Questions for Atheists

[Steinlight]

What is the meaning of life?

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

 

[BDBoop]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is the meaning of life?

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

They’re wrong for the same reasons theists believe – as both those free from faith and theists derive their morals and values from the same source: man.

Given the fact there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, no one possesses a ‘monopoly’ on morals and values.

 

[Steinlight]

Who is this fat nerd?

So rape, murder, and theft are just preferences like the choice like choosing coke or pepsi?

If they are just preferences, why regulate them?

No questions were answered here, however, more have now been asked.

 

[Steinlight]

What is the meaning of life?

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

They’re wrong for the same reasons theists believe – as both those free from faith and theists derive their morals and values from the same source: man.

Given the fact there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, no one possesses a ‘monopoly’ on morals and values.

So no one can objectively claim murder, rape, and theft are wrong.

Stop regulating my preferences!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is the meaning of life?

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

They’re wrong for the same reasons theists believe – as both those free from faith and theists derive their morals and values from the same source: man.

Given the fact there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, no one possesses a ‘monopoly’ on morals and values.

So no one can objectively claim murder, rape, and theft are wrong.

Stop regulating my preferences!

You don’t understand.

The mistake you make as a theist is to believe that the ultimate ‘source’ of morals and values comes from some omnipotent deity, and consequently that deity’s dogma exists as a ‘moral authority.’

Consequently you ask the wrong question, the question you and other theists should be asking yourselves is how do we know this ‘moral authority’ is legitimate given the fact there is no evidence of the existence of a ‘god,’ where religion and ‘god’ are in fact creations of man.

 

[Steinlight]

They’re wrong for the same reasons theists believe – as both those free from faith and theists derive their morals and values from the same source: man.

Given the fact there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, no one possesses a ‘monopoly’ on morals and values.

So no one can objectively claim murder, rape, and theft are wrong.

Stop regulating my preferences!

You don’t understand.

The mistake you make as a theist is to believe that the ultimate ‘source’ of morals and values comes from some omnipotent deity, and consequently that deity’s dogma exists as a ‘moral authority.’

Consequently you ask the wrong question, the question you and other theists should be asking yourselves is how do we know this ‘moral authority’ is legitimate given the fact there is no evidence of the existence of a ‘god,’ where religion and ‘god’ are in fact creations of man.

No moral authority is objectively legitimate, since after all, under your secular worldview, no one has a monopoly on morals or values.

So the question becomes, how does one prevent a secular atheist society from collapsing due to its nihilist foundations?

 

[WinterBorn]

What is the meaning of life?

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

Murder, rape and theft are wrong because they harm others. These acts have been illegal in every legal system ever devised by civilized man. They are not dependent on religious beliefs.

 

[edthecynic]

 

[Bloodrock44]

What is the meaning of life?

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

They’re wrong for the same reasons theists believe – as both those free from faith and theists derive their morals and values from the same source: man.

Given the fact there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, no one possesses a ‘monopoly’ on morals and values.

The "fact" there is no god? You, in your infinite wisdom have proven this "fact?" I pity you.

 

[Steinlight]

What is the meaning of life?

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

Murder, rape and theft are wrong because they harm others. These acts have been illegal in every legal system ever devised by civilized man. They are not dependent on religious beliefs.

What is your definition of harm? And under your definition of harm, why is harming others wrong?

 

[thebrucebeat]

So no one can objectively claim murder, rape, and theft are wrong.

Stop regulating my preferences!

You don’t understand.

The mistake you make as a theist is to believe that the ultimate ‘source’ of morals and values comes from some omnipotent deity, and consequently that deity’s dogma exists as a ‘moral authority.’

Consequently you ask the wrong question, the question you and other theists should be asking yourselves is how do we know this ‘moral authority’ is legitimate given the fact there is no evidence of the existence of a ‘god,’ where religion and ‘god’ are in fact creations of man.

No moral authority is objectively legitimate, since after all, under your secular worldview, no one has a monopoly on morals or values.

So the question becomes, how does one prevent a secular atheist society from collapsing due to its nihilist foundations?

Simple.
Atheism and nihilism are not synonymous.
What you find the need to attribute to an external source is simply the necessary adaptation of man to live in close proximity with each other without complete mayhem. Cultures develop their vision of what that moral code is and non-compliance is met with what society determines is an appropriate punishment for that.
No god required.

 

[Steinlight]

You don’t understand.

The mistake you make as a theist is to believe that the ultimate ‘source’ of morals and values comes from some omnipotent deity, and consequently that deity’s dogma exists as a ‘moral authority.’

Consequently you ask the wrong question, the question you and other theists should be asking yourselves is how do we know this ‘moral authority’ is legitimate given the fact there is no evidence of the existence of a ‘god,’ where religion and ‘god’ are in fact creations of man.

No moral authority is objectively legitimate, since after all, under your secular worldview, no one has a monopoly on morals or values.

So the question becomes, how does one prevent a secular atheist society from collapsing due to its nihilist foundations?

Simple.
Atheism and nihilism are not synonymous.
What you find the need to attribute to an external source is simply the necessary adaptation of man to live in close proximity with each other without complete mayhem. Cultures develop their vision of what that moral code is and non-compliance is met with what society determines is an appropriate punishment for that.
No god required.

beep boop beep boop.

My calculations according to SCIENCE and reason conclude no organized faith is necessary for a moral society.

But, morality is subjective, can't define moral , beep boop beep boop data overload!

 

[thebrucebeat]

No moral authority is objectively legitimate, since after all, under your secular worldview, no one has a monopoly on morals or values.

So the question becomes, how does one prevent a secular atheist society from collapsing due to its nihilist foundations?

Simple.
Atheism and nihilism are not synonymous.
What you find the need to attribute to an external source is simply the necessary adaptation of man to live in close proximity with each other without complete mayhem. Cultures develop their vision of what that moral code is and non-compliance is met with what society determines is an appropriate punishment for that.
No god required.

beep boop beep boop.

My calculations according to SCIENCE and reason conclude no organized faith is necessary for a moral society.

But, morality is subjective, can't define moral , beep boop beep boop data overload!

No response from you.
Understood.

 

[Moonglow]

Who is this fat nerd?

So rape, murder, and theft are just preferences like the choice like choosing coke or pepsi?

If they are just preferences, why regulate them?

No questions were answered here, however, more have now been asked.

You must make taffy, since you are trying to twist and stretch words also....

 

[The Professor]

I'm an atheist. I swear to God I am.

 

[Steinlight]

Simple.
Atheism and nihilism are not synonymous.
What you find the need to attribute to an external source is simply the necessary adaptation of man to live in close proximity with each other without complete mayhem. Cultures develop their vision of what that moral code is and non-compliance is met with what society determines is an appropriate punishment for that.
No god required.

beep boop beep boop.

My calculations according to SCIENCE and reason conclude no organized faith is necessary for a moral society.

But, morality is subjective, can't define moral , beep boop beep boop data overload!

No response from you.
Understood.

Response not computed, rephrase, beep boop.

 

[thebrucebeat]

beep boop beep boop.

My calculations according to SCIENCE and reason conclude no organized faith is necessary for a moral society.

But, morality is subjective, can't define moral , beep boop beep boop data overload!

No response from you.
Understood.

Response not computed, rephrase, beep boop.

You sure got me there!

 

[Moonglow]

I'm an atheist. I swear to God I am.

Which God?

 

[Steinlight]

Organized religion was the foundation for the first civilizations(see Ur). The first agrarian societies were organized by a priestly caste, because organized faith not only unified society(homogeneity is necessary for a socially cohesive society, read Putnam) but formed the basis for a social contract that maintained the order; this social cohesion and the social contract created the conditions that allowed for the advancement(politically, technologically, economically, socially) of human societies . Without these institutions, organized on the premise of religion, humanity would have never advanced beyond hunter gatherer societies.

But of course, spergy shitlib atheists have no concept of social interaction or knowledge of history before 1965.