Why don't "soulless" atheists go around killing everyone? For the same reason that my "soulless" dog doesn't kill me, or "soulless" groups of elephants or chimps don't all kill each other. Because social animals have evolved group behavior that allows them to survive better if they cooperate as a group.

Just because you keep comparing all atheists to Hitler doesn't make it true. More killing is done in the name of God than not.

Anonymous wrote:^^^If it's ok to kill a cow or an ant. What is the atheist reason one human without a soul should feel guilty of killing another human without a soul ?

What is the theist reason? Because it is written in a holy book? What if that certain chapter of that book hadn't been written, or if it had burned and you had never heard of it. If the Bible didn't say Thou Shalt not Kill, do you think you would feel more murderous on a day to day basis? Why not?

Anonymous wrote:^^^If it's ok to kill a cow or an ant. What is the atheist reason one human without a soul should feel guilty of killing another human without a soul ?

I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't kill a human even if I knew what a "soul" was (and how can a person prove that he has one?) As far as not killing a person, I wouldn't because I'm socialized, altruistic and connected to the world (probably as a result of a brilliant succession of evolutionary adaptations, but some pp may not agree) and I don't enjoy things that would cause people pain. I totally agree with God's law here that we shouldn't kill. And it's one I would have voted for if I were one of those old white guys assembling the books of the Bible.

Some people however, BE THEY RELIGIOUS OR NOT RELIGIOUS, may like killing and not feel guilty. I'm saying that it's a complete error to imply that a Godly person (a person "with a soul") would feel the threat of guilt so much that they would not pull a trigger. See the historical examples above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you don't have a soul. Is it ok to kill you like a bug or a mouse?

That may have been said to the Huguenots. Or at 17th-century Salem, MA. Maybe it was Cortez. Or more recently, to the Yezidis.

Of course it's not okay to kill me. But your ilk, the religious, has been persecuting and killing people for what they don't believe for a long time. So don't pose stupid moral questions when neither the the laws of nature nor historical precedent are on your side.

But if you don't have a soul .. By what logic are you more morally protected from slaughter than a cow? Killing humans is more in line with the laws of nature and historical precedent than gay marriage.

^^^If it's ok to kill a cow or an ant. What is the atheist reason one human without a soul should feel guilty of killing another human without a soul ?

Anonymous wrote:Since you don't have a soul. Is it ok to kill you like a bug or a mouse?

That may have been said to the Huguenots. Or at 17th-century Salem, MA. Maybe it was Cortez. Or more recently, to the Yezidis.

Of course it's not okay to kill me. But your ilk, the religious, has been persecuting and killing people for what they don't believe for a long time. So don't pose stupid moral questions when neither the the laws of nature nor historical precedent are on your side.

^^ true but at least if you follow the story , it has logic.

Unlike an atheist who believes the morality produced from his feelings is superior than the morality produced by Hitlers feelings. When both are of no universal value whatsoever.

Anonymous wrote:Well yeah... We know we aren't like Christ . That's why he needed to save us with his blood. If we were like Christ he wouldn't have to have suffered , died and risen.

Ghandi was so different than Christ too...he was a racist and sexist also had underage sex partners and left his wife for a German body builder.

Seems crazy that anyone needed to b saved by Christ's blood. Very gory

Well yeah... We know we aren't like Christ . That's why he needed to save us with his blood. If we were like Christ he wouldn't have to have suffered , died and risen.

Ghandi was so different than Christ too...he was a racist and sexist also had underage sex partners and left his wife for a German body builder.

Anonymous wrote:What stuff was Jesus trying to protect ?^^^

Well, since Jesus didn't write the text that is included in the Bible, and didn't have any involvement in the decisions as to which selections went into the Bible, and has never had any involvement in the operation of the religions created in his name, I'd say it's somewhat irrelevant whether he was trying to protect anything.

As Ghandi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm personally agnostic. I do lean more toward not believing in a higher power than believing. But I am unable to make the full leap. To me there is currently no way to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power.

My question for the true Atheist; How are you absolutely certain there is no higher power?

Not the OP, but another atheist. I am not "absolutely certain there is no higher power." Logically, it's very difficult to prove a negative, and to quote Voltaire, "While doubt is an uncomfortable position, certainty is a ridiculous one."

However, I do not affirmatively believe in a "higher power," and, in the absence of evidence demonstrating the existence of such an entity, I see no reason to conduct my life as if one exists. If someone provides scientifically testable evidence that a "higher power" exists, or if I end up in some kind of afterlife, I'll have to modify my belief structure.

There's no difference between my outlook on the monotheistic deity(ies) (as well as all other deities) and the way Christians act towards the Egyptian/Norse/Greek/Roman/pick an ancient culture of your choice pantheons.

OP here, I guess it's just a difference in how we define agnostic and atheist. The difference to me between atheism and agnosticism is atheism involves what a person does or does not believe and agnosticism involves what a person does or does not know. My life is driven by what I know rather than what I believe. And my thirst for knowledge is driven by what I don't know.

Well, now you're getting into the 2x2 matrix of belief and knowledge. Technically, it is possible to be both agnostic and atheist, precisely because of the belief/knowledge separation you're talking about.

On that scale, I (and most other atheists) would be classified as an agnostic atheist, because I don't know whether or not there is a deity, but I have no belief in one. I doubt that you'll find many atheists who fall into the category of someone who knows with certainty that there is no deity. That level of certainty is typically reserved for theists. Technically, it's also possible to be an agnostic theist - ie someone who believes in a deity but doesn't know that there is one, but I don't know any.

I would argue that most people who classify themselves as "agnostic" are actually agnostic atheists, but they're choosing to emphasize the "agnostic" part because it's more socially acceptable. If you're sitting there saying, "I don't know for sure whether there's a deity or not." then you don't have a lot of faith in that deity, either.

What stuff was Jesus trying to protect ?^^^

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP of course it's possible to be an atheist and still believe murder is wrong. One does not have to be religious to have ethics and morals. PS I do not kill mice or bugs, nor do I eat meat, and I also am an atheist.

That's a religion. Hate to break it to you. And it's just as dumb as any other religion.

Only by the loosest definition as a world view. No god, clergy, scripture, or sacred history. The thread is about being an atheist, not being amoral or lacking ethics, though many religious people make that mistake.

Of course there is a God..a clergy ..a scripture and sacred history and they are "your feelings". Even though logically you can see that your feelings are of no consequence in the universe , you revere and worship them anyway.

At least they're my own feelings, and not those of some long-dead white guys who only wanted to protect their stuff.