If atheism is true then there is no good or bad and there is no right or wrong

I do not see atheists manning the stations in the pro-life movement.

Also, it seems that atheists are more enthusiastic about death in general, such as euthanasia and assisted suicide.

You would think that people who don't believe in a hereafter would be MORE pro-life, because this life is all there is.

But the opposite is the case, atheists in general have no problem in allowing others to be killed.
 
What I find interesting is how USMB's atheists piled into this thread to deny the statements made in the OP, with such fervent hostility.

"Methinks thou dost protest too much."
Trolling troll threads is a hobby
 
I do not see atheists manning the stations in the pro-life movement.

Also, it seems that atheists are more enthusiastic about death in general, such as euthanasia and assisted suicide.

You would think that people who don't believe in a hereafter would be MORE pro-life, because this life is all there is.

But the opposite is the case, atheists in general have no problem in allowing others to be killed.

Those who are in favor of assisted suicide or euthanasia are in favor of mercy. My mother and one of my most beloved dogs had cancer. The difference is that when my dog was in terrible pain and there was no hope, I was able to help him. My mother just suffered longer.
 
It doesn't take a very sophisticated mind to conclude, logically, that one cannot intentionally harm other people or their property. And given more thought, an entire "code of conduct" can evolve, which might allow people to get along together in the long term.

But there is a germ of truth in the OP, and that is that some "evil" behavior is apparently harmless (to everyone else), and there are many activities that are not logically supportable that are virtually necessary for the success of any society.

Why help a stranger? Why give to charity? Why donate your time, effort and money to civic improvement?
The logic for that is easy. self preservation. I never know when I might be that "someone in need". It would certainly be nice to know that someone helped me. So, I pay that forward. No God necessary.

What's wrong with downloading kiddie-porn? Lusting after your neighbor's wife? Screwing her, if you don't get caught? Filing a fraudulent claim against a large insurance company, or the government? Suing someone for an injury for which you were at fault? Taking drugs?
The basis for all of these is a very old code that, contrary to popular opinion is much older than Christianity. One of the earlies versions came from ancient Mesopotamia - Do not to another what you would not have done to you. Again, no God necessary. Just the ability for empathy.

Killing a healthy, viable baby who would be born an hour from now, if left to its natural course?
I could not agree more. The crucial word in that statement is viable. You see a fetus that is less than 23 weeks old is not viable. In that case, the moral obligation defers to the choices of the woman carrying the non-viable fetus.

Helping a severely depressed person commit suicide?

If there is no "god," why not?
Helping? Perhaps not. However, stopping them? To be honest, I'm not sure that we have a moral obligation to stop them. I certainly have a moral obligation to tell them what a waste, and a tragedy it would be. But actually stopping them? I don't think we have a moral obligation to do that.
 
And there is no basis for saying that I can't just shoot a man down in cold blood or abort a baby or strangle my wife in her sleep.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
I believe a better way to phrase it is that without a Supreme Being holding us accountable to written moral standards, we are free to make up our own moral standards on a minute to minute basis.

For example, an atheist can live a perfectly good and moral life. Then one day they see $100 left on the clerks desk at the store and nobody is looking.
A religious person may take it but likely will not.
An atheist may take it and can easily justify their action without fear of ramifications.
Even that is not entirely correct. Existing in society is a contract. I agree to not so certain things for the privilege of existing in this society. That contract does not require deity; only agreed upon strictures.
 
Question for OP and defenders:

Did God decree the rules of morality to be moral because they are moral and good inherently? Or are moral things moral because God decreed them and no other reason?
 
And there is no basis for saying that I can't just shoot a man down in cold blood or abort a baby or strangle my wife in her sleep.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Atheists usually have more morals than theists. Go figure. :dunno:
Too bad for your theory that this is false.
The US is a "nation under God" and has been at war 222 out of 239 years since 1776. Just one example.
 
Atheists usually have more morals than theists. Go figure. :dunno:
Too bad for your theory that this is false.

You just basically announced to the world that the only reason you don't degenerate into a murderous maniac is because you believe in gods. That's no more "moral" behavior than a dog who doesnt bite you because he wears a muzzle.
Look at all the bad behavior of the Communists if you don't believe me.
That's a dead end for you. Look at Joseph Kony.

Now, back to this fascinating thing you said. You say you would degenerate into a murderous psychopath, should you find out there is no god. Do you really think that's "moral", or even normal?
Well, that's a lie because I never said it.

But you're not afraid to lie, because you don't believe you will go to hell for it.

But you will.
I'll save you a seat, but remember no passing Adolf the salt.
 

Forum List

Back
Top