Question for the atheists?

reply to post by Annee


It's a term of endearment. Why it would bother you I would assume must be something in your own heart that troubles you.

When you recognize it for what it is, and not the word, perhaps it won't bother you so much.

I am sure it bothers a lot of people that you keep coming into religion threads that you obviously don't want nothing to do only to mock, judge, and tell everyone how wrong they are for their beliefs, but they can't stop you from doing it can they?

Happy New Years Sweetie (manifesting or evoking affection)

Feed the guy a large dose of laxatives and wait. Or I take him to a friend who is a doctor(not a surgeon but he's had training), put him under, extract the jewel, sow him back up. Split the profits 3 ways. Stupid scenario so I give you my stupid answer without HAVING to kill anyone.

I'm an atheist, former RC. The 'holy' books as people call them have zero morals, they tell 'you' murder, rape, slavery and killing is OK, as long as you do it for god, or in 'his' name... That's messed up. Everything else... treat others as you would like to be treated, etc etc etc is common sense IMO.

Attention!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the topic:

Question for the atheists?

Please discuss it and not each other.

--Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--

We expect civility and decorum within all topics

reply to post by OrNaM3nT


Anyone, from any walk of life, and who believe in different things, including religion, or other spiritual walks of life, are able to kill, and or murder for many reasons.

Meanwhle it is true that morality is not the"sole province of those who believe in a deity", and btw not all spiritual walks of life have a belief in a deity, but I also find it extremely ironic that many atheists act as if they are exempt of causing evil simply because they are atheists.

Atheists have also committed untold murders around the world.

Communists, and more so early communists who were ardent atheists, caused the murder of more than 110 million people in about 80 years or so, and imprisoned millions more in gulags, and in "indoctrination camps".

Even the communists in Spain in the 1930s decided to murder priests, and any catholic they got their hands on, which is why their movement died off so fast, because when people saw the reality of what these communists were bringing to Spain, the people united and fought the communists.

However, some communists have learned a bit from history and are now using religion to swell their ranks by claiming they are religious, such as Chavez.

Many people are capable of doing despicable things, and they will use any, and every excuse to cause such despicable things. That is the truth.

I don't believe that all of mankind is evil, or that all of mankind must pay for what some have done, or are doing, but a large section of humanity are just evil no matter what they believe in.

How about this motivation:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."
Kant's Categorical Imperative. No religion needed.

reply to post by ManFromEurope

I was about to write a post just like yours and quote one of my alltime favourite philosophers but you beat me to it.
I wonder how well known and taught Immanuel Kant is in the US and the rest of the world.

Originally posted by riley
I am an atheist; an "unbeliever" in your god.

You made a sweeping arrogent generalisation about myself and ALL others who do not believe as you. Do not then say "friend" when you have made it quite clear you do not consider us your equals by judging and denograting from a self proclaimed high ground.

edit on 1-1-2012 by riley because: (no reason given)

I did not put the shoe on your feet my friend. I said they do not fit you.

Believers do not ask these questions because they KNOW it is all up to God to reveal himself to you.

Don't you believe that it is up to God to reveal himself to you?

If you do not believe this, then who else but God can do it?

Don't you know that I am the only one advocating before God for you to have the God given right to decide for yourself on the matter?

Do I have to die for you before you can see my friendly intent?

With Love,

Your Brother

how about those who kill, for the promise of virgins and eternal paradise?

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

When an atheist says "murder is wrong," I am wondering about the reason or thought process that goes into it. Saying "murder is wrong" just because reason says so is tautological.

Why Murder Is (Usually) Wrong

1. The victim is more likely than not to be a member of your own hunter-gatherer band/tribe, and therefore to share some genes with you. Like all social animals, you have a built-in instinct to preserve, not destroy, your own genes, even when they are in other people's bodies. Evolutionary biologists call this kin selection.
   
   
2. Killing people is tiring. It uses up a lot of energy, which is more properly spent on the fundamental activities of life, like resource-gathering, child-rearing and sex. Therefore killing is to be avoided unless the potential energy gain (through resources acquired from the murder) is greater than the energy to be invested.
   
   
3. Killing people is also dangerous. They may kill you instead, or maim you, or at least injure you so badly you take a long time recovering – during which time you will use up a lot of energy and not be able to devote yourself much to resource-gathering, child-rearing or sex. Therefore killing people is to be avoided unless the potential energy gain (through resources acquired from the murder) is not just slightly more than the investment required but big enough to cover the risk of things going wrong. Risk is normally hard to quantify, so it is best in most cases not to kill anyone at all.
   
   
4. Killing another member of your band or tribe will cause considerable disruption to the social and functional dynamics of the group. Others may resent this and penalize you accordingly – perhaps even kill you. Yet another strong disincentive to murder. A particular threat arises from the relatives of the victim, who may take revenge not just upon you but upon others who carry your genes, such as your children or your sisters.
   
   
5. If, however, the other threatens your genes directly or through competition for resources, and other means of deterring him (such as bribery, negotiation or threats) prove unsuccessful, then it is best to kill him.

Such is the morality bequeathed to us by our animal heritage, burnt into our brains by evolution as a set of instinctive tropisms and behaviour patterns.

Such are the roots of all morality – not just the modalities of murder but also of altruism, cooperation, parental care, sexual fidelity and all the rest. Moral codes are just post hoc rationalization. We are not moral because of the religions we adopt or the ethical philosophies we devise. All that is just what Buddhists call 'the arising and passing' – the froth of conscious thought and feeling that is, in the end, only a by-product of the stimuli we perceive and the behavioural responses they draw forth. Our thoughts are mere bubbles on the surface of the stream of time, but it is the deep, unseen currents of the stream that move us.

We delude ourselves that our actions are the children of our thoughts, but it is not so. Our actions always determine our thoughts, even if the thought precedes the action in time. This is a truth that very few human beings are willing to accept, or even contemplate seriously.

Morality is instinctive. It needs no religion or philosophy to justify it.

❧

reply to post by Awoken4Ever

Why are the morals so drastically different of cavemen then they are today?

Are they, really? Would you like to specify exactly how they differ?