Atheists... Your life is pointless

I agree that rarely do people murder because of religious instruction, but I agree also that religion is no guarantee that its believers with not murder.

There are good atheists and there are bad atheists.

A bad atheist is someone who tries to persuade others to be atheists without considering that his persuasion might be good enough to convert everybody to atheism. At which point morality vanishes and basic, verminous human nature can only be controlled by legislation passed by humans seeking votes who are subjected to temptations which then carry no sense of shame.

I occasionally take you off ignore to see if you make sense. Regretfully, when you write bilge like this, I wonder why I bother.

Second being a believer in a fairy tale for an adult mean that adult in not completely sane for that reason alone.

Diest TKO wrote:

Here's a question more to the point: How many Atheists kill for the advancement of Atheism?

People kill for whatever reason. Pol Pot was an atheist, but was he killing because he was an atheist? History gives us plenty of examples of people killing and specifically citing their religion as their justification/rationalization. We don't have to speculate.

I don't think that being religious will make you a murderer, but in the face of the argument about atheists and their morals, I'm certainly going to reject the notion that a Christian or any other religious person is less likely to murder people than an atheist.

T
Killing in the name of?
O

I could ask you the same question regarding Christians.

You infer that I said atheists are more likely to murder. This is totally false. I never said it and I don't believe it.

Christians have to answer to their God in all things. There are good Christians and there are bad Christians.

There are good atheists and there are bad atheists.

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:

First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.
Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.[15]

In his book Rethinking Life and Death Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

.Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:

The argument that a fetus is not alive is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood " "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"" and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

You have to question the validity of religion when you consider that about half the people murdered in mass murders died as a result of religion-related wars and genocides.

You have to question the validity of religion when you consider that about half the people murdered in mass murders died as a result of religion-related wars and genocides.

You have one too JL. ALl you do is go to the personal profile of th person you wish to ignore. (The quickest way is to click on the name of the person who appears on this page ,or any page on which their presence shows up). Then go to their avatar and youll see an "ignore" title. Just click on the ignore and that person is now gone. You can still click on the ignored ones name if you wish to see if theyve gotten any better (DID time help their worldview?). Its a real neat thing because , when someones on ignore, and theres a good bit of conversation going on, you wont be bothered by the background noise that the ignored one usually provides.

I'm not bothered if dialogue breaks down. It clears the air. Ladies who do abortion are for others. I wouldn't allow a lady who does abortion to kiss me in the pub when the clock stikes midnight on New Year. Not even on the cheek.