What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist etc

[Reality]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

This should put an end to the whole Hitler thing.
Adolf Hitler on God: Quotes from Adolf Hitler Expressing Belief & Faith in God - Adolf Hitler had Faith in God that His Agenda was Divinely Ordained

The German Army belt buckles said "GOTT MIT UNS" which means "GOD WITH US." Nazi soldiers also took an oath to Hitler saying - "I SWEAR BY GOD THIS HOLY OATH....TO ADOLF HITLER...." By using religion Hitler made himself seem close to god.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

Again, I never said he was an atheist. How many times should I repeat myself before you accept the truth:

HITLER WAS NOT AN ATHEIST! HITLER WAS NOT A STATE ATHEIST! THE NAZI'S WERE NOT STATE ATHEISTs! I NEVER SAID THEY WERE! IN FACT, I STATED THE OPPOSITE!

I NEVER said he was. I NEVER said he was. I NEVER said they were. In fact, I stated the opposite.

Are we clear yet?

You didn't read my posts carefully and so wrongly came to your misunderstanding and now are parroting it back at me but it's not true. Go reread my posts friend and stop making these false assertions.

Of course, I understand that a non-Christian can be many things. I asserted that Hitler certainly was when he mismashed false views of the world together with the occult. He may have been many things but he was also one thing: a non-Christian.

And, stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Again if you decided to read what I wrote I never asserted he was a christian, I said he was raised a Catholic, you need to understand the difference between not being a christian and being an atheist, there is a difference, so implying they killed in the name of atheism is just being misinformed. 'Yes I have heard of people murdering in the name of atheism. They are state atheists' if you are going to talk about state atheism I advise not mentioning the Nazis and then tripping over your words, when while Hitler wasn't an atheist many if not the vast majority of the German army were religious. Hitler was not an atheist and the Third Reich was not an atheist state.

 

[DannyC]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

Again, I never said he was an atheist. How many times should I repeat myself before you accept the truth:

HITLER WAS NOT AN ATHEIST! HITLER WAS NOT A STATE ATHEIST! THE NAZI'S WERE NOT STATE ATHEISTs! I NEVER SAID THEY WERE! IN FACT, I STATED THE OPPOSITE!

I NEVER said he was. I NEVER said he was. I NEVER said they were. In fact, I stated the opposite.

Are we clear yet?

You didn't read my posts carefully and so wrongly came to your misunderstanding and now are parroting it back at me but it's not true. Go reread my posts friend and stop making these false assertions.

Of course, I understand that a non-Christian can be many things. I asserted that Hitler certainly was when he mismashed false views of the world together with the occult. He may have been many things but he was also one thing: a non-Christian.

And, stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

I've read what you have been writing that promoting state atheism is the belief of atheists, in relation to the previous posters questions about atheism being harmless, this is just nonsense I don't see why you bother making claims like that, then get all upset when I bring up points defending my lack of belief if you want to talk about atheism I'm happy to do so, but trying to bring in state atheism and implying that the majority of atheists condone those actions or would act in a fashion similarly is crazy, I don't paint christians with one brush by claiming they all supported the crusades, or the spanish inquisition. Either way I see this topic just spiraling into absurdities, I was waiting for a engaging and philosophical conversation but I'l try somewhere else.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

You have to square that with all of the anti-Christian things he said, what he did, what a Christian actually is, etc...

The most you can argue is that he thought he was a Catholic. But even that's not true in reality. The truth has already been made plain to you.

Historian Joachim Fest wrote that Hitler used his ability to simulate, even to potentially critical Church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity simply to appease possible Church resistance to his anti-Christian Nazi Party ideology.

Derek Hastings noted that "there is little doubt that Hitler was a staunch opponent of Christianity throughout the duration of the Third Reich."

I'm just scratching the surface. I can bring volumes of information showing that Hitler was an enemy of Christ. But this entire discussion is really a red herring.

For Jesus said he wasn't a Christian. Jesus said, "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" and to "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Hitler did the opposite of the will of Jesus's Father in heaven and murdered his neighbors both Jew and Christian.

Jesus said that "every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit." Hitler bore bad fruit. What to know where he is? Jesus said "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire... by their fruit you will recognize them." Hitler is in hell.

For as Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’"

Hitler was an occultic neo-pagan evildoer of the worst sort. He never was a born-again Christian with a new nature to do what is godly and right.

You do a diservice to both the truth and Christ when you wrongly attempt to portray him as such.

This should put an end to the whole Hitler thing.
Adolf Hitler on God: Quotes from Adolf Hitler Expressing Belief & Faith in God - Adolf Hitler had Faith in God that His Agenda was Divinely Ordained

The German Army belt buckles said "GOTT MIT UNS" which means "GOD WITH US." Nazi soldiers also took an oath to Hitler saying - "I SWEAR BY GOD THIS HOLY OATH....TO ADOLF HITLER...." By using religion Hitler made himself seem close to god.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

The point you made was a false point. You wrongly asserted that I said Hitler was an atheist after I stated emphatically that he was not an atheist and never said anything different.

The solution is simple. Stop putting false words in my mouth that I never said and I'll stop correcting you when you do that.

And, I'm not upset. I'm trying to get you to stop making up lies about what I'm saying. If I have to use capital letters to accomplish that so you can clearly read them and repeat myself, then that's what I'll do.

And are you really stating that state atheists are not athests? Because that would be a very ignorant thing to say as while one can be an atheist without being a state atheist: one cannot be a state atheist without being an atheist.

My previous posts, which you obviously never clearly understood, were directed at state atheism... specifically the state atheism of the 20th century.

I've got to finish some work. Have fun.

I've read what you have been writing that promoting state atheism is the belief of atheists, in relation to the previous posters questions about atheism being harmless, this is just nonsense I don't see why you bother making claims like that, then get all upset when I bring up points defending my lack of belief if you want to talk about atheism I'm happy to do so, but trying to bring in state atheism and implying that the majority of atheists condone those actions or would act in a fashion similarly is crazy, I don't paint christians with one brush by claiming they all supported the crusades, or the spanish inquisition. Either way I see this topic just spiraling into absurdities, I was waiting for a engaging and philosophical conversation but I'l try somewhere else.

 

[DannyC]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

The point you made was a false point. You wrongly asserted that I said Hitler was an atheist after I stated emphatically that he was not an atheist and never said anything different.

The solution is simple. Stop putting false words in my mouth that I never said and I'll stop correcting you when you do that.

And, I'm not upset. I'm trying to get you to stop making up lies about what I'm saying. If I have to use capital letters to accomplish that so you can clearly read them and repeat myself, then that's what I'll do.

And are you really stating that state atheists are not athests? Because that would be a very ignorant thing to say as while one can be an atheist without being a state atheist: one cannot be a state atheist without being an atheist.

My previous posts, which you obviously never clearly understood, were directed at state atheism... specifically the state atheism of the 20th century.

I've got to finish some work. Have fun.

Once again I didn't say state atheists are not atheists I said the majority of atheists don't condone those actions, but again it's simple if someone disagrees with you rather than clarifying you just assert they are wrong and either we get bored or we get banned fair? It's interesting when you talk about state atheism while I believe you are now referring to the Stalinist regime you never mentioned it once? It's strange how we are supposed to pick up hints on what you would like to say I would call it messy writing and vague generalizations but since I offered you to talk about atheism rather than misinterpret what I say and then keep telling me something I already know. We barely got a communication going, next time if you are going to be vague enough to say state atheism try narrow it to one government, I don't know how the point of hitler arose it was before I arrived but still you should have mentioned it wasn't what you were talking about and actually picked a atheistic state. I leave you to it.

 

[RickShafer]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

Hitler was a theosophist,(widely known).
Look up their seal on wikipedia, complete with the left handed swastika.
He was a member of the Toule Society, an occult organization well before his involvement in politics.
He also kept a book called "The Secret Plan" by Helena Blavatsky on his nightstand. It was his bible.
The occultism of the Nazi party leadership is well documented.
Do some research.

 

[Red_Tory]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

I think people should be whatever makes them happy (as long as they are not harming others). Atheism is perfectly rational and doesn't deserve the social stigma it receives in the U.S. Luckily, with the internet and education, people will be more informed. Nonbelievers are on the rise all around the world.

Unfortunately he has been banned, but this serves to demonstrate the point I was going to make. From a materialist and atheistic perspective doing what makes one happy is of paramount importance. The truth of a position is of secondary concern.

In order to remain intellectually honest, the truth of a proposition must be the defining point on which we either accept or reject it. The intellectually honest position presupposes that the value of Truth is of a higher priority than other concerns.

Yet this commitment to Truth for its own sake is - from an atheistic or materialist perspective - utterly baseless. It is merely a subjective value; one person may appreciate Truth, the other pleasure or chocolate ice cream. This is because commitment to the abstract "Truth" is essentially a faith-based belief in the absolute value of a metaphysical idea or Form.

Ultimately, the question "what evidence can you present for the existence of God?" undermines itself by either appealing to a principle other than truth (e.g. pleasure) and thus rendering the question irrelevant, or by doubting the very assumption upon which the question rests - that this metaphysical value actually exists and is the goal that we ought to pursue. If we take the perspective espoused by "Reality" here, the irony is that reality and the value of Truth as a goal in and of itself above hedonism actually ceases to exist in any meaningful, objective way.


To demand evidence for the existence of God or the metaphysical is actually the most ironic request an atheist can make. Theism and its metaphysical accompaniments provides a more intellectually honest world view in which abstract values - Truth Itself among them - are valued. If we reject that, we slide into subjectivity and materialism.

 

[Red_Tory]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

double possstttt

 

[DannyC]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

Unfortunately he has been banned, but this serves to demonstrate the point I was going to make. From a materialist and atheistic perspective doing what makes one happy is of paramount importance. The truth of a position is of secondary concern.

In order to remain intellectually honest, the truth of a proposition must be the defining point on which we either accept or reject it. The intellectually honest position presupposes that the value of Truth is of a higher priority than other concerns.

Yet this commitment to Truth for its own sake is - from an atheistic or materialist perspective - utterly baseless. It is merely a subjective value; one person may appreciate Truth, the other pleasure or chocolate ice cream. This is because commitment to the abstract "Truth" is essentially a faith-based belief in the absolute value of a metaphysical idea or Form.

Ultimately, the question "what evidence can you present for the existence of God?" undermines itself by either appealing to a principle other than truth (e.g. pleasure) and thus rendering the question irrelevant, or by doubting the very assumption upon which the question rests - that this metaphysical value actually exists and is the goal that we ought to pursue. If we take the perspective espoused by "Reality" here, the irony is that reality and the value of Truth as a goal in and of itself above hedonism actually ceases to exist in any meaningful, objective way.


To demand evidence for the existence of God or the metaphysical is actually the most ironic request an atheist can make. Theism and its metaphysical accompaniments provides a more intellectually honest world view in which abstract values - Truth Itself among them - are valued. If we reject that, we slide into subjectivity and materialism.

Well considering it was one persons view does not mean you can presuppose that atheistic values of truth are secondary in any sense, in any form of writing it's a generalization. With that and once again differing views of atheism you can't presuppose rules of atheism as happiness over truth. As an atheist happiness is truth you have muddled a point so I don't feel I need to address it further.

As evolutionary animals which have developed deep and complicated nervous systems our objective purpose is the propagation of DNA, it's simply scientific fact, but rather than me implying it's what we strive to do I will elaborate.
In simple terms you believe since god exists everything but the worship of god and belief in him is baseless without it, it's pointless for anyone but christians to pursue anything since we can't establish a reason.Well reason is the cause of thought it's the laws which govern our development. It could be true that determinism is true, I feel I have free will but what I believe I am does not make it true. Likewise the conviction of the belief on the theist only narrows the search for the truth and builds walls around it.

My subjective purpose is my own but to imply that it really doesn't exist is even with any form of detailed description just a simple 'we are right because we know we are right' and anyone who disagrees can't be right due to not knowing what the 'real' right is.

theism provides no answers to anything up to objective purpose, subjective purpose, objective morality subjective morality and the origin of our universe. I should rephrase it provides answers but for the theist will be convicted by them.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

Look you interjected yourself into a discussion I was having with another person, put words in my mouth that I never said, and are now acting like I was discussing topics I never was.

Get it through your head: I was replying to a specific statement someone else made. I was not discussing atheism in general, whether the majority of atheists today align with state atheism, nor anything else you are wrongly asserting that I was even discussing.

At this point you should just apologize for all of the above, state you wish to have a discussion with me, and then present a topic you wish to talk about or stop talking to me.

Haven't you ever taken an organizational communication class? Interrupting people and maligning them while projecting what's in your own head at them as if they had anything to do with it fails to qualify as good communications.

You need to get some sense about you.

Once again I didn't say state atheists are not atheists I said the majority of atheists don't condone those actions, but again it's simple if someone disagrees with you rather than clarifying you just assert they are wrong and either we get bored or we get banned fair? It's interesting when you talk about state atheism while I believe you are now referring to the Stalinist regime you never mentioned it once? It's strange how we are supposed to pick up hints on what you would like to say I would call it messy writing and vague generalizations but since I offered you to talk about atheism rather than misinterpret what I say and then keep telling me something I already know. We barely got a communication going, next time if you are going to be vague enough to say state atheism try narrow it to one government, I don't know how the point of hitler arose it was before I arrived but still you should have mentioned it wasn't what you were talking about and actually picked a atheistic state. I leave you to it.

 

[TheKringledOne]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

Hitler was also vegetarian. So he killed in the name of vegetarism.

Oh good Reality got banned.

 

[DannyC]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

Look you interjected yourself into a discussion I was having with another person, put words in my mouth that I never said, and are now acting like I was discussing topics I never was.

Get it through your head: I was replying to a specific statement someone else made. I was not discussing atheism in general, whether the majority of atheists today align with state atheism, nor anything else you are wrongly asserting that I was even discussing.

At this point you should just apologize for all of the above, state you wish to have a discussion with me, and then present a topic you wish to talk about or stop talking to me.

Haven't you ever taken an organizational communication class? Interrupting people and maligning them while projecting what's in your own head at them as if they had anything to do with it fails to qualify as good communications.

You need to get some sense about you.

I don't want to discuss anything with you, again someone has brought up a decent point on interest I have no problem moving on, also re-reading what I wrote I never said you said he was an atheist I merely was stating a point. If you want to moan and make this whole open topic about how misunderstood you are go ahead or you can move on everyone else has.Looking back on it you made the conclusion atheists are doing more if not equal amount of harm now than in the 20th century. You just make big conclusions with no facts but I'll state it once more I don't want to keep talking to you it's over I'm not apologising and I've moved on to another discussion since this is an open topic anyone can comment.I'll leave it there.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

More rambling nonsense. That's great Danny. I think we're done here.

I don't want to discuss anything with you, again someone has brought up a decent point on interest I have no problem moving on, also re-reading what I wrote I never said you said he was an atheist I merely was stating a point. If you want to moan and make this whole open topic about how misunderstood you are go ahead or you can move on everyone else has.Looking back on it you made the conclusion atheists are doing more if not equal amount of harm now than in the 20th century. You just make big conclusions with no facts but I'll state it once more I don't want to keep talking to you it's over I'm not apologising and I've moved on to another discussion since this is an open topic anyone can comment.I'll leave it there.

 

[DannyC]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

More rambling nonsense. That's great Danny. I think we're done here.

I was finished half a page back, I'm glad you caught up, I am finished with this.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

Well, it takes a little more time to catch up to your rambling nonsense than it does for you to manufacture it. Glad you're finished.

I was finished half a page back, I'm glad you caught up, I am finished with this.

 

[Red_Tory]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

Well considering it was one persons view does not mean you can presuppose that atheistic values of truth are secondary in any sense, in any form of writing it's a generalization. With that and once again differing views of atheism you can't presuppose rules of atheism as happiness over truth. As an atheist happiness is truth you have muddled a point so I don't feel I need to address it further.

As evolutionary animals which have developed deep and complicated nervous systems our objective purpose is the propagation of DNA, it's simply scientific fact, but rather than me implying it's what we strive to do I will elaborate.
In simple terms you believe since god exists everything but the worship of god and belief in him is baseless without it, it's pointless for anyone but christians to pursue anything since we can't establish a reason.Well reason is the cause of thought it's the laws which govern our development. It could be true that determinism is true, I feel I have free will but what I believe I am does not make it true. Likewise the conviction of the belief on the theist only narrows the search for the truth and builds walls around it.

My subjective purpose is my own but to imply that it really doesn't exist is even with any form of detailed description just a simple 'we are right because we know we are right' and anyone who disagrees can't be right due to not knowing what the 'real' right is.

theism provides no answers to anything up to objective purpose, subjective purpose, objective morality subjective morality and the origin of our universe. I should rephrase it provides answers but for the theist will be convicted by them.

1. I'm not saying it's pointless for anyone but Christians to pursue anything. I'm saying it would be pointless to pursue an abstract value (e.g. truth itself, for its own sake) when nothing beyond the physical realm actually exists. People who deny the existence of metaphysical values can still pursue physical things, but the aforementioned values (e.g. Truth, Justice, Righteousness) become mere means to that physical end. So from a materialist perspective, pursuing Truth for its own sake, or doing what is Righteous for its own sake, makes absolutely no sense since these would either be means or artificially constructed tools designed to achieve a physical end.

2. Even if happiness is truth for atheists, the point still stands; your personal happiness is a purely subjective value; it is not an objective duty towards transcendent value that everyone ought to pursue.

3. Yes, your subjective purpose is your own. That's where the problem lies. You're actually confirming what I said.

4. As for your remark about evolution, that also supports the point I am making; in that case, the goal would be the propagation of our own DNA. The cause of Truth itself is merely means to a different end - again, the propagation of DNA. In this case, truth is not the final objective. Hence it is still - by its very definition - a worldview that has the capacity to embrace intellectualy dishonest practices and beliefs as a means for obtaining a higher end.

 

[Red_Tory]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

Just in case I wasn't clear, this is the crux of the matter:

If you say that as evolutionary creatures our objective purpose is the propagation of DNA, then pursuing and knowing Truth becomes a secondary characteristic of value. The primary value or final end/goal is the propagation of DNA, and knowing truth is meant to augment our efforts towards this goal.


If these two values ever came into conflict, then as the primary or "objective" purpose, the propagation of DNA would be of a higher priority than the value of Truth itself. Therefore if a hypothetical conflict of interest did come about, we would discard the secondary value - the pursuit of Truth itself - for the sake of the primary (or what you regard as the "objective") value.


What I'm saying is that this is an intellectually dishonest approach to existence, value, and life itself.

 

[DannyC]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

1. I'm not saying it's pointless for anyone but Christians to pursue anything. I'm saying it would be pointless to pursue an abstract value (e.g. truth itself, for its own sake) when nothing beyond the physical realm actually exists. People who deny the existence of metaphysical values can still pursue physical things, but the aforementioned values (e.g. Truth, Justice, Righteousness) become mere means to that physical end. So from a materialist perspective, pursuing Truth for its own sake, or doing what is Righteous for its own sake, makes absolutely no sense since these would either be means or artificially constructed tools designed to achieve a physical end.

2. Even if happiness is truth for atheists, the point still stands; your personal happiness is a purely subjective value; it is not an objective duty towards transcendent value that everyone ought to pursue.

3. Yes, your subjective purpose is your own. That's where the problem lies. You're actually confirming what I said.

4. As for your remark about evolution, that also supports the point I am making; in that case, the goal would be the propagation of our own DNA. The cause of Truth itself is merely means to a different end - again, the propagation of DNA. In this case, truth is not the final objective. Hence it is still - by its very definition - a worldview that has the capacity to embrace intellectualy dishonest practices and beliefs as a means for obtaining a higher end.

You mention truth as an abstract value, well it's generally accepted that truth is one of the three absolute values, to say truth is abstract because it doesn't end with a supernatural being is something I can't follow. 'I'm saying it would be pointless to pursue an abstract value (e.g. truth itself, for its own sake) when nothing beyond the physical realm actually exists'. By both meanings I can't follow a presumption of a supernatural being either existing or being truthful let alone the truth and I don't follow this logic it doesn't to me actually make any sense.I feel you think that we both have agreeable terms of what truth could be and that's just not right so you can't jump to these conclusions of truth being artificially constructed for a physical end without appealing first to a divine being which is not accepted as being truth.

again your're basically just rehashing why do atheists do anything when it's not important 'Even if happiness is truth for atheists, the point still stands; your personal happiness is a purely subjective value it is not an objective duty towards transcendent value that everyone ought to pursue'. It could very well be subjective but I find it hard the pursuit of happiness is subjective for anyone rather than everyone which I would conclude happiness is not subjective in who wants it, but is objective in everyone pursues it in different things.
I don't see the link i can't see logic in a big statement answering all the small ones. I'm not conforming to what you said It could be possible that most of our purposes are subjective but there are objective values we all share and none are abstract.

propagation of DNA is not truth we pursue it's a factual truth we acknowledge. I have problems with this pseudo philosophy it's not correlating with each other. The universe does not need to give you hope or an objective purpose so to demand a specific one and then say well this holy book gives me one it's just choice picking of what sounds nice. Also truth that nothing is beyond the physical word could be if found out to be true, truth itself if we could be 100% on the fact no god exists the truth of that one thing would be a huge leap for knowledge and answer most questions but not all so I will happily admit there is alot of things I do not know I embrace the fact I can pursue those truths, I feel like happiness the pursuit of truth is objective but whether we play by the objective rules by looking at different areas of truth with a balanced opinion is another question, we could spend hours talking about why people accept to believe nonsense but that's another time. Millions of things remained unanswered but with objective morals with which we don't need a creator for we are given objective purpose. You can choose to believe what you like about how the world functions and the truth you believe but to say you have found it and any other pursuit of truth undermines itself is something which I find almost laughable.I don't assert knowledge for everything and I would never assert absolute truth and the pointlessness of other peoples pursuits in an objective sense because they are not like mine . It's an interesting topic but I'll admit short paragraphs on both sides really don't further either of our understanding, I enjoy it but I don't think either of us will be able to convey all our points in little paragraphs. I do understand what you're saying I just completely disagree I don't use threads often so excuse minor mistakes I hope I'm coming across at least thought provoking. I find your view very engaging

 

[Red_Tory]

Re: What to do when atheiests attack you with questions and "proof"god dosent exist e

You mention truth as an abstract value, well it's generally accepted that truth is one of the three absolute values, to say truth is abstract because it doesn't end with a supernatural being is something I can't follow. 'I'm saying it would be pointless to pursue an abstract value (e.g. truth itself, for its own sake) when nothing beyond the physical realm actually exists'. By both meanings I can't follow a presumption of a supernatural being either existing or being truthful let alone the truth and I don't follow this logic it doesn't to me actually make any sense.I feel you think that we both have agreeable terms of what truth could be and that's just not right so you can't jump to these conclusions of truth being artificially constructed for a physical end without appealing first to a divine being which is not accepted as being truth.

again your're basically just rehashing why do atheists do anything when it's not important 'Even if happiness is truth for atheists, the point still stands; your personal happiness is a purely subjective value it is not an objective duty towards transcendent value that everyone ought to pursue'. It could very well be subjective but I find it hard the pursuit of happiness is subjective for anyone rather than everyone which I would conclude happiness is not subjective in who wants it, but is objective in everyone pursues it in different things.
I don't see the link i can't see logic in a big statement answering all the small ones. I'm not conforming to what you said It could be possible that most of our purposes are subjective but there are objective values we all share and none are abstract.

propagation of DNA is not truth we pursue it's a factual truth we acknowledge. I have problems with this pseudo philosophy it's not correlating with each other. The universe does not need to give you hope or an objective purpose so to demand a specific one and then say well this holy book gives me one it's just choice picking of what sounds nice. Also truth that nothing is beyond the physical word could be if found out to be true, truth itself if we could be 100% on the fact no god exists the truth of that one thing would be a huge leap for knowledge and answer most questions but not all so I will happily admit there is alot of things I do not know I embrace the fact I can pursue those truths, I feel like happiness the pursuit of truth is objective but whether we play by the objective rules by looking at different areas of truth with a balanced opinion is another question, we could spend hours talking about why people accept to believe nonsense but that's another time. Millions of things remained unanswered but with objective morals with which we don't need a creator for we are given objective purpose. You can choose to believe what you like about how the world functions and the truth you believe but to say you have found it and any other pursuit of truth undermines itself is something which I find almost laughable.I don't assert knowledge for everything and I would never assert absolute truth and the pointlessness of other peoples pursuits in an objective sense because they are not like mine . It's an interesting topic but I'll admit short paragraphs on both sides really don't further either of our understanding, I enjoy it but I don't think either of us will be able to convey all our points in little paragraphs. I do understand what you're saying I just completely disagree I don't use threads often so excuse minor mistakes I hope I'm coming across at least thought provoking. I find your view very engaging

Before proceeding, what are these three absolute values to which you are referring?