Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.

That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).

Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.

And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?

Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.

More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?

And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.

Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.

And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.

You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."

So you're now the arbiter of morality?

The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.

I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^

FWIW I know atheists who have seriously dealt with the question of where standards for morality come from if there is no God and come up with some really compelling arguments. I was expecting one of those, not the tautology "My way is more moral because I say it is more moral."

Then you are not paying attention. Even AI has a simple explanation:

According to most atheists, morality stems from a combination of human empathy, reason, social cooperation, and evolutionary pressures, meaning it arises naturally within human society without the need for a deity to define it; essentially, morality is based on what promotes the well-being and survival of the community, not divine commands

Seems right to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.

That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).

Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.

Well, I am atheist and think atheists like you are evil, unintelligent, and naive.

Frankly I would rather converse with believers and find your comments to be supremely stupid and ill-informed.

DP. The PP's comments are certainly abrasive and rude, but they are not stupid or ill-informed.

DP. They may not be stupid, but they contain no actual proof for the assertions, but rely on logical fallacies and assumptions that the readers have the exact same priors.

To call all religions "crazy bronze-aged beliefs" is an ad hominem attack against religion as a whole, not a solid logical proof.

PP didn't bring forth a single example of the religious trying to enforce beliefs through societal pressure or public policy, and certainly did not make a case that the religious do this more than the non-believers. Most people can probably easily find these people, however, since the media enjoys nutpicking, so I'll grant that they exist. But to go from the specific cases to the generalization PP did is a hasty generalization fallacy.

But for the sake of the argument, let's even try granting that the non-religious don't try to weaponize culture, PP has no where made the case that they person they quoted wants to do any of that. They have no proof for that. At all.

This post is so riddled with falsehoods it is hard to respond. Are you claiming that the religious people in this country does not want to remove the rights of bodily autonomy for women? That it does not wish to remove the rights of LBGT people? That it is not trying to get the ten commandments into schools and courtrooms?

Start there and answer this, and I will address the rest of your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.

That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).

Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.

And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?

Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.

More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?

And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.

Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.

And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.

You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."

So you're now the arbiter of morality?

The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.

I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.

And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.

Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.

(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1484488/)

My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.

If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.

That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).

Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.

Well, I am atheist and think atheists like you are evil, unintelligent, and naive.

Frankly I would rather converse with believers and find your comments to be supremely stupid and ill-informed.

DP. The PP's comments are certainly abrasive and rude, but they are not stupid or ill-informed.

DP. They may not be stupid, but they contain no actual proof for the assertions, but rely on logical fallacies and assumptions that the readers have the exact same priors.

To call all religions "crazy bronze-aged beliefs" is an ad hominem attack against religion as a whole, not a solid logical proof.

PP didn't bring forth a single example of the religious trying to enforce beliefs through societal pressure or public policy, and certainly did not make a case that the religious do this more than the non-believers. Most people can probably easily find these people, however, since the media enjoys nutpicking, so I'll grant that they exist. But to go from the specific cases to the generalization PP did is a hasty generalization fallacy.

But for the sake of the argument, let's even try granting that the non-religious don't try to weaponize culture, PP has no where made the case that they person they quoted wants to do any of that. They have no proof for that. At all.

This post is so riddled with falsehoods it is hard to respond. Are you claiming that the religious people in this country does not want to remove the rights of bodily autonomy for women? That it does not wish to remove the rights of LBGT people? That it is not trying to get the ten commandments into schools and courtrooms?

Start there and answer this, and I will address the rest of your post.

The fact that you want to lump every single religious person in this country into a single group and assign them these goals is jaw-dropping. This can't be a serious post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.

That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).

Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.

Well, I am atheist and think atheists like you are evil, unintelligent, and naive.

Frankly I would rather converse with believers and find your comments to be supremely stupid and ill-informed.

I do not care what you think. You are nearly as much a part of the problem as the theists.

Babe, you’re the one spending your free time fighting about religion with strangers on the internet.

You appear to care very much.

DP here -- I also care very much and I'm an atheist, like more and more people in the US and around the world. It makes sense to leave religion as science progresses and explains things that religion can't. Also, I, like many people, was indoctrinated as a child into religion -- by parents, I now realize, who didn't believe it much themselves -- they just were going along with society.

I'm sure some of the posters and/or listeners here are dropping their religious beliefs. It just makes so much sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

FWIW I know atheists who have seriously dealt with the question of where standards for morality come from if there is no God and come up with some really compelling arguments. I was expecting one of those, not the tautology "My way is more moral because I say it is more moral."

Then you are not paying attention. Even AI has a simple explanation:

According to most atheists, morality stems from a combination of human empathy, reason, social cooperation, and evolutionary pressures, meaning it arises naturally within human society without the need for a deity to define it; essentially, morality is based on what promotes the well-being and survival of the community, not divine commands

Seems right to me.

That is certainly one opinion.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with a single cell of critical thinking can accept that morality comes from what promotes the survival of a community, but apparently these people exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.

That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).

Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.

And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?

Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.

More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?

And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.

Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.

And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.

You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."

So you're now the arbiter of morality?

The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.

I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.

And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.

Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.

(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1484488/)

My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.

If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.

So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.

I am sure mine is.

As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

FWIW I know atheists who have seriously dealt with the question of where standards for morality come from if there is no God and come up with some really compelling arguments. I was expecting one of those, not the tautology "My way is more moral because I say it is more moral."

Then you are not paying attention. Even AI has a simple explanation:

According to most atheists, morality stems from a combination of human empathy, reason, social cooperation, and evolutionary pressures, meaning it arises naturally within human society without the need for a deity to define it; essentially, morality is based on what promotes the well-being and survival of the community, not divine commands

Seems right to me.

That is certainly one opinion.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with a single cell of critical thinking can accept that morality comes from what promotes the survival of a community, but apparently these people exist.

DP - and I find it hard to believe that anyone with a single cell of critical thinking can accept that morality comes from ancient, pre-scientific myths, but apparently these people exist - lots of them, still. But not for long. They are dying off and being replaced.

The world will probably not be any better, though, because people can be bad, even without religion. It's just how we are. Just look at the animals that we're descended from.

And look at Trump. He's not religious. He uses religious people though, to his advantage.

We try though, and do have periods of peace and progress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

FWIW I know atheists who have seriously dealt with the question of where standards for morality come from if there is no God and come up with some really compelling arguments. I was expecting one of those, not the tautology "My way is more moral because I say it is more moral."

Then you are not paying attention. Even AI has a simple explanation:

According to most atheists, morality stems from a combination of human empathy, reason, social cooperation, and evolutionary pressures, meaning it arises naturally within human society without the need for a deity to define it; essentially, morality is based on what promotes the well-being and survival of the community, not divine commands

Seems right to me.

That is certainly one opinion.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with a single cell of critical thinking can accept that morality comes from what promotes the survival of a community, but apparently these people exist.

It's harder to believe that you didn't use a single cell of your own brain to do critical thinking about what was posted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

FWIW I know atheists who have seriously dealt with the question of where standards for morality come from if there is no God and come up with some really compelling arguments. I was expecting one of those, not the tautology "My way is more moral because I say it is more moral."

Then you are not paying attention. Even AI has a simple explanation:

According to most atheists, morality stems from a combination of human empathy, reason, social cooperation, and evolutionary pressures, meaning it arises naturally within human society without the need for a deity to define it; essentially, morality is based on what promotes the well-being and survival of the community, not divine commands

Seems right to me.

That is certainly one opinion.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with a single cell of critical thinking can accept that morality comes from what promotes the survival of a community, but apparently these people exist.

Such a ridiculous, uninformed, unscientific post. There is morality exhibited in every single society in history, regardless of belief system, and much of the animal kingdom exhibits morality. (just google morality in the animal kingdom for references, too many to list here).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.

That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).

Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.

And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?

Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.

More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?

And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.

Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.

And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.

You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."

So you're now the arbiter of morality?

The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.

I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.

And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.

Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.

(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1484488/)

My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.

If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.

So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.

I am sure mine is.

As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.

As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.

Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.

[Anonymous]

Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

FWIW I know atheists who have seriously dealt with the question of where standards for morality come from if there is no God and come up with some really compelling arguments. I was expecting one of those, not the tautology "My way is more moral because I say it is more moral."

Then you are not paying attention. Even AI has a simple explanation:

According to most atheists, morality stems from a combination of human empathy, reason, social cooperation, and evolutionary pressures, meaning it arises naturally within human society without the need for a deity to define it; essentially, morality is based on what promotes the well-being and survival of the community, not divine commands

Seems right to me.

That is certainly one opinion.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with a single cell of critical thinking can accept that morality comes from what promotes the survival of a community, but apparently these people exist.

DP - and I find it hard to believe that anyone with a single cell of critical thinking can accept that morality comes from ancient, pre-scientific myths, but apparently these people exist - lots of them, still. But not for long. They are dying off and being replaced.

The world will probably not be any better, though, because people can be bad, even without religion. It's just how we are. Just look at the animals that we're descended from.

And look at Trump. He's not religious. He uses religious people though, to his advantage.

We try though, and do have periods of peace and progress.

It's funny to juxtapose the above and the below.

Such a ridiculous, uninformed, unscientific post. There is morality exhibited in every single society in history, regardless of belief system, and much of the animal kingdom exhibits morality. (just google morality in the animal kingdom for references, too many to list here).

But I deeply appreciate that both of them are trying to interact seriously with arguments for secular morality, even if they're getting to totally different conclusions. This is much more what OP was referring to in the first post, I think, than the shouting "But my way" elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.

That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).

Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.

And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?

Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.

More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?

And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.

Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.

And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.

You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."

So you're now the arbiter of morality?

The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.

I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.

And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.

Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.

(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1484488/)

My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.

If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.

So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.

I am sure mine is.

As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.

As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.

Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.

Since there is zero evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to "interact" with any theory of morality based on that. For the sake of argument, how would that even work?