsistent? Why is it incoherent? Next, obviously, atheists will explain these things in many different ways, but I just want to note that they're not "atheist explanations," since atheism is just not believing in a god or gods. But, I don't know what explanations you're referring to anyways. My responses to many of your questions regarding origins is simply, I don't know. Do you find that laughable? If so, why?

That is correct. The Bible contains an intricate portrayal of how these things came to be. However, virtually all religions that ever existed contain a Creation story, so the Bible certainly isn't unique in this regard nor is it more likely to be valid, if, hypothetically, the veracity of a worldview was determined by how much it explains. 

Yes.

I don't understand this either. Please say more. And, can you please use the quote function so I know what you're responding to?

Huh? What is a point of reference, and why is it needed?

Oh, that's the problem of induction. While we rely on the natural world to repeat the same patterns indefinitely based what Hume called constant conjunction or, basically, a repetitive observed connection between certain causes and effects, there is no way to verify this beyond our experiences, since our experiences are all we have. My position is that the problem of induction is "real," but negligible for all practical reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw

I mean, for example, take the epistemology of the scientific method. It granted us modern transportation, medicine, communication, and more. It might be argued that this verifies the accuracy of the scientific method, but this is only true within the context of our knowledge of the natural world, within our experiences. So, no, there is nothing beyond our experiences that can validate our experiences; we are, perhaps, at a philosophical impasse. What should I do? Should I lie in my bed until I starve to death? (No, I will not bend to hunger! It is an unverifiable, subjective, physical feeling.) I, like many before me, simply acknowledges what follows from induction. There is no alternative.      

We can be right or we can be wrong.

Bingo! We begin with the assumption that we can understand the world.

Perhaps.

How do you know the Bible is true?

How is that possible?

How do you know that?

How?

How do you know?

How do you know that?

See here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_fall_commits_an_internal_contradiction

Many parts of the Bible promote misery, violence and suffering.

Assuming you're referring to inherent, absolute morality, my answer is, again, it doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist.

What are the implications of my answer?

Well, that depends on whether God exists.

Looking forward to it. (not really)

Have a nice day.

butterbattle wrote:

The Bible contains an intricate portrayal of how these things came to be. However, virtually all religions that ever existed contain a Creation story, so the Bible certainly isn't unique in this regard nor is it more likely to be valid, if, hypothetically, the veracity of a worldview was determined by how much it explains.

My reason for mentioning it wasn’t to imply that because it makes metaphysical claims, it is unique or therefore it is valid. Other religions certainly do contain a creation story and so forth; however upon analysis, you find inconsistencies and contradictions between its parts. Any worldview that is atheistic is faced with the same problem. Christianity however is the only worldview that is rational. It’s logical, consistent, and internally coherent. If any one has a problem with Christianity, it’s not because it’s not logical or internally incoherent. It’s personally disliked. The atheist criticizes Christianity because he’s ignorant of its philosophical claims and/or of his own worldview’s claims or he personally dislikes or personally disagrees with Christianity; not because it is irrational or internally incoherent.

For someone who has a worldview that is internal incoherent, that personal should not be in a position to criticize one that is perfectly coherent. If you disagree with the claim that the Christian worldview is internally incoherent, explain how it is. Does its metaphysical (the nature of reality) claims clash with its claims of knowledge (how we know what we know) or with its claims of morality (how we should live our lives)? Are any of the parts internally contradictory?

I’m so certain that one will find inconsistencies and contradictions within any worldview that is not the Biblical Christian worldview

Now I know that making the claim that all other worldviews are internal incoherent doesn’t make it so, that is why I’m interested in knowing where you’re coming from with your criticisms against Christianity.

Does your worldview allow for rational discourse or argumentation? Can it make sense of morality?

According to your respective worldviews, which happen to be atheistic, was Hitler & the German people wrong for killing the Jews & “genetically inferior” peoples?

Can we start with that please?

Also I need to respond to BobSpence1 for what for his comments. I want you all to avoid giving answers that do not answer the questions I’m asking. I’m asking on the philosophical level. Your answers assume so much that you’re not giving an account for the things you assume. You’re begging the most fundamental questions.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Once you assume the existence of an all-powerful sentient being able to create Universes, you have no grounds for any form of certain knowledge about anything, since such a being and their motives and purposes are utterly beyond our comprehesion, so He would be able to change the way things happened at a whim, and we have no way to know that He wishes us well or ill.

It seems you’re assuming that the Christian God exist independent of man and the universe. That is not how He has revealed Himself at all. “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Col. 1:16-17

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is the very opposite of a certain basis of knowledge.

The Bible is a collection of the thoughts of people living thousands of years ago, with no particular valid claim to be a source of reliable information about anything in particular. It certainly contains contradictions, inconsistencies, explicitly false claims about the origin and nature of the universe, and many failed prophecies. So trying to derive 'knowledge' of the existence and attributes of a 'God' from this source is futility piled on top of impossibility.

Again Bob you interpret the Bible according to your atheistic worldview. In your worldview the supernatural does not exist (something you haven’t proven) so the Bible is no different than any other book in history, susceptible to error. However, the Bible claims to be inspired. In the Christian worldview God governs his creation and sets the direction of history towards his own purposes; therefore he can make the Bible whatever he wants. There is no inconsistency there; no internal conflict. And of the contradictions and inconsistencies and explicitly false claims, I don’t see anyone coming forth proving any of this. This criticism is nothing but prejudicial conjecture. Also, are you claiming to be the authority on the limits of reality?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Whereas history repeatedly demonstrates that we gain useful although imperfect insight into the workings of the world by observation and experiment, comparing our observations with those of others, and progressively refining our understanding by building on earlier results, modified as necessary when more careful observations and experiments reveal subtleties we had missed before.

I want to share with you all this piece of information in case no one knows this. There are such people as Christian historians and before that, Israelite historians. The scripture themselves are a form of historical documentation. Theism was the norm in the past as it is today, though much less than it was in the beginning of recorded history. This however didn’t stop them from practicing science and math. Often science is pitted against religion as if the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. In fact the Christian can argue that his worldview can account for the science that man does. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion over the earth and everything in it. Science allows man to have dominion over the world. We can manipulate the elements and use the earth’s resources to benefit our standard of living and so forth and praise God for the gift of the earth and all its fullness therein and for the intelligence of his design. The point I’m making is that religion is not at enmity with history or science.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The 'reference point' is the consensus of our shared experience of external reality.

The posts of AtheismIsNonsense are totally confused ramblings based on nonsensical metaphysical assumptions, so riddled with non-sequiters that it is hardly worth the effort to pick out some of the more egregious fallacies. I prefer to just present the rational framework of real knowledge as an example of how we actually gain some understanding of reality.

I don’t want you to confuse the how with the what. What we do is one thing (both atheists and theists do science and induction and deduction), how we can account for it is something different. According to butterbattle he doesn’t know! He knows that the answers atheist ultimate give on how the universe began, how we know what we know, and how morality is determined is foolish because its sum is internally incoherent and contradictory.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Maybe if he persists I may try and point out one or two of the more obvious fallacies, but from the tone of his posts, I doubt it will have much effect. The others responding here have pretty much covered this tired old ground.

I wish you would Bob and avoid including unproven assumptions that are necessary to formulate your answers.

Does your worldview allow for rational discourse or argumentation? Can it make sense of morality?

Let’s begin by discussing morality. According to your respective worldviews, which happen to be atheistic, was Hitler & the German people wrong for killing the Jews & “genetically inferior” peoples?