What about living in 'society'? Crimes happen constantly in the biggest of cities to the smallest of towns. Faith or no faith, crimes are committed; it is just the mindset that differentiates them. I agree wholeheartedly. It's a shame not everyone follows this. But not everybody shares this mindset. If they did, I wouldn't be posting in this thread. It's great for you and others that you think this way, but unfortunately, there are people who aren't as sympathetic and are insensitive to the hardships other people face.
And there is evidence that criminals (especially murderers) are lacking in some of the brain chemistry... It's not atheism or theism so much as a defect that doesn't allow for empathy and fellow-feeling.
Well, it kind of depends... Most criminals do what they do for money. I have grown up with lots of people now in trouble with the law for robbing, drug dealing, etc, and it wasn't because they were mentally unstable people. They just needed money and didn't have the education on paper to get it. Now, the criminals who murder for no apparent reason, I can agree to your logic.
Either way, it's not true. I already said why lots of people commit crimes (MONEY). You would have to grow up with such people first-hand to truly understand.
I can see the logic behind that. Others first. So your logical reasoning for the people that do steal is therefore... they're too lazy to apply for welfare?
No, they're too young to apply for welfare. They still live with their family, still have a roof to live under, but that is about it. If their parents are on welfare, then chances are they BARELY get by. I don't want to come across as stubborn, so I'm finished with this thread. Feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss it in further detail.
GASP!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! take that back! I have had to justify every single moral thought/action I make. I don't have the the bible to fall back on. I don't get to say "because the bible says so". Believe me, that is far easier. I actually have to think.
Ah, and the religious person has that sense, "do unto others," but also more rational basis for believing in it since they believe in the intrinsic value of humanity. The atheist, by his worldview all of life is a completely apathetic process and amounts to nothing in the end, will generally not value humanity or life as much because, well, everything's for naught. And thus not care so much about other people's feelings. You may follow your instinctual yearning to not hurt others, Oli, but you also acknowledged that these intincts are purely programming and don't really justify any emotions you feel on objective moral ground. Once you view life in this atheistic way, and really get down to what it implies, life is just something that grows and multiplies, and dies, with no concern for morality. The ultimate goal would seemingly be to adhere to the natural motions of life and do what's best for your survival, all of the time(as that's what every other living thing does). And, sometimes what's best can be construed as stealing, murder, etc, etc... as long as you can get away with it. After all, why not? You might as well fulfill your desires as much as possible during your fleeting flicker of existence.
My bad, I misread . Justification? How about reasoned thinking? And theists wouldn't ever act in their best interests? When push comes to shove we all make our own decisions. That's what defines us as a person - how we behave when the chips are down. So where's the problem? Morality came BEFORE religion (or independently from it at least). You're assuming that the atheist lives for the "ultimate goal of his survival". How about "bettering things for his children/ neighbours/ fellow man"? I deny emphatically that theists live for other people any significant amount more than atheists. Any figures? The theist is "more justified" than saving the woman? Someone is saved from death - no further justification needed. We can still go against it - like we're programmed to have children. Lots of us don't. And listening to/ behaving in a particular way because of an old book is any more rational? At least the genetics is less self-deluding. Must be justified? Why? It just IS. Theist morality is objective? Neither/ so are theists - there have been numerous atrocities sparked by religious doctrine. Survival of the species is what counts ultimately - not the individual. When I find them - but Dawkins' God Delusion has a selection... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Apologies. It's sooo hard to tell on the 'net Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What contradictory evidence have you found against atheists? Also, I still don't know if you agree with my earlier statement or not. A simple yes, I agree, or no, I don't agree, would do. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I had to search for your statement, I'm lazy. Religion is faith; ie you make observations and reach conclusions without evidence. Science on the other hand is when you test an observation and in the absence of falsification, assume it true under the conditions of testing. Where does atheism fall?
I didn't say atheism is science. I said it's the most scientific view when it comes to religion in that there is nothing to test. It's not claiming anything, unlike a religion which claims something such as the existence of god(s). Like you said, religion is reaching conclusions without evidence, which completely goes against science.
