There are some atheists who do not believe in God because of all the pain and suffering in the world. They point out to the evils of religion such as child abuse and the death of innocents.
Are you claiming that there are atheists just as naive and emotionally driven, as theists are?
I'll be damned.
I always thought reasoning and honesty drew one to rejecting superfluous entities which we call atheism.
However, IMO, notions of good and bad, right and wrong are based in religion.
What does religion say about thinking you are wrong, rather than right, in this case?
I would hate to be immoral.
It's almost remarkable that animals don't kill each other off, without our religiuos grace.
I saw a cat that had adopted a puppy once on T.V. It but have been due to a feline epiphany.
God work in mysterious ways.
He lets dogs die, like dogs, but then saves one for the cat's enlightenment.
In a nonreligious universe, there is no judgment, there is only opinion and personal values.
I would think that dying is the highest of nature's judgments.
Which means that for an atheist, there should exist no notions of abuse or suffering or wrongdoing with regard to others, only natural selection and need-driven actions of the self and those related to self.
Is the need to believe in comforting delusions, based on childish fairytales and traditions, and nothing else besides, also part of these needs?
Is the need to justify an absurdity so that you can continue living in ignorant bliss, also not a need?
I'm confused.
Most if not all atheists ground their moral concepts in the good of the individual.
Is not the belief in God, 'good for the individual'?
I'm shattered. What sacrifices you believers must endure.
This "good" itself is utilitarian (actions are only good which act as instruments to produce personal pleasure or satisfaction, along with health and the extension of life). Furthermore, what counts as "evil" or "bad" are those things that harm personal pleasure and health, and go against our "instinct of self-preservation".
I'm assuming that there's another definition for
good and
evil, better than that one.
How about this one:
What's good for the group, is only considered so, when it is also good for the individual.
So applying this morality to society, if an atheist finds personal pleasure and satisfaction in say, abusing a child, should there be a moral objection from their moral perspective?
I don't know...what if God told him to do it?
Put it to you this way:
Will he get caught?