Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter englands123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You cant tell him he can do what he wants!! You have to tell him he cant do it because of good reasons.
I don’t know what you are looking for, in an atheistic world, there are no reasons to not do what you want. nobody can tell you that your ideas are evil, they can just disagree with your decisions and try and force their own ideas on you, sometimes painfully. in randomness there is no good and evil
So if you dont have a reason
my reasons aren’t based on a random world, so I won’t play the game of using God’s law in a random world. explain to me why an atheist has to follow someone else’s idea about anything. there is no universal code.
But if he says i want to kill it for fun then no he cant.
why can’t he? because you say? who is the arbitrator? a group can make a law against it but laws don’t define good and evil. they define what’s socially acceptable.
Even if we could agree what the criteria for “morality” might be… and that is impossible.
this is the problem, man can not decide what is truly moral because others can disagree and the best you can come up with is a majority rule morality. the problem with this is when the feelings of the majority change so do their morals.
We just need to decide if theres more good than bad dont we?
who gets to decide what is good and evil? Mao? Stalin, Truman? you? me? the next guy? majority rule until it changes

why do atheists need morals? randomness requires nothing.
 
40.png
Barnesy:
We just need to decide if theres more good than bad dont we?
And that is the point. The value system is subjective and will always remain subjective.
Some things are easy. Killing a cow for fun versus killing it for food. If you had a cow and some body killed it for fun then you wouldnt like it. Nobody would. So it must be bad if everyone thinks its bad.
 
40.png
Barnesy:
You cant tell him he can do what he wants!! You have to tell him he cant do it because of good reasons.
I don’t know what you are looking for, in an atheistic world, there are no reasons to not do what you want. nobody can tell you that your ideas are evil, they can just disagree with your decisions and try and force their own ideas on you, sometimes painfully. in randomness there is no good and evil
So if you dont have a reason
my reasons aren’t based on a random world
See? you do ‘have’ reasons!! I said you would. I knew I was right. But I dont know what a random world is. But you have reasons that arent based on that whatever it is. Then could you tell me what they are please?
 
40.png
Barnesy:
I dont know what a random world is
a world without purpose or designer.
Then could you tell me what they are please?
i will repeat
my reasons aren’t based on a random world, so I won’t play the game of using God’s law in a random world. explain to me why an atheist has to follow someone else’s idea about anything. there is no universal code.
Yes you said that. I understand. I dont think its a random world either. So what shall we call it?? An organised world. A world organised by God! Thats it!

And in an organised world, a world organised by God, there are still reasons why we mustnt do things. Like that man who wanted to kill the 5 yr old girl. So what do you say they are?
 
40.png
Barnesy:
So what do you say they are?
last time, it doesn’t matter what I think. in a world without God, there is no reason for him not to do as he wants.

you have an objective, just say it.
But there is a God. We know that. Why are you asking me about my objective?? Its to discuss things on the forum. Which means we ask each other questions. So i ask you questions like what are the reasons in a world with God why a man shouldnt kill a five year old girl. Maybe i should tell you one and see if you agree. Maybe that will be easier for you. So if she is killed then a lot of people will be very sad. Isnt that one of the reasons?? Do you agree with that one??

I dont understand why you wont talk about this. Its very weird.
 
Last edited:
truth has to be based on something, so it is the same for all. otherwise, you have chaos. without an accountable authority, no one can say their truth is better than someone with the opposite view and they both can’t be right.
I love in the U.S. We have all types of believers, non-believers and a lot in-between, and yet we don’t have chaos. I would be interested to learn more about this chaos you assume is a part of people having different beliefs.
 
why can’t he? because you say? who is the arbitrator? a group can make a law against it but laws don’t define good and evil. they define what’s socially acceptable.
You are correct. Socially acceptable == moral. In that particular society.

Now, you bring in “good” and “evil”. How do you define “good” and how do you define “evil”?
this is the problem, man can not decide what is truly moral because others can disagree and the best you can come up with is a majority rule morality. the problem with this is when the feelings of the majority change so do their morals.
I don’t understand WHY is it a problem. In the ancient Aztec society sacrificing some beautiful, young members was not just accepted, but celebrated. Even the victims considered it an honor, to be sacrificed.

In the Japanese society the emperor ruled by divine fiat, and the samurai class was the protector of the divine emperor. No one considered it wrong, even the victims, who got slaughtered in the process.

In those societies that was the MORAL norm.

So, I will ask you: “how do you define good, evil, moral, immoral, or neutral?” Let’s try to find some common ground to build upon?
 
Do you agree with that one??
as Dawkins says (bold mine)
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
I love in the U.S. We have all types of believers, non-believers and a lot in-between, and yet we don’t have chaos. I would be interested to learn more about this chaos you assume is a part of people having different beliefs.
yes, we do, can abortion be both moral and immoral? we have people in this country that believe it is moral and those who believe it isn’t. this is the chaos you get when there is no universal truth. it can’t be both, but it does fit Dawkins’ statement.
So, I will ask you: “how do you define good, evil, moral, immoral, or neutral?” Let’s try to find some common ground to build upon?
the discussion is not how you or I define good and evil, rather do good and evil exist in a world without purpose. I don’t think so. if there is no God, I agree with Dawkins, you may not.

without good and evil, you can’t consistently argue for morality.
 
40.png
Barnesy:
Do you agree with that one??
as Dawkins says (bold mine)
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
Why are you telling me what some one else believes?? Do you think there is no evil and good in the world as well? Is that what you mean and you dont want to tell me? Well i think there is good and evil and killing a five year old girl is evil and stopping him doing it is good. If you dont think so and you cant think of any reasons to stop him then im sorry for you. Thank you.
 
Why are you telling me what some one else believes?? Do you think there is no evil and good in the world as well? Is that what you mean and you dont want to tell me? Well i think there is good and evil and killing a five year old girl is evil and stopping him doing it is good. If you dont think so and you cant think of any reasons to stop him then im sorry for you. Thank you.
Dawkins’ defines an atheistic world and I agree an atheistic world would resemble what he says.

you think there is good and evil, Dawkins doesn’t, who is correct? why?
 
40.png
Barnesy:
Why are you telling me what some one else believes?? Do you think there is no evil and good in the world as well? Is that what you mean and you dont want to tell me? Well i think there is good and evil and killing a five year old girl is evil and stopping him doing it is good. If you dont think so and you cant think of any reasons to stop him then im sorry for you. Thank you.
Dawkins’ defines an atheistic world and I agree an atheistic world would resemble what he says.

you think there is good and evil, Dawkins doesn’t, who is correct? why?
You mean a world without God. An atheist world is just one where people dont believe in him. But if people dont believe in him doesnt mean he doesnt exist. I dont know how mr dawkins can say theres no evil. If it was his little girl and someone killed her then id bet hed say it was evil. And id bet youd want to stop it because that would be good. And i bet you know it would be good as well and youd know why.

So i told you why it would be good and now its your turn. I want to know why you know it would be good.
 
An atheist world is just one where people dont believe in him.
No, they believe there was no designer in the creation of the earth. They believe the earth was formed by physical forces. There is no justice, no rhyme nor reason, no purpose, no evil, no good, just blind pitiless indifference.
 
40.png
Barnesy:
An atheist world is just one where people dont believe in him.
No, they believe there was no designer in the creation of the earth. They believe the earth was formed by physical forces. There is no justice, no rhyme nor reason, no purpose, no evil, no good, just blind pitiless indifference.
Yes thats right. They do. But dont you know the reason whntou shouldnt kill a five yr old girl??
 
yes, we do, can abortion be both moral and immoral? we have people in this country that believe it is moral and those who believe it isn’t. this is the chaos you get when there is no universal truth. it can’t be both, but it does fit Dawkins’ statement.
Fair to say, then, your definition of chaos is a bit unusual.
 
the discussion is not how you or I define good and evil, rather do good and evil exist in a world without purpose. I don’t think so. if there is no God, I agree with Dawkins, you may not.
You gotta be kidding me. If you are unable to define what “good” and “evil” might be how can you argue for their existence???
 
You gotta be kidding me. If you are unable to define what “good” and “evil” might be how can you argue for their existence???
I am arguing that good and evil don’t exist in a purposeless world, a world created randomly by physical force as it is defined by some top atheists.

Prove Dawkins wrong.

This is not about my personal definitions or yours. There are no universal morals and the best you have are individual codes of conduct based on your society. call them morals if you want, we are going in circles.
 
I am arguing that good and evil don’t exist in a purposeless world, a world created randomly by physical force as it is defined by some top atheists.
One more time I will ask: “WHAT” does “good” and “evil” mean? And you keep evading. Why?
 
I keep asking why we shouldnt do bad things and he wont tell me either. Its weird.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top