Why?
Like ISIS you mean, oh no wait a minute they are theists who believe in an imaginary afterlife? How about the Nazis and the SS then, oh no wait a minute they were theists as well? How about the US’s catastrophic intervention in Vietnam then, oh no they were theists as well? Hmm, it seems you’re talking complete bollocks sorry.
Some Christians I’ve talked to have stated that if Atheists took over, it would lead straight to communism. So for some reason they’ve got us confused with the Soviet Union and believe Atheists have caused more deaths than religion. That’s their go to counter argument and I’m calling bullshit lol.
I have never seen any atheists dedicating their entire life to help others.
Wars are seldom fought solely over beliefs; the actual motives behind wars often extend beyond religion, democracy, human rights, and similar reasons. These factors are often used as mere justifications to conceal the less morally defensible motivations behind conflicts.
You’re full of shit, and still trolling.
You appear to have returned just as determined to make demonstrably irrational claims without even any pretence of evidence, that was the hallmark of a your previous visit. Since this is demonstrably a straw man fallacy, as it is not remotely what @cognostic claimed.
This comment further reinforces the notion that atheists, like adherents of any other belief system, can be emotional and arrogant in their views. As with any belief system, this emotional aspect can lead to similar or even more significant mistakes than those made by other belief systems. It serves as a reminder that no ideology is immune to human fallibility, and it’s essential to approach discussions with humility and an open mind.
Atheists have no basis for any moral system because morality, from an atheistic viewpoint, can only be justified if one is going to experience the consequences of their actions. There is no justification to prevent immoral actions when the subject responsible for those actions will never experience the consequences.
And what do we have? A society that is destroying the future of the planet for short-term benefits… exactly what I’m saying.
This is what atheism leads to. This is why atheist societies have not survived beyond a few generations.
No, it demonstrates that you haven’t stopped talking shit or trolling. Nice try though, but if you think your bs requires any emotion from me then the most likely one would be hilarity at the facile and irrational stupidity of your claims. FYI atheism is still not a belief system, no matter how many times you repeat this lie.
Atheism is not a belief system, nor is it a belief, repeating this lie won’t make it any less idiotic or dishonest.
Straw man fallacy, and it serves as reminder that your posts are as relentlessly dishonest as they are irrational, and that you are not here for debate but to preach, just look at the way you clipped one small phrase, and went off another of your mendacious trolling rants, and failed to address any of the points made challenging the bs in your previous post.
The only bias here is your own, but then you are the only one peddling a delusion as well, and come to that have demonstrated no humility. So another hilarious piece of trolling there.
Since all morality is subjective you are demonstrably wrong, atheists have the same basis as theists for morality, a subjective basis. There is also plenty of research that suggests atheists are at least as moral as theists on any level playing field. The number of theists who commit violent crimes like rape and murder in the US for example is higher than the number of atheists, as one example. Or the level of such crimes per capita in countries that are predominantly secular, compared with countries that are predominantly religious, for example the US has a far higher level of religiosity than other western democracies, and a far higher rate of murders.
El Salvador (61.7)
Honduras (41.0)
Venezuela (49.9)
United States Virgin Islands (49.3 [2012 data])
Jamaica (56.4)
Sweden (46-85%),
Vietnam (81%),
Denmark (43-80%),
Norway (31-72%),
Japan (64-65%).
Oddly enough not one of those countries in the previous list, but yes I’m sure you’re bs claim is right @Quim, and this is merely a coincidence. That’s sarcasm by the way…
Scroll up champ, it appears you’re simply reeling off unevidenced nonsense again, and the facts utterly refute your claim.
The basis for atheistic morality is subjective,exactly as religious morality is. My morality just has compassion for the unnecessary suffering of others, whereas yours clings to bronze age dogma from patriarchal Bedouin societies.
What has this to do with your delusional and unevidenced beliefs in a deity?
Atheism leads to consumerism and global warming? Wow, even by the standard you’ve previously set, that is a spectacularly stupid claim.
France has survived beyond a few generations, and I shall simply let others judge the stupidity of you implying atheism is somehow culpable for global warming or climate change, your trolling is getting worse.
The majority of common people in France had been Christians and baptized until very recently in historical terms. The same can be said of all Western societies where atheism only started to be significant in recent times. A separation between religion and state does not mean that the entire population becomes atheist all of a sudden.
Come on…
Directly in line with increased education and scientific endeavour, oddly enough. This neither evidences any deity or anything supernatural. nor does it remotely evidence the notion that atheism causes or can cause wars.
Straw man fallacy, and you said “atheist society”.
Indeed…
This 
?
After this ?
Amazing! 
The hilarity continues…
El Salvador (61.7)
Honduras (41.0)
Venezuela (49.9)
United States Virgin Islands (49.3 [2012 data])
Jamaica (56.4)
Sweden (46-85%),
Vietnam (81%),
Denmark (43-80%),
Norway (31-72%),
Japan (64-65%).
How did you arrive at this notion?
Did you encounter someone who spoke for all atheists to obtain this “viewpoint “?
Did someone here say that “morality…can only be justified” as you have described?
What methodology did/do you utilize to determine one would “never experience the consequences…”?
@Quim, you continue to assert a great deal. My observation, however, seems to indicate you avoid the questions posed to you requesting specific sources for those assertions. The questions above are pretty simple and straightforward. Are you willing / able to respond to them similarly?
These all have two things in common, firstly they’re all atheists and agnostic free thinkers, secondly they have all won the Nobel Peace prize.
1933 Norman Angell
1908 Klas Pontus Arnoldson
1990 Mikhail Gorbachev
1962 Linus Pauling
1995 Joseph Rotblat
1975 Andrei Sakharov
1986 Elie Wiesel
1973 Lê Đức Thọ
If that’s too subtle for you, your claims were laughably nonsense.
I know it may sound offensive, but I want to express my thoughts without implying any personal accusations. I understand that my perspective might come across as crude, but I don’t intend to be offensive (even though I realize it might be).
In my view, from an atheistic perspective, being moral requires accepting that the experiences of other people matter without a rational foundation for this belief. It needs to be accepted dogmatically because without consequences for one’s actions, there is no rational basis to avoid causing harm to others.
I believe that just like religions require a dogmatic belief in certain ideas, atheists also need a dogmatic belief in morals since it lacks rational justification.
If I can take money from others, avoid facing consequences for my actions, and gain power and pleasure at the expense of others without any repercussions, why should I refrain from doing it? Why should I follow moralistic principles that prevent me from enjoying myself to the fullest?
It is challenging to justify why this would be wrong from a materialistic viewpoint. So, please, can you provide me with a clear logical justification for why I should not pursue maximal pleasure for myself from an atheistic standpoint?
@Quim, none of that overly lengthy response answered the simple, straightforward questions I asked. Please answer the questions I asked. If done honestly, each should take fewer than a handful of words.
Additional question: what leads you to believe that there is not a rational justification for one to behave in such a way that could be described as moral without the need for god(s)? Please, please, please be succinct.
Why do you assert that there are no consequences for one’s actions if one has no god(s)?
Well, according to an atheistic viewpoint, I’m never going to experience what you are experiencing now or in the future. Our sentience is not going to be fused. If I’m wrong, please correct me, but it’s obvious that I’m not going to experience being you, ever.
No… well… I don’t mean to imply that you are criminals at all, but many criminals justify their actions using this kind of reasoning. In my opinion, it’s the result of a materialistic and crude vision of life. In fact, it’s sad to say that many people who pretend to believe in religions or morality end up thinking this way.
I have not read all the comments, sorry. If I had to read everything, I would never have time to comment.
Well, it is obvious that you cannot experience what others experience. As long as you can prevent any bad consequences from reaching you, I don’t see any way you can experience the direct repercussions of your actions. The only “sin” is not in doing something bad but rather getting caught doing it.
Not sure if this is answering your questions…
So… you believe in karma or something like that?
No, it didn’t.
Your first answer had nothing to do with the question I asked.
Your second answer should have stopped after the first word.
Your third answer should have been limited to, “Not that I’ve read.”
Your fourth answer moved the goal posts.