On the contrary, I do live consistent. You're the one that don't live consistent. You've shown time and time again that, you constantly change according to your fears.
There is no moral ought or obligation to live or think in any way in your view. It's simply just illogical and moral anarchy.
If you want to be consistent, you would have to say atheism profess to have no moral 'ought', but you certainly don't live that way.
Atheists are open to moral relativism, but they live as if there are moral absolutes.
That right there is the inconsistency.
How do you define moral skepticism?it's now apparent as to why your arguments fails again and again. You're confused with the meaning of these theories and what it is used for.
Moral skepticism is when truth isn't truth. What I find ironic about atheists is that when I reference their atheistic beliefs, they'll be the first to say that atheism isn't a belief, but a lack of belief in god. And therefore theists are to be blame for all the history of atrocities. But when they are trying to sell atheism, suddenly there exists a collective atheist mind of virtues and good will.
Atheists has No Reason for his "good" humanism. Atheist don't even know how to account for goodness and kindness without God, and yet they demand it.
This fails because you haven't given any evidence as to how god is needed and how it leads to nihilism. But you have shown again and again how your argument does lead to it.
I did via the Moral Argument.
To quote Ravi Zacharias:
"When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question?" - Ravi Zacharias
So the very concept of morality requires a moral standard, which requires someone to set the standard. So, the very use of the word "morality" implies God, the moral law-giver.
The implications of not believing in a god changes your worldview in a way that lead you to meaningless because it carries no sufficient to provide for anything. Atheism does not give any reasons to support it. Go and read an honest atheist, Friedrich Nietzsche.
This claim is wrong because atheists are able to justify morality. Also, the second part fails because I believe slavery is morally wrong, so just with that, I've proven that I'm not reacting to stimulus.
How would atheists do that? Nietzsche was honest about the implications of his worldview just like when Dawkins said "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Most atheists deny this and pretend like they have some justification for morality. Look even your philosophers admit it, you have no justification for condemning any act as immoral, no matter how much pain it causes.
This is false, when materialism is used in this context.
I would ask you from a purely naturalistic universe, how can anything whatsoever be right or wrong?
There is no logical reason to trust our own reasoning. If our reasoning only is a result of natural processes.
And This is why your argument fails because you assumed what my beliefs are.
Just look at your arguments it's typically a atheist-only charge.
This is irrelevant to the topic.
But I'm assuming that you are referring to "atheism" To bring it back to the core, theism=god. Atheism=no god. Belief has nothing to do with it. But in common use these days, theism=Belief in the existence of god. Atheism=no belief in the existence of god. They are opposites, therefore saying "I believe that god exist " is a claim and burden of proof is on that claim. "I don't believe that god exist " is the default. Believing that god don't exist is a claim, and not a requirement for atheism. And not every atheists claims that. But an atheist claim that, that's when the burden of proof is on the atheist. In accordance with that claim, the default would be, "I don't believe that god does not exist.
Did ya'll see what dogmai said there?? She said "I believe that god exist" has the burden of proof while " i don't believe god exist" is the default and therefore does not require burden of proof."
I'm sorry but you're wrong. "Believing that god don't exist is a claim, and
not a requirement for atheism"
Wrong. Fear of hell requires that you must believe hell exist in the first place.
I agree.
If That's your opinion, then yes. However your does not determine whether somethingis true or not.
I would not argue that it is true, but sincere.