And already, the canards are being trotted out. When this happens, I don't take prisoners.

How can you have value for life as an atheist?

I would, in response, ask how can YOU value life, if you regard the life you're living as merely some sort of exam to be endured, in order to be allowed to spend eternity kissing the arse of your magic man?

It's precisely because we regard this life as being IT, that we value it so much. It's our one opportunity to achieve something of merit. Since no one has ever provided genuine, substantive evidence for an "afterlife" (the scientific journals of the entire planet would be all over whoever succeeded in this matter, and that this has not happened should be telling you something), we take the view, based on a large body of observational data, that death, for want of a more robust analogy, is basically the final throwing of the switch to "OFF" before the microbial recycling crew starts getting to work.

Indeed, since all that we've ever seen from mythology fanboys like you, when asked awkward questions about such topics, is regurgitation of the same unsupported mythological assertions we've been waiting to see corroborated for millennia, or the peddling of fatuous and absurd apologetic fabrications of a sort i would have pointed and laughed at when I was five years old, I and several others here regard the requisite output as effortlessly discardable. Not least because the proper rules of discourse tell us this.

Moving on ...

Where does "value" come from and who determines what is valuable?

We do. Next?

How do you define what is good and what is bad and by who's standards?

Try the observational data informing us of the benefit or harm dispensed to others.

Where does love come from in an atheistic worldview?

Oh no, not the "atheistic worldview" drivel yet again ... it's fucking petunias time ...

Allow me to bestow upon you the education you manifestly need here.

Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. In short, it consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions", preferably with substance instead of the usual collapsed intellectual soufflés we see being brought here by the usual suspects. As a corollary, atheism doesn't involve the presentation of assertions, it leaves that to mythology fanboys. Furthermore, when a question about such entities or processes as emotions are involved, we turn to the disciplines whose remit includes those questions, and evaluate their postulates accordingly.

Unfortunately, this is another elementary concept mythology fanboys either fail to understand, or ignore for duplicitous apologetic purposes - namely, that atheism doesn't pretend to be an over-arching "world view", it concentrates upon a single remit. We leave answering questions to those disciplines constructed specifically to address said questions - for example, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, psychology and neuroscience, or in some cases, certain philosophical disciplines such as ethics. In short, we leave these matters to the experts, instead of pretending that we have all the answers, the way mythology fanboys do.

As for the matter of emotions, well guess what? They arise from brain chemistry. You might have learned about this if you hadn't slept through your science classes and wasted your time with mythology instead. Just because you don't understand the requisite scientific findings, neither invalidates those findings, nor gives you a free pass to insert your magic man like a well-lubed dildo. Learn this lesson quickly to save yourself further embarrassment here.

In the case of love, well guess what? Two oligopeptide hormones, vasopressin and oxytocin, play a key part. They also play a key part in mate choice, parental bonding and a host of other similar aspects of human behaviour. Furthermore, we share the essential underlying molecular biology with all the other mammals, which exhibit key requisite behaviours when these hormones start exerting their effect.

Oh, and before you launch into the requisite fallacy, which I've observed emanating from other mythology fanboys before you turned up here, just because we paid attention in class and learned about this, does NOT for one moment mean we are incapable of experiencing the requisite emotions, when those hormones exert there effect within us. I've seen several mythology fanboys peddling the retarded notion that learning about a part of the human condition purportedly destroys our ability to experience those parts of the human condition, and I treat the requisite assertion on their part with the scorn and derision it deserves.

So, before you make yourself look even more stupid than is typical of mythology fanboys here, drop the "atheistic worldview" canard, because it IS a canard.

Moving on ...

If an atheist says he loves his wife, isn't that an inconsistency with the atheistic worldview that does not believe there is no moral law?

Poppycock.

And once again, it seems I'm going to have to spoon-feed an idiot mythology fanboy with the requisite elementary concepts at work here.

First, read the above paragraphs about being able to experience the requisite emotions, regardless of whether or not we've learned something in depth on the matter.

Second, let's deal with the "belief" nonsense once and for all shall we? Namely, that those of us who paid attention in class, reject belief itself as purportedly providing substantive knowledge, because it doesn't. This is because belief, certainly as practiced by mythology fanboys, is nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, which apart from being fatuous, is also a violation of the proper rules of discourse. Quite simply, when we are presented with a purported postulate, we ask ourselves what evidence exists to inform us of the truth-value thereof. The moment we have evidence informing us accordingly, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Third, once again, the matter of the existence of ethical precepts isn't the remit of "atheism", it's the remit of philosophical ethics, among other disciplines. And, once again, we turn to the relevant experts in the field, and ask them to present their findings. Do learn this elementary concept before embarrassing yourself further here.

I'll come to the matter of the existence of ethical precepts, and the origin thereof, a little later, when dealing with another of your canards.

If we have any kind of moral values, which I assume most if not all on this thread do, there must be a moral law giver.

Unsupported blind assertion. More on this shortly, as promised above.

There must be a standard from which we differentiate good and bad.

I've already provided one. Namely, observational data informing us of the benefit or harm dispensed to others.

Now, I'll come to the requisite canards that allow me to present rebuttals to your ignorance properly, even though I'm quoting them out of order, because quoting them in this order allows me to demonstrate neatly your failings. Viz:

How could such abstract and intangible qualities, such as morals and ethics, arise from the material ’stuff’ of the universe?

You are apparently unaware, that there exists an abundant scientific literature, documenting the evolutionary and biological basis of [1] our capacity for ethical thought, and [2] the motivation to act thereupon. I provide an appropriate (and lengthy) dissertation on this topic here, which you are advised to read before continuing to entertain delusions on this topic. Be advised that said dissertation only covers a tiny fraction of the available literature, and that a proper treatment would require me to write a textbook extending to around 40,000 pages.

How can meaning arise in a random, material universe?

Oh dear, not the "random" canard again.

Whenever a mythology fanboy starts using the word "random", the alarm bells start ringing among those of us who paid attention in class, not least because we've see mythology fanboys peddle repeatedly, the myth that the word "random" means "by accident without rhyme or reason". Except that among scientists, this is NOT how the word "random" is used. Instead, scientists use the word "random" as a shorthand for two applicable processes.

With respect to "random" processes, first, scientists know that there exists a multiplicity of processes that can produce a particular outcome, but in the case of some of the observed phenomena in question, they lack the detailed audit trail of data that tells them which of that multiplicity of well-defined processes actually took place in the given instance. As a corollary, scientists operate on the basis that the transition from state A to state B, is best modelled by a probability distribution governing that multiplicity of processes, and if you had paid attention in the requisite classes, you would know that probability distributions are well defined mathematical entities.

Second, scientists use the word "random" to describe processes that are modelled by Markov chains, which again are well-defined mathematical entities, based upon a probability distribution. Markov chains have demonstrated their utility value in modelling all manner of processes, and as a corollary, are pressed into service whenever a direct audit trail of deterministic interactions is lacking. Quite simply, they work.

Simply put, in the world of science, "random" is a shorthand for "we lack a detailed audit trail of data, so we're modelling this as a Markov chain process".

How does purpose itself emerge in a purposeless universe?

It emerges the moment entities that are capable of pursuing goals come into being. Which has clearly happened here.

Oh, and before you launch into the predictable canards on this matter, you might want to spend a decade learning about the output of Turing, Kolmogorov and Chaitin, which are all applicable here to various extents.

Once again, Cali, a pleasure to read your posts. (And I'm still envious of your command of the English language... *chuckle*...)

@Winston: From an atheist perspective, is anyone truly ever “wrong” if atheism doesn’t allow to have a fixed ethical standard?

I'm outraged by the nerve of religious people who drop in and blithely suggest that an atheist can have no morals, no ethics, no sense of right or wrong. Are their minds so stultified by chanting and incense that they don't know how insulting that is?

I'm just an amoral atheist, but I've managed to live this far without raping children, slaughtering followers of the wrong prophet, or milking money from the poor to buy myself mansions and executive jets.

Who is cheesus and why does he matter? Cheesus was and is, a myth. The idea of him, matters to deluded people that need a crutch to get through life.

@ Winston

I wish to step outside of this debate and forum to commend you, person to person, for shaking off your destructive lifestyle and getting your life back.

I've been there, done that myself. There was a time in my life when a good evening's amusement was going down to the seedy part of my big city, getting drunk at a cheap booze-hall, getting in a few knuckle dusters, and being a total asshole to everyone around me. Been there, done that. Multiple times in jail, theft, massive debt and fraud, hurting others, a crappy lifestyle living in the seediest dumps you could imagine, and rubbing shoulders with addicts, alcoholics, bikers, drug dealers, the list is a very long one. I was an alcoholic, I took drugs, even heroin. I consorted with the toughest whores in town, and the wackiest homeless you could imagine.

I now step back into this forum and offer my opinion.

For anyone who has had any contact with AA, there is one word that they use a lot, and it is "denial". Until you get past your personal denial, you can never start the road to recovery.

But once you truly accept the trouble you are in, or acknowledge the harm you are doing to yourself, then the next step is healing yourself and getting your life back together.

I used to smoke, and tried many times to quit. But I never quit until one day a switch went off in my head, and all of a sudden, I told myself, I don't need that anymore. And from that second forward, I stopped smoking, and it was not difficult for me.

And the same with the part about my destructive asshole lifestyle. One day, at about the age of 32 I told myself that I didn't like who I had become. The moment I had this thought, I started to change myself for the better.

The point I am making that you decided to stop being destructive. That is the important part, that you acknowledge your condition. It doesn't matter what therapy you sought out, it would be very effective because you wanted to change your life. You turned to religion and because you got positive results, you thought that religion was the factor that "saved" you.

No, you saved yourself.

@cranky47

My last pack cost $1.00. I think that was 45 years ago.

Hi @winston
I didn't know about Jesus 3 years ago.
One thing for sure. Nobody agrees on what he is, u til asked together (for most people).
One will start speaking about him with confidence, the others will agree.
Otherwise most of them when asked just tell me he existed, and that there are proof.
They tell me they know that because they were told.

(now I read the other posts... still not used to forums)