@MrsVISHOUS2012,
Hi kid--I checked out your profile. Not bad.
Quote:*I've always wondered why people that are so adamant about the non-existence of God, debate morals and what is right and wrong.*
Was it not obvious from my previous post about pointlessness. If the atheist is underway with a life of gorgeous sinning he or she is betting on life not having a transcendent point. Hence the deficit. The thought of it possibly having such a point, however remote the possibility, has to be denied. And vehemently. It's too horrible to contemplate. As Dante did. And some painters in the Bosch tradition.
And here's the Christians continually reminding the atheist of that possibility. And vehemently too. They have passed up on a life of sumptuary sinning for the possibility. That's no small bet either but its less for those with few opportunities to sink slowly into a life of squalid sin. Librarians for example. Civics majors. Shagged out old has-beens like me.
These sorts of conversations are banned in most English pubs.
The question becomes an economic one by one step logic. And the prevention of satisfactory sinning, in the event that it is economically dysfunctional, by legal sanctions, has been tried in the past and not only is it expensive to police but it doesn't work either for obvious reasons.
The true atheist never gives it a moment's though because on the Day of Judgement he can accuse God of making him obsessed with seriously sinning. Sinning for money is another matter of course. Only ladies can do that for biological reasons. And she can't claim God gave her an obsession with money. There's too much sinning went on before money was invented.
Fundamentally atheists are anarchists. But practicing anarchy is a bit dangerous so it leaks out in debates such as these. Rejection of authority.