So, by my estimation, it appears that theists have won, for all intents and purposes:
1. The logical problem of evil
2. Morality (objective moral standards and non-arbitrary value systems)
3. The limits of science, the axioms of the scientific method, the end of materialism/naturalism, etc.

Atheists, by contrast, have won:
1. Determinism (no free will)
2. Evolution
3. The emotional problem of evil
4. Scientific inerrancy of religious texts

And it appears they can all agree, for the most part, upon:
1. Evolution
2. The psychological significance of religion (though they often disagree on the impact being positive or negative)
3. Infinite reality (theists believing in an infinite being, atheists believing in an infinite material universe).

These debates are by no means settled, of course.

What overarching arguments/debates do you, honestly, think either camp has "won"? What conversations do you think both sides are having on common ground?

Cc. LordReed, IamSabrina, Martinez39, CreepyBlackpool, HellVictorinho, MJBOLT, hahn, 1Sharon, paxonel, johnydon22, Frank317, RuthlessLeader, AgentOfAllah, HappyPagan, NPComplete

Cc. budaatum, MuttleyLaff, Vaxx, JujuSugar, Ranchhoddas

Vic2Ree:
So, by my estimation, it appears that theists have won, for all intents and purposes:
1. The logical problem of evil
2. Morality (objective moral standards and non-arbitrary value systems)
3. The limits of science, the axioms of the scientific method, the end of materialism/naturalism, etc.

It is mostly difficult to argue with the non-arbitrary basis for value system in the theistic argument. The only argument that can be made against that is that "God do not exist" which moves the goal post rather than address the argument.

I agree the theists have it on morality.

Atheists, by contrast, have won:
1. Determinism (no free will)
2. Evolution
3. The emotional problem of evil
4. Scientific inerrancy of religious texts

And it appears they can all agree, for the most part, upon:
1. Evolution
2. The psychological significance of religion (though they often disagree on the impact being positive or negative)
3. Infinite reality (theists believing in an infinite being, atheists believing in an infinite material universe).

These debates are by no means settled, of course.

What overarching arguments/debates do you, honestly, think either camp has "won"? What conversations do you think both sides are having on common ground?

Let's wait for other people and probably go over the arguments again

johnydon22:
It is mostly difficult to argue with the non-arbitrary basis for value system in the theistic argument. The only argument that can be made against that is that "God do not exist" which moves the goal post rather than address the argument.

I agree the theists have it on morality.

No, theists don't have it on morality.

Atheists don't need any god to be moral. Unless you have a different definition of morality.

Vic2Ree:
Cc. budaatum, MuttleyLaff, Vaxx, JujuSugar, Ranchhoddas

Vic2Ree, I dont lose, I let other people win, so I guess you see that winning and losing does not have any meaning to me now. Note that, as case in point, some people win by losing and some lose by winning, and so never be afraid to lose, because there's the chance, you learn more from losing than winning, as losing forces or can lead one to re-examine things. Just know losing is allowed, only just dont lose your faith, conviction confidence and fire.

advocate666:


No, theists don't have it on morality.

Actually they do.

Atheists don't need any god to be moral. Unless you have a different definition of morality.

And that is not the point, on what basis do you measure morality?

it is one thing to say "I'm moral" it is another to show on what basis such actions are assumed moral and why it is binding. If not, it is simply meaningless.

johnydon22:
Actually they do.


And that is not the point, on what basis do you measure morality?

it is one thing to say "I'm moral" it is another to show on what basis such actions are assumed moral and why it is binding. If not, it is simply meaningless.

Like I said, you first need to define morality so there is no goal post shifting. To make it simple, give me an example of a moral act that is solely attributed to a god and no atheist can perform.

My definition of morality is that it is fluid. That which is considered moral today, may become amoral tomorrow and vice versa. As such it has no rigid measurement.

That which is "eternally moral" is human attribute and cannot be measured. Theist claim it belongs to them but that just shows their nature. They are liars and usurpers.

advocate666:


Like I said, you first need to define morality so there is no goal post shifting. To make it simple, give me an example of a moral act that is solely attributed to a god and no atheist can perform.

I am not sure you people know the arguments you engage in. Nobody said anything about any actions being attributed to God that an atheist cannot perform.

The argument is on moral basis not moral action.

Religious moral basis are less arbitrary and logically sound than secular morality.

My definition of morality is that it is fluid. That which is considered moral today, may become amoral tomorrow and vice versa. As such it has no rigid measurement.

That which is "eternally moral" is human attribute and cannot be measured. Theist claim it belongs to them but that just shows their nature. They are liars and usurpers.

Again Moral basis is the argument.

I have no idea what the hell you are on about.

Let me demonstrate: Is rape wrong?

Why?

Evolution is senseless. Its survival of the fittest is an extremely immoral and senseless belief.
Have you not seen parents sacrificing their lives in a disaster for the sake of their family? The parents are the fittest in the family but choose that path to save the weakest members.
This kind of parents are most likely religious. Atheist parents would likely loot, kill and destroy to save their children. It is such a self centered belief.

OpenYourEyes1:
Evolution is senseless. Its survival of the fittest is an extremely immoral and senseless belief.

On the contrary, there is another way to look at it, morality in fact a very necessary evolutionary tool.

Have you not seen parents sacrificing their lives in a disaster for the sake of their family? The parents are the fittest in the family but choose that path to save the weakest members.

Lol. Evolution deals with survival of species not isolated pockets.

An evolutionary successful organism is one that has numbers on its side - humans are evolutionary successful.

This kind of parents are most likely religious. Atheist parents would likely loot, kill and destroy to save their children. It is such a self centered belief.

Lmao. Ok

johnydon22:
Lol. Evolution deals with survival of species not isolated pockets.

This contradicts darwin's "Natural Selection"

johnydon22:
I am not sure you people know the arguments you engage in. Nobody said anything about any actions being attributed to God that an atheist cannot perform.

The argument is on moral basis not moral action.

Religious moral basis are less arbitrary and logically sound than secular morality.




Again Moral basis is the argument.

I have no idea what the hell you are on about.

Let me demonstrate: Is rape wrong?

Why?

This is where you argument is defeated before you even started.

Any human would agree that rape is wrong. It is human nature. It has nothing to do with god.

Infact the opposite is the case. Only godly people can justify rape and say it is sanctioned by their god. There are numerous examples of this in their holy books.

So, humanity is the "moral basis". Not god.

No one wins. Not the atheist nor the theist. For in truth we are the people of Babel suffering from confusio linguarum. (It's at this point that the theists should mutter, "Come Jesus. Come soon", but in the past have pitiably resorted to stupidity. May the Holy Spirit restrain them).

Fools. That is what atheists are, for they abandon entirely the Power of God. While the theist refuses to commit the sin of Adam and Eve and become naked, the atheist plucks off the fruit and eats and yet dangles about naked, the eating - nay! gorging, on the fruits of trees of knowledge of good and evil nourishes them not. If it did, they would understand that they argue with those who read only bread and are undernourished unlike them.

Fools. And even moreso in fact, are the theists, their measure being the Lord God Almighty. Is it a lie that the Peaceful are Blessed? Is it not by your fruit that you are known? Yet one finds many of God who would claim to have Jesusglasses and wear them yet be blinded to the forest in their own eyes. Slap them, and instantly would they slap back twice as hard and on both your cheeks - their other cheek they would not turn. Some even slap first and claim they do so in the name of God! They claim to have gone to the Jesustician to get Jesusglasses so they can see, but more blind do they become for they think they see in Spirit but they see not at all.

No, no one wins when people suffer from confusio linguarum except the Lord of Babel. If jesusj.nr had proposed this as the imperfect Word of God in the beginning and prior to the arrival of Jesus the Christ I would have understood, though I would insist that the Word of God is perfect, it is we humans who lack understanding.

Imagine "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech". Does that not sound like a blissful world where the lion and lambs live in peace? They'd even learn to subdue the earth and "make brick, and burn them throughly and had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter". So what do they do? They decide to "build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth".

Say we decided such a thing in a city in our homeland. The traffic would have to flow well, water run to everyone's home, electricity twenty four seven, no one starving no one homeless no one stupid because we are busy building a Godly City. Then, "the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which we children of humans built. And the LORD said, "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

What? You did not say, "What the fuq God?" You should! Peaceful people, all "is one", getting along nicely, building something together, then some God decides to infect them with confusio linguarum so they are restrained. Is it not the Spirit of God that is within them that this text is telling us God decided to restrain? God will make us not miss the guises of satan and bow down and worship evil! Yea, I insist that it is not the Word of God that is imperfect, but the understanding of we humans, both theists and atheists!

No one wins when people refuse to try to understand what the other is saying. No one wins when the intention of your words are not to be understood and to inform and to educate, but to be believed. In fact, the devil alone wins when people are infected with confusio linguarum and there is division between atheists and theists. You could easily tell this by noting how confounded and scattered and fruitless and unBabelic we are upon face of all the earth.

So, Come Jesus, come now and turn us into perfected salt so that we will be unconfounded and unscattered and fruitful and Babelic so we may build towers and win to the Glory of the Lord God Almighty.

The Spirit within you (be it theist or atheistic) is your guide in understanding.

P.s. Op, I hate "us or them threads". This one though, somehow!? Thanks very much for it.

Everyone else. The temptation will overcome you such that you assume to perfectly understand what you just read without feeling the need to have specific bits of its imperfection explained to you. My advice is, resist temptation and request clarification first. You will be blessing buda.

advocate666:


This is where you argument is defeated before you even started.

Any human would agree that rape is wrong. It is human nature. It has nothing to do with god.

Infact the opposite is the case. Only godly people can justify rape and say it is sanctioned by their god. There are numerous examples of this in their holy books.

So, humanity is the "moral basis". Not god.

ok let me play the devil adovocate. rape is good. can you argue it out?

This is complicated

Vic2Ree:
So, by my estimation, it appears that theists have won, for all intents and purposes:
1. The logical problem of evil
2. Morality (objective moral standards and non-arbitrary value systems)
3. The limits of science, the axioms of the scientific method, the end of materialism/naturalism, etc.

well some atheist may disagree that the logical problem of evil has been won by the theists, nor have they won morality. Especially( Christians), since their book is arbitrary, and they have to pull in other sources to correct it. well, some unstructured theist (i.e. those who are not bind by any book)has offer a better explanation and that is commendable.

Atheists, by contrast, have won:
1. Determinism (no free will)
2. Evolution
3. The emotional problem of evil
4. Scientific inerrancy of religious texts

And it appears they can all agree, for the most part, upon:
1. Evolution
2. The psychological significance of religion (though they often disagree on the impact being positive or negative)
3. Infinite reality (theists believing in an infinite being, atheists believing in an infinite material universe).

These debates are by no means settled, of course.

And neither as atheist solved anything too. - there is a lot of work to be done to actually settle those, and no one has done that (yet).

Evolution is now a phenomenon every objective individual consider to be true . some smart theist has even offer a theological explanation as to why it is possible.

vaxx:
ok let me play the devil adovocate. rape is good. can you argue it out?

Of course it is good. Do you know how many species of animals perpetuate themselves by rape. Nearly all.

Now, what has god got to do with it?

vaxx:


Evolution is now a phenomenon every objective individual consider to be true . some smart theist has even offer a theological explanation as to why it is possible.

"Theory" is not fact/truth

advocate666:


Of course it is good. Do you know how many species of animals perpetuate themselves by rape. Nearly all.

Now, what has god got to do with it?

That is why johndon says morality basis has a quality theological explanation. Theist offer a plausible explanation as to why it is wrong to hurt others in order to gratify yourself. it will always be wrong even without putting God to it base on human veiw

The most fundamental point of theists is about interacting with other people. ... for example ""My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." Since neither of us has a privileged position, ACCORDING TO THEISTIC explanation neither of us is entitled to impinge on the other against the other's will.

OpenYourEyes1:


"Theory" is not fact/truth

And theory is not a make up idea too. it is an attribute of truth, it is sound, it have explanatory power, and have been vetted by experiment over and over. consistency and accuracy is vital.

vaxx:
And theory is not a make up idea too. it is an attribute of truth, it is sound, it have explanatory power, and have been vetted by experiment over and over. consistency and accuracy is vital.

Which experiment? Have they been able to recreate evolution in their labs or supercomputers.

Has any specie of organism evolved into a new specie?

How about evolution of outer space? How many stars, galaxies, solar system, are observed being born today?

advocate666:


This is where you argument is defeated before you even started.

Lol. Abi?

Any human would agree that rape is wrong. It is human nature. It has nothing to do with god.

Lmao.

Why is rape wrong?

Infact the opposite is the case. Only godly people can justify rape and say it is sanctioned by their god. There are numerous examples of this in their holy books.

Again, basis is the argument, whichever way it goes.

So, humanity is the "moral basis". Not god.

Lol what does this even mean?

OpenYourEyes1:


This contradicts darwin's "Natural Selection"

No, it doesn't

OpenYourEyes1:



Which experiment? Have they been able to recreate evolution in their labs or supercomputers.

Has any specie of organism evolved into a new specie?

How about evolution of outer space? How many stars, galaxies, solar system, are observed being born today?

This topic is offerflogged on religious section.


Have you heard of fruitfly experiment? it was evolution experiment that literarilly occur in the very eye of scientists.


or just the recent one of 2018 that was tested in the chemistry lab ( A noble award was even given)or that of 2016...

https://futurism.com/breakthrough-scientists-see-the-evolution-of-a-new-species-occur-in-a-flask/

vaxx:
That is why johndon says morality basis has a quality theological explanation. Theist offer a plausible explanation as to why it is wrong to hurt others in order to gratify yourself. it will always be wrong even without putting God to it base on human veiw

The most fundamental point of theists is about interacting with other people. ... for example ""My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." Since neither of us has a privileged position, ACCORDING TO THEISTIC explanation neither of us is entitled to impinge on the other against the other's will.

People do not understand, being an atheist doesn't mean you become illogical and dogmatic, arguments require an open mind to understand the idea of it all and even an opposing idea can be very logical.

Take that guy for example; He replied that rape is wrong to me and replied of course it is not to you.

Why?

Because he doesn't see morality as something with basis but simply as a surface value judgement down to individual interpretation - which literally proves my point that secular morality (at least how secular people see it) lacks basis therefore literally meaningless.

Let's probe him further; he said, species propagte through rape therefore it is fine to rape - This is him making a logical leap first that 'species propagation' is good.

He is trying to show something is good using a benchmark he hasn't shown is also good.

Or he argues it hurts people thereforr wrong - again, he is making a logical leap of concluding 'hurting people' is wrong without showing how and why.

Trying to prove something is bad using something you haven't shown to be bad.

That is the dilema of secular moral basis.

Morality require a fundamental assumption about the subject that distinguishes it from others, moral weight is not in the action but the subjection of the action.

Example; If you touch someone on their hand, it is ok

Touch their vagin_a or peni_s, it is sexual assault.

See, the problem is not touching someone's body part but which particular body part you touch.

(That is the mistake they make when you talk to them about basis, moral basis is the assumption about the subject not the action)

One can ask why is touching a vagin_a without consent wrong but touching a hand isn't, after all, both are just human body parts which by secular definitions none is any more sacred than the other, there is nothing sacred about sexual intercourse.

But to a theist, sex is a sacred action and this implicitly means that any organ involved in sex must be equally sacred hence the distinction with other parts of the body.

Therefore, touching a body part is morally neutral.

But touching a body part with a fundamental assumption detailing it's intrinsic value gives it a moral weight either positively or negatively - And this scaredness is ultimately connected to God.

That is moral basis.

But to a secular mind, something is wrong simply because i feel and say it is, there is no reason why it is.

I feel like most atheist here do not understand this basis argument.

You may argue morality is subjective and not objective but you cannot argue that the moral derivations and basis in theism isn't logically sound and their non-arbitrary value system a very solid argument you can't win against.

You can only scream: God doesn't exist as a counter which is basically shifting the goal post

OP, can you explain, in relation to each of these points:
a/ Morality (objective moral standards and non-arbitrary value systems)
b/ The limits of science, the axioms of the scientific method, the end of materialism/naturalism, etc.
c/ Evolution
d/ Determinism (no free will)
How they are related to the question of theism, and why you think each camp has 'won' on them?.....
For your other points, I can see a straightforward connection to the theistic question,.......
but for the ones I listed, the connection seems to consist merely of frequent association in popular philosophy and theology......
Do you think there is something deeper on each of these points? .......

johnydon22:


People do not understand, being an atheist doesn't mean you become illogical and dogmatic, arguments require an open mind to understand the idea of it all and even an opposing idea can be very logical.

Take that guy for example; He replied that rape is wrong to me and replied of course it is not to you.

Why?

Because he doesn't see morality as something with basis but simply as a surface value judgement down to individual interpretation - which literally proves my point that secular morality (at least how secular people see it) lacks basis therefore literally meaningless.

Let's probe him further; he said, species propagte through rape therefore it is fine to rape - This is him making a logical leap first that 'species propagation' is good.

He is trying to show something is good using a benchmark he hasn't shown is also good.

Or he argues it hurts people thereforr wrong - again, he is making a logical leap of concluding 'hurting people' is wrong without showing how and why.

Trying to prove something is bad using something you haven't shown to be bad.

That is the dilema of secular moral basis.

Morality require a fundamental assumption about the subject that distinguishes it from others, moral weight is not in the action but the subjection of the action.

Example; If you touch someone on their hand, it is ok

Touch their vagin_a or peni_s, it is sexual assault.

See, the problem is not touching someone's body part but which particular body part you touch.

(That is the mistake they make when you talk to them about basis, moral basis is the assumption about the subject not the action)

One can ask why is touching a vagin_a without consent wrong but touching a hand isn't, after all, both are just human body parts which by secular definitions none is any more sacred than the other, there is nothing sacred about sexual intercourse.

But to a theist, sex is a sacred action and this implicitly means that any organ involved in sex must be equally sacred hence the distinction with other parts of the body.

Therefore, touching a body part is morally neutral.

But touching a body part with a fundamental assumption detailing it's intrinsic value gives it a moral weight either positively or negatively - And this scaredness is ultimately connected to God.

That is moral basis.

But to a secular mind, something is wrong simply because i feel and say it is, there is no reason why it is.

I feel like most atheist here do not understand this basis argument.

You may argue morality is subjective and not objective but you cannot argue that the moral derivations and basis in theism isn't logically sound and their non-arbitrary value system a very solid argument you can't win against.

You can only scream: God doesn't exist as a counter which is basically shifting the goal post

i am impress with this explanation.

Vic2Ree:
So, by my estimation, it appears that theists have won, for all intents and purposes:
1. The logical problem of evil
2. Morality (objective moral standards and non-arbitrary value systems)
3. The limits of science, the axioms of the scientific method, the end of materialism/naturalism, etc.

Atheists, by contrast, have won:
1. Determinism (no free will)
2. Evolution
3. The emotional problem of evil
4. Scientific inerrancy of religious texts

And it appears they can all agree, for the most part, upon:
1. Evolution
2. The psychological significance of religion (though they often disagree on the impact being positive or negative)
3. Infinite reality (theists believing in an infinite being, atheists believing in an infinite material universe).

These debates are by no means settled, of course.

What overarching arguments/debates do you, honestly, think either camp has "won"? What conversations do you think both sides are having on common ground?

Cc. LordReed, IamSabrina, Martinez39, CreepyBlackpool, HellVictorinho, MJBOLT, hahn, 1Sharon, paxonel, johnydon22, Frank317, RuthlessLeader, AgentOfAllah, HappyPagan, NPComplete

In this Lifetime, I have journeyed through Theism, Atheism, Pantheism, now I realize there is no ism. What this means, is that both Theists and Atheists are RIGHT.

What anyone chooses to 'believe' is based on their level of awareness, and level of Awareness is directly proportional to the Consciousness threshold that the subject is operating on.

Any mor0n can 'believe' in God, even the wealthy educated people 'believe'. So, theism seem to capture across spectrum of humans, but there is something about Atheism, it captures the very smart, whether rich or poor. So, once a poor smart man studies and researches on Religion, he knows what is written in the Holy Book and conclude, convincingly that there is no God.

So, the common theme among all Atheist is High Smart Intelligence
while the common them among all Theists Low Archaic level of Intelligence - whether rich or poor.

Our Universe is a 8D substrate condensed to 4D, with all objects within having to be 3D, so even when our Physical body is 3D shaped, we are living in a 4D space condensed from 8D, which means your brain as a quantum computer is capable of accessing data even from 8D.

Many kids these days are born as Star Seeds, which means their parent junk DNA must have been activated up to a certain level, from 5D upwards to be able to handle the vibration of such entity into the 4D space as in a 3D body. Such starseeds are birthed in Western Countries a lot and very 'spiritual' homes in Africa which means the lack of use of their left brain usage has empowered right brain activation to get signal to attract those kinds of kids soul but barely works out since most of those spiritual people lack scientific understanding on how the spirit world works to train their kids. That is a thread for another day. Cos brand new Souls coming, are supposed to tell us what is going on there, but in Africa, they lack the words since parents are not evolved scientifically, but in western countries, smart kids can tell you things which I know having popped out and see the other side.

Enough of Science, let us step back to what I figured out.

This Universe is a Simulated Hologram, hosted on a Cosmic Computer and Projected from Source. Using the Electric Universe Model, what we have at the backstage are System Administrators who put up the Simulation, so your idea of God at this level, makes no sense to anyother outside of it, the reason is simple. The Human body is just an Avatar and your Higher Self holds the Console of your Life and gives you hint here and there, called Intuition. If you go against the pre-destined part of his desired experience, you are guided back in line, but you have free will to break free from the preset route, but demands knowledge of how the Universe works and when you do that, you can function in any destiny, rather destination you choose to through life and as you grow and study and neurotransmit more bandwith, your capacity is enhanced.

The brain is all that you need in this world to understand how it works, then you need access to the Universal Mind, so we had to built the computers to store data we can access to build New Civilizations.

We are merely bioelectric robots of some other advance civilization who built us here and call themselves Gods so we can worship them and be their slaves. There are other advance civilization that think we can function better and activate more DNA of ready candidates for higher purposes.

We are being constantly engineered by different species and deals are going on within the Alien families and their bloodline on the future of the Simulation and it is a beautiful thing, cos there is always a simulation and even more simulations within simulations.

There is no need to worry about who or what God is. We are God, fractals of God, being Human - Human Being. It is the only way to explain an unnecessary paradigm.

What I mean is that the discussion about God is unnecessary, the Universe does not need God to exist, it is just a Simulation of other advanced Humans. If God is the name you want to call the Intelligence that builds Gods, Humans, Animals, Trees, etc in the Universe, if God is the name you want to call the 'Unknown Intelligence' that created Gods, then be my guest. All I know is that force is the intelligence that drives our body.

Peace out.

JujuSugar, these are entire debates in and of themselves, so I will not be debating these points. I will simply state the central claims of the points you mentioned, and that should shed light on how I believe that these points relate to theism or atheism. Again, please note, I will not debate the actual points on this thread.

JujuSugar:

a/ Morality (objective moral standards and non-arbitrary value systems)

There are no universally correct values on an atheistic worldview.

JujuSugar:

b/ The limits of science, the axioms of the scientific method, the end of materialism/naturalism, etc.

Materialism cannot account for logically necessary metaphysical truths like the existence of the supernatural or God. (Please re-read first paragraph of this comment before reacting to this point)

JujuSugar:

c/ Evolution

Evolution is true as opposed to Biblical creationism.

JujuSugar:

d/ Determinism (no free will)

Our actions are predetermined rather than freely chosen, and evils are predestined by natural laws rather than agent causation, thereby making God to blame for evils. (Though this view finds companionship with Calvinism)

vaxx:
This topic is offerflogged on religious section.


Have you heard of fruitfly experiment? it was evolution experiment that literarilly occur in the very eye of scientists.


or just the recent one of 2018 that was tested in the chemistry lab ( A noble award was even given)or that of 2016...

https://futurism.com/breakthrough-scientists-see-the-evolution-of-a-new-species-occur-in-a-flask/

Evolution is suppose to be through natural process.
Your pictures are too funny,lol.

Let me go through your article. I will get back to you when am done with some house chores.

OpenYourEyes1:



Evolution is suppose to be through natural process.
Your pictures are too funny,lol.

Let me go through your article. I will get back to you when am done with some house chores.

Natural selection has been observed and measured both in the lab and in nature. so nothing controversial about it.

JujuSugar:
OP, can you explain, in relation to each of these points:
a/ Morality (objective moral standards and non-arbitrary value systems)

Vic2Ree:

There are no universally correct values on an atheistic worldview.

Hmmm.....
Sir, does this mean that theists have "won" the argument regarding morality because there are no universally correct values in an atheistic worldview?

OpenYourEyes1:
Evolution is senseless. Its survival of the fittest is an extremely immoral and senseless belief.

Its morality has no bearing on its reality.

OpenYourEyes1:

Have you not seen parents sacrificing their lives in a disaster for the sake of their family? The parents are the fittest in the family but choose that path to save the weakest members.

Parents (people who have already passed on their genes) protect their offspring, who are less likely to have done so. I can clearly see why nature selects for individuals who exhibit such behaviour.

OpenYourEyes1:

This kind of parents are most likely religious. Atheist parents would likely loot, kill and destroy to save their children. It is such a self centered belief.

People of all religions and the irreligious, all exhibit moral and immoral behaviour. To say otherwise is to ignore reality. To ignore reality is to invite bigotry. Bigotry leads to intolerance. Intolerance leads to oppression. Oppression leads to violence and death.

Ironically, your inability to face facts and accept reality makes you more dangerous than the atheists that you hate so much.