Atheist logic: You don't need religion to have morals - you lack empathy?

MayCaesar

Is that why you fundamentalist Christians have fought hundreds wars between each other? Because you had such a unanimous agreement over what is right and what is wrong?

You complain about people wanting free stuff, yet your friends in the past fought a dozen crusades, where they pillaged rich Arab cities and left off, hauling carts full of Eastern riches that they have never earned.

Looks like the infusion of morals by god went wrong somewhere... Maybe the guy had had a bit too much spoiled ambrosia before doing the infusion?

Normal_1

Atheist logic: “You don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong, you lack empathy not religion.”RickeyD

The premise of your argument is fatally flawed.
I suspect that what you quoted is purely contrived and as a thinking atheist I would never dream of making such a hollow, unintelligent statement.

It is one thing to beat up your own beliefs but to underhandedly denigrate others in the vain hope of scoring points takes offensiveness to a new level.

SkepticalOne

@RickeyD

****1) The protection and continuation of human-KIND.

****2) So that Judgment in Eternity can manifest with equity and due process and every human being having attained an age of reason will be "without excuse."

1 - I feel the first option maybe on the right track but leaves a bit to be desired. For the purposes of this thread, I won't quibble here.

2 - Assuming there were a "judgement in eternity" why would protecting and continuing human life be a priority. It seems a morality built with biblical judgement in mind would seek to reduce the period for which one is being judged as fast as possible. 

TKDB

@MayCaesar

Is there a such thing as a fundamental Atheist, or Theist?

https://religionnews.com/2014/12/18/yes-atheists-can-fundamentalists/

"Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists"

"This week, two atheists are debating whether or not "atheist fundamentalists" exist. Today's contribution is by Sarah Jones, Communications Associate for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect those of her employer. Below, Jones defends the use of “atheist fundamentalists.” Check back tomorrow for James Croft's perspective, and share yours in the comments."

"Fundamentalism as an ideological category has historically been limited to religion. But as atheism grows and begins to double as a political identity for many, I propose expanding that category to include nonbelievers.

First, the necessary caveats. When I argue that atheists can be fundamentalists, I do so with the understanding that there is significant division among atheists on the subject of religion. Often, the atheists most opposed to religion are classified as "New Atheists," with the Four Horsemen as their appointed representatives.

But New Atheism itself is a nebulous category. Many who identify as New Atheists don’t believe that society would benefit from the erasure of religion, and focus their criticisms instead on specific doctrines.

Many others, who do argue that religious faith is inherently harmful and antithetical to social progress, would not necessarily identify themselves as New Atheists—and even diverge sharply from Dawkins and others on feminism and other issues loosely categorized under the banner of social justice. For these reasons, I refer to atheism and atheists with specific beliefs rather than New Atheism and New Atheists.

Belief, whether it is theistic or not, is naturally diverse; that’s an inescapable feature of the human condition. And that means it is entirely possible to apply a dogmatic and even legalistic approach to atheism—one that I think should be characterized as a fundamentalism."

@MayCaesar

And some of the Atheists, or the Theists, via the internet, aren't in a sense waging their own types of online conflicts, between each other sometimes, and against the Religious individuals, because prayer is harmless?

Conflict is still conflict, whether it's artificially waged, or waged in the Real World.

"Is that why you fundamentalist Christians have fought hundreds wars between each other? Because you had such a unanimous agreement over what is right and what is wrong?

You complain about people wanting free stuff, yet your friends in the past fought a dozen crusades, where they pillaged rich Arab cities and left off, hauling carts full of Eastern riches that they have never earned.

Looks like the infusion of morals by god went wrong somewhere... Maybe the guy had had a bit too much spoiled ambrosia before doing the infusion?"

TKDB

@MayCaesar

@Dee

@Normal_1

https://stream.org/internet-atheism-shield-kids/

By TOM GILSONJanuary 11, 2020 • 198 Comments

"Tom Gilson

“I’m right, and you’re .” That’s the message your kids will hear if they venture into the smoldering, bombed-out landscape of internet atheism. They might even be persuaded. It’s no fun being mocked and scorned.

Take this internet atheist’s attempt to “thoroughly dissect, conclusively” four major Christian truth claims. Christianity has a “horrible moral standard” of “might makes right,” he says. The Christian is “a minion.” We follow laws “blindly and unthinkingly.” It’s just “laughable” when we say our “god” is “special.” “In fact,” says the author, “one would be in prison or an insane asylum if one followed the Bible literally.”

Massive Misrepresentation

And that’s just the start of it. That all comes just from his first “dissection” out of four. And from where does he draw these opinions? I counted down through the article and found at least 60 false statements he makes about Christianity. For example:

• We treat the physically or mentally ill as if they’re possessed by demons. (Really? How often does that happen?)
• Our sects “endlessly slaughtered each other before the coming of secular governments.” (Actually, very few wars in history — about 7 percent — have been religious in nature, and that includes all religions, not just Christianity.)
• We believe “lightning rods, curing diseases, connecting the world, feeding the multitudes, diminishing poverty and ignorance, doubling life expectancy, … is [sic] destruction.” (Where’d he get that from??)
• Religion has done nothing to “truly better people’s lives.” (That’s as wrong as wrong could be.)
• “Three is one and one is three.” (A serious underestimation of Christian thinking about the Trinity.)

I can only wonder what’s so fascinating about this business of destroying beliefs that no one believes. It’s so far divorced from reality, you’d think even a bad Sudoku puzzle would be more interesting.

Mockery and Scorn

The writer sure has strong convictions, though, and none stronger than this: Christians are idiots, intellectually, scientifically, and morally. If we knew anything at all, we wouldn’t “dismiss [our] fellow humans and … lose [our] own humanity, as again history and current headlines all too often attest.” Yeah, right. As if he says nothing dismissive of fellow humans in his article.

This isn’t just internet atheists saying this. It’s not even an extreme case. It’s common even among atheist best-sellers such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Lawrence Krauss, and Christopher Hitchens. They may word it more delicately, but the gist is the same. "

"A friend and I visited an atheist rally on the Mall in Washington, D.C. We got in a conversation with P. Z. Myers, one of the rally’s leaders. Smiling, affable, he asked how we were being treated. “Pretty well,” we answered, “though folks here feel quite free to ridicule us as believers.” Still smiling, he said, “They should.”

We did not answer in kind."

"Bad Effects, and How to Avoid Them

This isn’t some out-of-the-way, unknown influence. Young people read these book and articles and wonder how Christianity could possibly be true. If they hear no answers, they may well conclude that the faith isn’t true. Or at least it isn’t for them. Who wants to be the object of all that derision?"

"I wish we could just tell them to stay away. It’d be good advice if only these toxic waste dumps were properly labeled as such, and if every young person heeded those signs.

We can’t control the labeling of these wastelands, though, and even in our own families we can’t always limit who walks through them. Your best answer instead is to find one or two of these articles and walk through them alongside your kids.,

"Point out the tone, first of all. Remind them how similar it feels to middle-school playground bullying. Then examine some of the claims. Let your son or daughter point out some that seem especially damaging to Christian belief.

Next, research it together. You’ll find great resources at sites like Stand to Reason, Cold Case Christianity, Ravi Zacharias Ministries, or Reasonable Faith. Teach your child the skills it takes to assess what’s going on in these internet atheist articles. "

A very in-depth and educational article.

And please, check out some of the responding commentary available, near the bottom of the page, there are 198 of them:

An example:

"Jane Ravenswood2 months ago edited

"“I’m right, and you’re .” Well, that's a way to start out, a Christian bearing false witness about atheists. How fun.

"We treat the physically or mentally ill as if they’re possessed by demons. (Really? How often does that happen?)"

The lie of exorcism

"Our sects “endlessly slaughtered each other before the coming of secular governments.” (Actually, very few wars in history — about 7 percent — have been religious in nature, and that includes all religions, not just Christianity.)" 

All of the above, are fair and equal to the debate at hand.

Dee

@TKDB


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Happy_Killbot

I think if you need the delusion of a creator to convince you to be moral then chances are you are not a moral person.

TKDB

@Dee

This is the theme of the forum:

"When Atheist logic: You don't need religion to have morals - you lack empathy? 

And your response to my debate response:


@TKDB

"zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

MayCaesar

@TKDB

Well, I would rather have someone type aggressive stuff online to me, than burn down my city and quarter me by means of tying my limbs to four horses and setting them off on a central square - but that is just me.

Besides, atheists can be mean to others for various reasons, but atheism itself rarely has anything to do with it. No one wages a "holy war" against non-atheists in the name of atheism, and those few cases when atheist states waged wars against non-atheist ones were in the name of other malicious ideologies, rather than atheism itself. No one says, "I will blow myself up and take lives of dozens innocent people in the process in the name of atheism".

TKDB

@MayCaesar

You missed the point:

And some of the Atheists, or the Theists, via the internet, aren't in a sense waging their own types of online conflicts, between each other sometimes, and against the Religious individuals, because prayer is harmless?

Conflict is still conflict, whether it's artificially waged, or waged in the Real World. 

And many upon many Atheists, day in and month out, year after year, create and wage artificial conflicts, against Religious individuals, just because it's not in person, but rather impersonal because this is the internet.

Either type of conflict, whether in person, or impersonally through the internet, is still a conflict.

"Well, I would rather have someone type aggressive stuff online to me, than burn down my city and quarter me by means of tying my limbs to four horses and setting them off on a central square - but that is just me."

"Besides, atheists can be mean to others for various reasons, but atheism itself rarely has anything to do with it. No one wages a "holy war" against non-atheists in the name of atheism, and those few cases when atheist states waged wars against non-atheist ones were in the name of other malicious ideologies, rather than atheism itself. No one says, "I will blow myself up and take lives of dozens innocent people in the process in the name of atheism". 

@MayCaesar

No, but you'll come unto the internet, and utilize your Atheist words in a negative way towards any Religious individual, right?

All you're doing is waging a conflict, but in your own unique way, right?

MayCaesar

@TKDB

What atheist words? What negative way? I have nothing against religious people and never bring up atheism before they do.

I also do not have conflicts on the Internet. I have discussions. But even if I did, they would still not result in people impaled on a central plaza, so we are good here.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

Your anti religious tone is passively blatant:

"I also do not have conflicts on the Internet. I have discussions."

"But even if I did, they would still not result in people impaled on a central plaza, so we are good here."

You're another anti religious individual, expressing your anti religious tone, at your leisure.

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@MayCaesar

Your anti religious tone is passively blatant:

"I also do not have conflicts on the Internet. I have discussions."

"But even if I did, they would still not result in people impaled on a central plaza, so we are good here."

You're another anti religious individual, expressing your anti religious tone, at your leisure.

Even if MayCaesar was anti-religious his arguments cannot be dismissed on this bases alone. The truth, validity, and facts are unaffected regardless if one is biased toward something or not.

MayCaesar

@TKDB

I have plenty of religious friends, and their religious views have never been an issue for me. I do not mind religion; I simply see it as a roleplay adults partake in.

Nonetheless, countless atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, while no atrocity I know of has been committed in the name of atheism. Stating facts is not being anti-religious, it is being truthful.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

Fact, or Fictional roleplay?
The killing of a fetus, via abortion millions and millions of times over, is the TRUE definition in regards to your bias Atheist wordplay, over the word "Atrocities?"

Fact, or Fictional roleplay?
Those kids, who have killed kids via their mass shooters crimes, over the years, is another TRUE definition of the word Atrocities?

Fact, or Fictional roleplay?
Some of those Liberal lawmakers in the United States, who maybe created their 300 Sanctuary Cities, to give the illegal immigrants Sanctuary in a country based on law's, is another example of what Liberal Atrocity crafted lawmaking maybe looks like?

Fact, or Fictional roleplay?
Are you maybe suggesting that the Atheist mindset, is the most humane mindset, that humanity should adopt, because your Atheist mindset, is maybe the best thing for all the children in the world, that haven't been killed via an abortion?

Fact, or Fictional roleplay?
Should Adoption maybe be outlawed, according to the Atheist mindset?

Fact, or Fictional roleplay?
Will the Atheist mindset, be able as we speak, to keep any illegal immigrant, from killing, sexually assaulting,  or victimizing the millions of legal US citizens, who live with those criminal illegal immigrants in those same Sanctuary Cities, who are illegally lurking around them via their illegal sanctuary city enabled privileges, because of being given sanctuary, in a country based on Law's?


@MayCaesar


"I have plenty of religious friends, and their religious views have never been an issue for me. I do not mind religion; I simply see it as a roleplay adults partake in."

Nonetheless, countless atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, while no atrocity I know of has been committed in the name of atheism. Stating facts is not being anti-religious, it is being truthful."

I don't play mind games with role play, or fiction, when actual facts can carry their own factual weight based on Real Life facts.

MayCaesar

@TKDB

Are any of those things done in the name of atheism? Have you ever heard someone getting an abortion say, "I perform abortion in order to promote atheism in the world"? I have not.
For that matter, I do not see abortion as an atrocity, but that is a different discussion entirely.

I do not know what you mean by "atheist mindset". Whether you believe that god exists or not has virtually no impact, in itself, on what kind of person you are going to be and how you are going to act. I would say that, all other things being equal, in general it is better to be atheist than to be religious, but I do not think the difference is that dramatic, and there can be exceptions when the opposite is true.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

Are you attempting to judge all of the Religions in the world, through the individual Atheist courtroom of your thought process?

@ZeusAres42, and @MayCaesar:
Are you suggesting that the Atheist Ideology is humanities TRUE salvation? 

So are you pro Abortion, and life outside of any Abortion clinic, is irrelevant to you?

Are you pro Illegal Immigrant, and the public safety, of the legal US citizens, is irrelevant to you? 

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@MayCaesar

Are you attempting to judge all of the Religions in the world, through the individual Atheist courtroom of your thought process?

@ZeusAres42, and @MayCaesar:
Are you suggesting that the Atheist Ideology is humanities TRUE salvation? 

So are you pro Abortion, and life outside of any Abortion clinic, is irrelevant to you?

Are you pro Illegal Immigrant, and the public safety, of the legal US citizens, is irrelevant to you? 

@TKDB my laugh is not derivative. I genuinely found this funny. No, we're not suggesting this. Moreover, are you seriously suggesting that because an Atheist is saying something about religion they must be wrong because they are an Atheist? I fail to see the  the logical validity of this notion. Please explain?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

I'm suggesting that the Atheist mindset is self serving to the Atheists in general.

Both online, and when it comes to making sure that the Atheist mindset is apparently being self pandered to, when it comes to the Atheist Segregation practices of keeping innocent prayer, out of the Public School system, to suit the Atheist mindset, via the Atrocious practice of wielding the Separation of Church and State law, over the rest of the Public School systems head?

Talk about an Atrocious power play?

@ZeusAres42

Has the Atrocity of a harmless religious prayer, ever kept you from living your Atheist lifestyle according to your Atheist way of life?

The above is your explanation.



@MayCaesar If I say a harmless prayer for you, will you maybe be insulated, by that harmless gesture?

"@TKDB my laugh is not derivative. I genuinely found this funny. No, we're not suggesting this. Moreover, are you seriously suggesting that because an Atheist is saying something about religion they must be wrong because they are an Atheist? I fail to see the  the logical validity of this notion. Please explain?"

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

I'm suggesting that the Atheist mindset is self serving to the Atheists in general.

Both online, and when it comes to making sure that the Atheist mindset is apparently being self pandered to, when it comes to the Atheist Segregation practices of keeping innocent prayer, out of the Public School system, to suit the Atheist mindset, via the Atrocious practice of wielding the Separation of Church and State law, over the rest of the Public School systems head?

Talk about an Atrocious power play?

@ZeusAres42

Has the Atrocity of a harmless religious prayer, ever kept you from living your Atheist lifestyle according to your Atheist way of life?

The above is your explanation.



@MayCaesar If I say a harmless prayer for you, will you maybe be insulated, by that harmless gesture?

"@TKDB my laugh is not derivative. I genuinely found this funny. No, we're not suggesting this. Moreover, are you seriously suggesting that because an Atheist is saying something about religion they must be wrong because they are an Atheist? I fail to see the  the logical validity of this notion. Please explain?"

@TKDB I am not interested in an argument about the people and what you think about their minds. I want to know what you have to say about what has actually been said? Have you got anything or not? If not, then I am not interested.

MayCaesar

@TKDB

All religions are fundamentally based on the concept of faith which I personally see as troubling - however, we employ faith in many areas of our life in practice regardless of whether we are religious, and religious faith might be just a small piece of the whole puzzle.

Either way, I do not have a negative view of religion. It is hard for me to take ot very seriously, but that is just how my mind works.

Atheism as human salvation? Salvation from what? I do not think that everyone suddenly becoming atheist will necessarily change the world for the better. I do think that, as civilisation evolves, we will be gradually moving away from superstitions including religions, but not the other way around. Superstitions do have an important function, and it will take time before it becomes obsolete.

Your last two questions do not make sense to me; can you reword them, por favor?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

You're from the United Kingdom, and you've been trying to have your Atheist brainwashing way with me, since you began your internet enabled Atheist tutorial, long before I came into the view of your ideological focus.

So please continue on with your Atheist brainwashing ways, because you can't help yourself?

If you weren't so interested, you wouldn't have utilized the mental energy that you used, to respond with your carefully worded counter argument stance?

"@TKDB I am not interested in an argument about the people and what you think about their minds. I want to know what you have to say about what has actually been said? Have you got anything or not? If not, then I am not interested."

@ZeusAres42

You like to be in control of the conversation, don't you?

It's very evident, again because you can't help, but to debate through the guise of your own perception, right?

Otherwise again, why waste time on your below response?

"@TKDB I am not interested in an argument about the people and what you think about their minds.
I want to know what you have to say about what has actually been said?
Have you got anything or not? If not, then I am not interested?"


@ZeusAres42, should I move up to the front of your class, so that I can get some extra credit, from your next teaching moment?


 "Atheist logic: You don't need religion to have morals - you lack empathy?"

@ZeusAres42,
What is your definition of Atheist empathy?

TKDB

@MayCaesar 
If say a harmless prayer for you, would you maybe be insulted, by that harmless gesture?

@MayCaesar What is your definition of Atheist empathy?

MayCaesar

@TKDB

What do you mean by "insulated"? You can say whatever you want to me; you have freedom of speech.

I do not know what "Atheist empathy" is, so I am not sure why you are asking me this question.

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

You're from the United Kingdom, and you've been trying to have your Atheist brainwashing way with me, since you began your internet enabled Atheist tutorial, long before I came into the view of your ideological focus.

So please continue on with your Atheist brainwashing ways, because you can't help yourself?

If you weren't so interested, you wouldn't have utilized the mental energy that you used, to respond with your carefully worded counter argument stance?

"@TKDB I am not interested in an argument about the people and what you think about their minds. I want to know what you have to say about what has actually been said? Have you got anything or not? If not, then I am not interested."

@ZeusAres42

You like to be in control of the conversation, don't you?

It's very evident, again because you can't help, but to debate through the guise of your own perception, right?

Otherwise again, why waste time on your below response?

"@TKDB I am not interested in an argument about the people and what you think about their minds.
I want to know what you have to say about what has actually been said?
Have you got anything or not? If not, then I am not interested?"


@ZeusAres42, should I move up to the front of your class, so that I can get some extra credit, from your next teaching moment?


 "Atheist logic: You don't need religion to have morals - you lack empathy?"

@ZeusAres42,
What is your definition of Atheist empathy?

Well, this basically answers my question. I will take your response as an admission that you don't have an argument that is devoid of wild and nonsensical theories about the person behind the posts as opposed to an actual argument that focuses on the truth, validity, and the facts of what has been stated regardless of who the person is or what you think about them.

Thanks for conceding.

AlofRI

This atheists logic: I don't need religion to have morals. 
The fact that I think MANY "religious morals" are "immoral" enters into that fact. I much more agree with the morals of society. Those morals accept MOST religious morals (which are only common sense and NOT actually generated BY a religion), while rejecting many others. Especially those that reject religious freedom and force certain "religious morals" on many who reject them. 

As far as "empathy goes, I have a LOT of empathy as an atheist. I even have a lot of empathy for YOU @RickyD. Actually MORE than I would for an "ordinary person" …. simply because YOU NEED MORE … than an ordinary person. 

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Show me, by copying and pasting, where I CONCEDED anything to you?



"Well, this basically answers my question."

"I will take your response as an admission that you don't have an argument that is devoid of wild and nonsensical theories about the person behind the posts as opposed to an actual argument that focuses on the truth, validity, and the facts of what has been stated regardless of who the person is or what you think about them."

"Thanks for conceding."

@ZeusAres42

Why not debate in a Fair and Equal way?

@ZeusAres42, And you can say whatever you want, BUT, I noticed how you didn't DENY, and of the below questions, that were directed in your direction?


@ZeusAres42


You're from the United Kingdom, and you've been trying to have your Atheist brainwashing way with me, since you began your internet enabled Atheist tutorial, long before I came into the view of your ideological focus.

So please continue on with your Atheist brainwashing ways, because you can't help yourself?

If you weren't so interested, you wouldn't have utilized the mental energy that you used, to respond with your carefully worded counter argument stance?

"@TKDB I am not interested in an argument about the people and what you think about their minds. I want to know what you have to say about what has actually been said? Have you got anything or not? If not, then I am not interested."

@ZeusAres42

You like to be in control of the conversation, don't you?

It's very evident, again because you can't help, but to debate through the guise of your own perception, right?

Otherwise again, why waste time on your below response?

"@TKDB I am not interested in an argument about the people and what you think about their minds.
I want to know what you have to say about what has actually been said?
Have you got anything or not? If not, then I am not interested?"


@ZeusAres42, should I move up to the front of your class, so that I can get some extra credit, from your next teaching moment?


 "Atheist logic: You don't need religion to have morals - you lack empathy?"

@ZeusAres42,
What is your definition of Atheist empathy? 

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

FYI, this is for you and/or the other very ill-informed members on this site that appear to have no clue how ad-hominem fallacies work; people who actually think this is mere name-calling that they're being accused of which leads them to make ridiculous defensive states such as "you're playing the victim card" which ironically is another ad-hominem fallacy in itself as well as a lame attempt to defend your position. This was actually said to be a little while ago by someone who ironically was accused of the exact same thing by other people on another post; this is the epitome of intellectual cowardice; responding to criticism with criticism instead of being bold enough to confront logical defects in one's own reasoning.

If I call you out on an ad-hominem fallacy I am not accusing you of name-calling. One must remember that a fallacy is an error in reasoning that has nothing to do with accusations of name-calling. However, if someone does resort to name-calling then I won't be offended; I'll more likely just think your not much worthy of my time to have civil discourse with. On the other hand, Ad-hominems have an obvious logical flaw and these fallacies are what you keep making yourself TKDB which can be reduced to this and this what I call out; the logical flaws:

P1: "You're either biased, emotional or even a hypocrite."

P2 (Conclusion): "Therefore your argument is false."

Explanation: Facts, truth, logic, and validity of statements are unaffected regardless if someone is biased, emotional, a hypocrite, or even if you dislike the person because of what they wear, and so forth.

And the fact that you continue to make these fallacious arguments will most likely lead me to eventually no longer engaging in a discussion with you since I also find this to be a waste of my time as well. I want a challenging debate that actually taxes my mind where I can get some kind of mental stimulation. Arguments, if you can even call them arguments that involve telling me that I am wrong because of the country I'm from, that I am an atheist etc does not fulfill that need.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

I found the below by Googling these word's:

(The internet Atheist protester)

Being that you inspired me, to look those words up.

And because you apparently like to take up some "debate cover" behind one of your favorite terms: "ad hominem fallacies."

And I was wondering, when you might play your favorite atheist victim card?

The ad hominem fallacy? 

"FYI, this is for you and/or the other very ill-informed members on this site that appear to have no clue how ad-hominem fallacies work; people who actually think this is mere name-calling that they're being accused of which leads them to make ridiculous defensive states such as "you're playing the victim card" which ironically is another ad-hominem fallacy in itself as well as a lame attempt to defend your position."

And the truth you know, isn't it primarily based on your individual opinion and perception, of your own non Religious arguments?

Or it is your truth based on your own explanation?

"Explanation: Facts, truth, logic, and validity of statements are unaffected regardless if someone is biased, emotional, a hypocrite, or even if you dislike the person because of what they wear, and so forth."

I don't dislike anyone, being that I'm pro Adoption, pro unborn fetus, pro Child, pro Family, pro Community, pro Humanity, and pro Equality, and Fairness.


@ZeusAres42


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism

Criticism of atheism

"Atheistic criticism" redirects here. For the persecution of and discrimination against atheists, see Discrimination against atheists.

Criticism of atheism is criticism of the concepts, validity, or impact of atheism, including associated political and social implications. Criticisms include positions based on the history of science, philosophical and logical criticisms, findings in the natural sciences, theistic apologetic arguments, arguments pertaining to ethics and morality, the effects of atheism on the individual, or the assumptions that underpin atheism.

Various contemporary agnostics like Carl Sagan[1] and theists such as Dinesh D'Souza[2] have criticised atheism for being an unscientific position. Analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, argues that a failure of theistic arguments might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism; and points to the observation of an apparently "fine-tuned universe" as more likely to be explained by theism than atheism. Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox holds that atheism is an inferior world view to that of theism and attributes to C.S. Lewis the best formulation of Merton's thesis that science sits more comfortably with theistic notions on the basis that Men became scientific in Western Europe in the 16th and 17th century "[b]ecause they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.' In other words, it was belief in God that was the motor that drove modern science". American geneticist Francis Collins also cites Lewis as persuasive in convincing him that theism is the more rational world view than atheism.

Other criticisms focus on perceived effects on morality and social cohesion. The Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, a deist, saw godlessness as weakening "the sacred bonds of society", writing: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". The father of classical liberalism, John Locke, believed that the denial of God's existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos. Edmund Burke, an 18th-century Irish philosopher and statesman praised by both his conservative and liberal peers for his "comprehensive intellect", saw religion as the basis of civil society and wrote that "man is by his constitution a religious animal; that atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts; and that it cannot prevail long". Pope Pius XI wrote that Communist atheism was aimed at "upsetting the social order and at undermining the very foundations of Christian civilization". In the 1990s, Pope John Paul II criticised a spreading "practical atheism" as clouding the "religious and moral sense of the human heart" and leading to societies which struggle to maintain harmony.[3]

The advocacy of atheism by some of the more violent exponents of the French Revolution, the subsequent militancy of Marxist–Leninist atheism and prominence of atheism in totalitarian states formed in the 20th century is often cited in critical assessments of the implications of atheism. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke railed against "atheistical fanaticism". The 1937 papal encyclical Divini Redemptoris denounced the atheism of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, which was later influential in the establishment of state atheism across Eastern Europe and elsewhere, including Mao Zedong's China, Kim's North Korea and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Critics of atheism often associate the actions of 20th-century state atheism with broader atheism in their critiques. Various poets, novelists and lay theologians, among them G. K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, have also criticized atheism. For example, a quote often attributed to Chesterton holds that "[h]e who does not believe in God will believe in anything".[4] "

Dee

@TKDB

1.2

Normal_1

The writer sure has strong convictions, though, and none stronger than this: Christians are idiots, intellectually, scientifically, and morally. 
“I’m right, and you’re .” Well, that's a way to start out, a Christian bearing false witness about atheists. How fun.
TKDB

You are concerned that so many atheists are calling "Christians idiots, intellectually, scientifically and morally." and that international best-sellers from the likes of Dawkins are saying the same thing. Instead of criticizing these people for saying such things, have you ever thought of actually taking on board what they are saying?

Since Christians would not dare make such statements, of course, it is atheists who speak out. But, to put it in perspective, they "happen to be" atheists who speak out about the corrupted morals of Christians.

It shouldn't be a matter of "I'm right, you're wrong" but "what is right".

And the fact is that Christians are so far behind decent civilized society in their thinking that their moral compasses are corrupt, bigotry and hatred towards others are rife and they have become isolated elitists.

Isn't it time that Christians stop trying to divert the focus by shooting the messenger and instead start noticing what normal, sane, morally balanced people have been trying to tell them for years......"you lot are way out of line and way out of touch with mainstream society".

digitalphotosolution

@Normal_1 ; @TKDB @Dee @ZeusAres42 @AlofRI @MayCaesar   UNHRC Should Ensure That OIC Members Implement Provisions Of Human Rights Charter, Founder-Editor, New Age Islam, Sultan Shahin Addresses Its 43rd Session In Geneva

https://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-human-rights/sultan-shahin,-founder-editor,-new-age-islam/unhrc-should-ensure-that-oic-members-implement-provisions-of-human-rights-charter,-founder-editor,-new-age-islam,-sultan-shahin-addresses-its-43rd-session-in-geneva/d/121242

HowardChance

No,
Thinking that Jesus Christ is or might be the son of God Is Not the same as Jesus Christ being the son of God ...
  So whatever is done in the memory of his name is done because you either believe him to be the son of God through faith. not truth or knowledge
  or pehaps you fear him and the hell he guarantees if you do not at the least pretend to believe in him.
 Or maybe you think if you pretend to believe in him you'll somehow get into the big happy place...
 There's nothing to do with whether or not Jesus is the son of God...@RickeyD

HowardChance

What is God to you?

ZeusAres42

History and evolution actually tell us that morality has nothing to do with religion. Humans have had their own subjective sense of morality millions of years before the concept of a God was even thought of.

onethinhandle56

Empathy that’s collectivism people as a collective. Atheists can also be individualism people as individuals.