What Is The Biggest Drawback Of Atheism?

[presonorek]

Secular humanism is absurd.

Without knowing how you define secular humanism I am going to say, "no".

prove morality is dependent on a (false) messiah ...

Nobody has to do that. They just function as if it is.

As I said before, you can use any tool. My two suggestions were governing laws and Dr. Suess books. Leaving each individual to determine his own moral authority is dysfunctional. This decayed type of society is to be avoided.

It doesn't have to be based on a false messiah. It can be based on anything. It can't be based on an arbitrary concept such as intellect or reason.

Reason is not arbitrary, its a process of properly discerning reality. Usinng reason to determine how to ideally co-mingle, which is all that morality actually is, is adequate, inarbitrary and the results are observable/measurable and therefore actions can be objectively determined to be better or worse measured towards the goal.

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

 

[diver52]

prove morality is dependent on a (false) messiah ...

Nobody has to do that. They just function as if it is.

As I said before, you can use any tool. My two suggestions were governing laws and Dr. Suess books. Leaving each individual to determine his own moral authority is dysfunctional. This decayed type of society is to be avoided.

It doesn't have to be based on a false messiah. It can be based on anything. It can't be based on an arbitrary concept such as intellect or reason.

Reason is not arbitrary, its a process of properly discerning reality. Usinng reason to determine how to ideally co-mingle, which is all that morality actually is, is adequate, inarbitrary and the results are observable/measurable and therefore actions can be objectively determined to be better or worse measured towards the goal.

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

Kant was wrong.

 

[G.T.]

prove morality is dependent on a (false) messiah ...

Nobody has to do that. They just function as if it is.

As I said before, you can use any tool. My two suggestions were governing laws and Dr. Suess books. Leaving each individual to determine his own moral authority is dysfunctional. This decayed type of society is to be avoided.

It doesn't have to be based on a false messiah. It can be based on anything. It can't be based on an arbitrary concept such as intellect or reason.

Reason is not arbitrary, its a process of properly discerning reality. Usinng reason to determine how to ideally co-mingle, which is all that morality actually is, is adequate, inarbitrary and the results are observable/measurable and therefore actions can be objectively determined to be better or worse measured towards the goal.

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

Less suffering is the goal because the mere invention of "morality" only pertains to an agent's actions and then their effects on other agents. Instinctively, visa vie evolution, a living organism's goal is reproduction. Pain and suffering are at war with that goal, you can deduce why...pain is an in-built mechanism to avoid harmful stimuli which could lead to death.

Morals are irrelevant without those they effect, therefore - we know they're a product of observation of cause and effect and not some ethereal "thing" that exist somewhere in the cosmos.

 

[presonorek]

Nobody has to do that. They just function as if it is.

As I said before, you can use any tool. My two suggestions were governing laws and Dr. Suess books. Leaving each individual to determine his own moral authority is dysfunctional. This decayed type of society is to be avoided.

It doesn't have to be based on a false messiah. It can be based on anything. It can't be based on an arbitrary concept such as intellect or reason.

Reason is not arbitrary, its a process of properly discerning reality. Usinng reason to determine how to ideally co-mingle, which is all that morality actually is, is adequate, inarbitrary and the results are observable/measurable and therefore actions can be objectively determined to be better or worse measured towards the goal.

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

Kant was wrong.

A thriving Germany that has had their ass kicked twice and still recovered might beg to differ.

 

[G.T.]

Reason is not arbitrary, its a process of properly discerning reality. Usinng reason to determine how to ideally co-mingle, which is all that morality actually is, is adequate, inarbitrary and the results are observable/measurable and therefore actions can be objectively determined to be better or worse measured towards the goal.

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

Kant was wrong.

A thriving Germany that has had their ass kicked twice and still recovered might beg to differ.

Anecdotes don't make sufficient syllogisms, theyre merely accolades.

 

[diver52]

Reason is not arbitrary, its a process of properly discerning reality. Usinng reason to determine how to ideally co-mingle, which is all that morality actually is, is adequate, inarbitrary and the results are observable/measurable and therefore actions can be objectively determined to be better or worse measured towards the goal.

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

Kant was wrong.

A thriving Germany that has had their ass kicked twice and still recovered might beg to differ.

I doubt it. But I could be wrong. When you hugged your child (assuming you have one) was it unpleasant or immoral? If neither, then Kant was wrong.

 

[presonorek]

Nobody has to do that. They just function as if it is.

As I said before, you can use any tool. My two suggestions were governing laws and Dr. Suess books. Leaving each individual to determine his own moral authority is dysfunctional. This decayed type of society is to be avoided.

It doesn't have to be based on a false messiah. It can be based on anything. It can't be based on an arbitrary concept such as intellect or reason.

Reason is not arbitrary, its a process of properly discerning reality. Usinng reason to determine how to ideally co-mingle, which is all that morality actually is, is adequate, inarbitrary and the results are observable/measurable and therefore actions can be objectively determined to be better or worse measured towards the goal.

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

Less suffering is the goal because the mere invention of "morality" only pertains to an agent's actions and then their effects on other agents. Instinctively, visa vie evolution, a living organism's goal is reproduction. Pain and suffering are at war with that goal, you can deduce why...pain is an in-built mechanism to avoid harmful stimuli which could lead to death.

Morals are irrelevant without those they effect, therefore - we know they're a product of observation of cause and effect and not some ethereal "thing" that exist somewhere in the cosmos.

I suffer every morning to get out of bed. Does this mean staying home is the moral thing to do? No. It does not .

 

[G.T.]

Reason is not arbitrary, its a process of properly discerning reality. Usinng reason to determine how to ideally co-mingle, which is all that morality actually is, is adequate, inarbitrary and the results are observable/measurable and therefore actions can be objectively determined to be better or worse measured towards the goal.

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

Less suffering is the goal because the mere invention of "morality" only pertains to an agent's actions and then their effects on other agents. Instinctively, visa vie evolution, a living organism's goal is reproduction. Pain and suffering are at war with that goal, you can deduce why...pain is an in-built mechanism to avoid harmful stimuli which could lead to death.

Morals are irrelevant without those they effect, therefore - we know they're a product of observation of cause and effect and not some ethereal "thing" that exist somewhere in the cosmos.

I suffer every morning to get out of bed. Does this mean staying home is the moral thing to do? No. It does not .

Morals are meaningless without the cause AND effect.

You need to think a little more about what you just asked me. If youre not effecting another agent, its not a moral question.

Not only that, but your question is not in-answerable either. Would the effect of delaying now's suffering cause further, greater suffering in the future? Are you gunna starve to death if you dont get out of bed? Etc etc etc etc

Quit quibbling and start engaging your brain.

 

[diver52]

Reason is not arbitrary, its a process of properly discerning reality. Usinng reason to determine how to ideally co-mingle, which is all that morality actually is, is adequate, inarbitrary and the results are observable/measurable and therefore actions can be objectively determined to be better or worse measured towards the goal.

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

Less suffering is the goal because the mere invention of "morality" only pertains to an agent's actions and then their effects on other agents. Instinctively, visa vie evolution, a living organism's goal is reproduction. Pain and suffering are at war with that goal, you can deduce why...pain is an in-built mechanism to avoid harmful stimuli which could lead to death.

Morals are irrelevant without those they effect, therefore - we know they're a product of observation of cause and effect and not some ethereal "thing" that exist somewhere in the cosmos.

I suffer every morning to get out of bed. Does this mean staying home is the moral thing to do? No. It does not .

If you see someone starving and you give them food, is that only a moral act if you feel bad about it?

 

[james bond]

WWII was about god letting the Jews fry.

That was evil Hitler influenced by racist Darwin. I think Satan had something to do with it since he wants to kill and destroy God's chosen people. Conveniently, you keep forgetting about the god of the world. You keep posting about him all the time and you can't help but post about him. He hides in your posts as god. That's definite proof!.

 

[rightwinger]

WWII was about god letting the Jews fry.

That was evil Hitler influenced by racist Darwin. I think Satan had something to do with it since he wants to kill and destroy God's chosen people. Conveniently, you keep forgetting about the god of the world. You keep posting about him all the time and you can't help but post about him. He hides in your posts as god. That's definite proof!.

Darwin?

Now you are going goofy on us

 

[james bond]

There are no laws requiring people to worship on the Sabbath.
Not counting a day when business is closed is not a requirement to worship

Actually, the Ten Commandments are a horrible set of rules. I could have written better rules for man to live by

You try going to the post office and get government business done on Sundays oh silly one.

Ten Commandments are great set of objective moral values. You violate the first one, so how can atheists call themselves moral?

As for you being able to write better rules, we all know you are a liar.

 

[presonorek]

Nobody has to do that. They just function as if it is.

As I said before, you can use any tool. My two suggestions were governing laws and Dr. Suess books. Leaving each individual to determine his own moral authority is dysfunctional. This decayed type of society is to be avoided.

It doesn't have to be based on a false messiah. It can be based on anything. It can't be based on an arbitrary concept such as intellect or reason.

Reason is not arbitrary, its a process of properly discerning reality. Usinng reason to determine how to ideally co-mingle, which is all that morality actually is, is adequate, inarbitrary and the results are observable/measurable and therefore actions can be objectively determined to be better or worse measured towards the goal.

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

Less suffering is the goal because the mere invention of "morality" only pertains to an agent's actions and then their effects on other agents. Instinctively, visa vie evolution, a living organism's goal is reproduction. Pain and suffering are at war with that goal, you can deduce why...pain is an in-built mechanism to avoid harmful stimuli which could lead to death.

Morals are irrelevant without those they effect, therefore - we know they're a product of observation of cause and effect and not some ethereal "thing" that exist somewhere in the cosmos.

I suffer every morning to get out of bed. Does this mean staying home is the moral thing to do? I would guess yes.

 

[james bond]

They had yet to invent toilet paper, so they probably threw their poo at each other for fun.

It always ends up this way. I answer your questions nicely while you either ignore mine or can't answer them. You even make fun of the Bible as written by ancient goat herders. When it comes to prophecies, when the Bible was written becomes important as it cannot change. That is evidence of God right there.

Moreover, I end up winning the argument and you end up whining, crying, beotching, and trolling. I believe there just has to be a place and level for trolls.

 

[G.T.]

Reason is not arbitrary, its a process of properly discerning reality. Usinng reason to determine how to ideally co-mingle, which is all that morality actually is, is adequate, inarbitrary and the results are observable/measurable and therefore actions can be objectively determined to be better or worse measured towards the goal.

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

Less suffering is the goal because the mere invention of "morality" only pertains to an agent's actions and then their effects on other agents. Instinctively, visa vie evolution, a living organism's goal is reproduction. Pain and suffering are at war with that goal, you can deduce why...pain is an in-built mechanism to avoid harmful stimuli which could lead to death.

Morals are irrelevant without those they effect, therefore - we know they're a product of observation of cause and effect and not some ethereal "thing" that exist somewhere in the cosmos.

I suffer every morning to get out of bed. Does this mean staying home is the moral thing to do? I would guess yes.

You dont have to guess. You can evaluate, and KNOW.

 

[presonorek]

My observation is better than yours. My measurable results are more useful than your measurable results. You are talking about science. Logic isn't science. Let me give you a couple of logical and reasonable sentences.

Example: If you do absolutely nothing then you will cause no problems nor will you damage anything. Doing nothing is a superior lifestyle to all others because it creates no problems.

Do you think we cannot observe negative effects of doing nothing? That was a horrid example man, challenge yourself.

As far as your "observations" being better than mine, that was a useless snide. We can measure whether action A is more or less harmful to Humans ~ and its not arbitrary so youre still stuck with fucking up your conception of objective vs. subjective. It works like this, both logically as well as scientifically...

Goal: Least suffering.
Suffering: physical/emotional pain.
Pain: Nerves sending harmful stimuli to the brain.

Action: Placing hand on stove, rest of life being controlled for/equal.

Result: Touching stove is not conducive toward goal.

Morality requires no magical thinking, it requires a goal and we can objectively measure our actions against it.

Why is less suffering the goal? Kantian ethics states that no act can be moral unless it was unpleasant.

Kant was wrong.

A thriving Germany that has had their ass kicked twice and still recovered might beg to differ.

I doubt it. But I could be wrong. When you hugged your child (assuming you have one) was it unpleasant or immoral? If neither, then Kant was wrong.

It was neutral and natural. Doing what you like is going to happen anyways. You like it. Doing what you enjoy for the greater good is a neutral act done for your own pleasure and your own benefit. Doing what you hate for the greater good is a moral act. There are ethical codes that require altruism.

 

[rightwinger]

There are no laws requiring people to worship on the Sabbath.
Not counting a day when business is closed is not a requirement to worship

Actually, the Ten Commandments are a horrible set of rules. I could have written better rules for man to live by

You try going to the post office and get government business done on Sundays oh silly one.

Ten Commandments are great set of objective moral values. You violate the first one, so how can atheists call themselves moral?

As for you being able to write better rules, we all know you are a liar.

But I can go to Denny’s
There are no laws requiring business to close on the Sabbath

By the way, the Post Office now delivers packages on Sunday

The Ten Commandments suck as moral laws. Four of the ten relate to worshiping God or else.

 

[joaquinmiller]

There's a drawback?

The adage says, 'you can't escape death and taxes'. Xians and Republicans say that ain't so.

(Life Everlasting! And still only 10%!)

 

[james bond]

Darwin?

Now you are going goofy on us

What's your explanation for Hitler and his generals hatred of Jews, antisemitism, and genocide?

Anyway, Darwin came out with his explanation for ToE at the right time. His racism helped socialDarwinism, Herbert Spencer, his cousin Francis Galton and eugenics, Aryan supremacy, and Hitler. It really is a coincidence that the people Hitler wanted to eradicate off the face of this Earth just happened to be Jews. He thought they were going to take over the world as explained in Mein Kampf.

 

[Meriweather]

Four of the ten relate to worshiping God or else.

Except...It is not "Worship, or Else." It is about setting priorities and advising how to best get through this life. Setting God and His ways as first priority works best.