Why do so many atheists oppose the death penalty...

[ding]

This OP asks a stupid question. Nobody can tell whether someone is an atheist, agnostic, or theist of some sort. One could just as well post the question of why so many people who declare themselves as believing in a supreme being support the death penalty.

The way the term "atheist" is slung around these days, you'd think that people walked around with signs declaring their thoughts on the subject. It appears to be an attempt at insult used by jackasses from certain cults who declare themselves, and only themselves, to be "believers."

You mean except for the fact that atheists tend to be leftists?

You continue to conflate religion and policy/political questions. You can have no idea what the religious views are of people whom you describe as "leftists," as if this term is somehow dirty. Many people who are Christian, Jewish, and Muslim also oppose the death penalty, as well as adherents of other religions.

I still can't figure out how you determine who is an atheist, an agnostic, or a believer.

No, I don't. They are conflated all on their own. There is a distribution for everything. As a rule, people who are atheists tend to be left leaning.

And yes, socialism is evil as it destroys the spirit of man.

 

[Lysistrata]

This OP asks a stupid question. Nobody can tell whether someone is an atheist, agnostic, or theist of some sort. One could just as well post the question of why so many people who declare themselves as believing in a supreme being support the death penalty.

The way the term "atheist" is slung around these days, you'd think that people walked around with signs declaring their thoughts on the subject. It appears to be an attempt at insult used by jackasses from certain cults who declare themselves, and only themselves, to be "believers."

You mean except for the fact that atheists tend to be leftists?

You continue to conflate religion and policy/political questions. You can have no idea what the religious views are of people whom you describe as "leftists," as if this term is somehow dirty. Many people who are Christian, Jewish, and Muslim also oppose the death penalty, as well as adherents of other religions.

I still can't figure out how you determine who is an atheist, an agnostic, or a believer.

No, I don't. They are conflated all on their own. There is a distribution for everything. As a rule, people who are atheists tend to be left leaning.

And yes, socialism is evil as it destroys the spirit of man.

Unsubstantiated generalizations. You can't tell a person's religious views without asking. As I attempted to explain, even if you take one group of people, say Christians, its members are all over the spectrum on the issues. Further, there is nothing wrong with a person holding "left-leaning" views. There is nothing illegitimate about that. As for economic forms, you may think that socialism is "evil," a ridiculous notion, but capitalism sure has its very evident problems and drawbacks, and these must be considered, as well. It certainly is no more "moral" than socialism or anything else.

 

[ding]

This OP asks a stupid question. Nobody can tell whether someone is an atheist, agnostic, or theist of some sort. One could just as well post the question of why so many people who declare themselves as believing in a supreme being support the death penalty.

The way the term "atheist" is slung around these days, you'd think that people walked around with signs declaring their thoughts on the subject. It appears to be an attempt at insult used by jackasses from certain cults who declare themselves, and only themselves, to be "believers."

You mean except for the fact that atheists tend to be leftists?

You continue to conflate religion and policy/political questions. You can have no idea what the religious views are of people whom you describe as "leftists," as if this term is somehow dirty. Many people who are Christian, Jewish, and Muslim also oppose the death penalty, as well as adherents of other religions.

I still can't figure out how you determine who is an atheist, an agnostic, or a believer.

No, I don't. They are conflated all on their own. There is a distribution for everything. As a rule, people who are atheists tend to be left leaning.

And yes, socialism is evil as it destroys the spirit of man.

Unsubstantiated generalizations. You can't tell a person's religious views without asking. As I attempted to explain, even if you take one group of people, say Christians, its members are all over the spectrum on the issues. Further, there is nothing wrong with a person holding "left-leaning" views. There is nothing illegitimate about that. As for economic forms, you may think that socialism is "evil," a ridiculous notion, but capitalism sure has its very evident problems and drawbacks, and these must be considered, as well. It certainly is no more "moral" than socialism or anything else.

No. It is not. As a rule, people who are atheists tend to be left leaning. Are there exceptions? Sure.

Socialism is more than an economic form. Socialism is a reaction. Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership. Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

 

[WinterBorn]

First the topic was about wondering why atheists were against capital punishment. Then it became about atheists being liberals.

Seems to me that both are personal beliefs, independent of each other.

 

[WinterBorn]

The question seems odd... as if atheists are informed in all moral choices by atheism, or something.

I think it is you theists who confuse yourselves, because you live under the assumption (or pretend to do so on Sundays) that your theism informs everything you believe. Maybe it does, good for you. When you confuse yourself is to think atheists spend any amount of time thinking about atheism that even approaches the amount of time you spend thinking about theism. Most atheists just simply don't think or care about the concepts of theism or atheism at all, when forming their beliefs. So this atheism no more informs their view of the death penalty than does their opinion of 14th century poetry (that they also do not give a shit about or spend any effort on).

How man times did you think about Jesus today? Take that number, and that is right about how many more times you thought about Jesus today than an atheist thought about atheism today, on the average. That's kind of the thing with the default state of "non-belief".

For a comparison you can "feel", consider the number of times you thought about believing or not believing in unicorns today, and how this informed your decisions and beliefs.

Says the militant atheist posting in a religious forum.

Funny, I thought the forum was about Religion and Ethics. No more ethics in this forum?

 

[alang1216]

...for people who have committed murder and who can never be released back into public? Since the murderer is usurping resources from the community, why not just execute the murderer so that resources are expended on those that contribute to society?

I oppose it because it doesn't work. It is not a deterrent for others and it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to lock them up for life.

 

[K9Buck]

...for people who have committed murder and who can never be released back into public? Since the murderer is usurping resources from the community, why not just execute the murderer so that resources are expended on those that contribute to society?

I oppose it because it doesn't work. It is not a deterrent for others and it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to lock them up for life.

One atheist FINALLY answers the question. Thank you.

 

[WinterBorn]

...for people who have committed murder and who can never be released back into public? Since the murderer is usurping resources from the community, why not just execute the murderer so that resources are expended on those that contribute to society?

I oppose it because it doesn't work. It is not a deterrent for others and it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to lock them up for life.

One atheist FINALLY answers the question. Thank you.

I answered the question in post #9. Or have you put me on ignore?

 

[K9Buck]

...for people who have committed murder and who can never be released back into public? Since the murderer is usurping resources from the community, why not just execute the murderer so that resources are expended on those that contribute to society?

I oppose it because it doesn't work. It is not a deterrent for others and it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to lock them up for life.

One atheist FINALLY answers the question. Thank you.

I answered the question in post #9. Or have you put me on ignore?

I put trolls, idiots and liars on ignore. Are you one of those?

 

[WinterBorn]

...for people who have committed murder and who can never be released back into public? Since the murderer is usurping resources from the community, why not just execute the murderer so that resources are expended on those that contribute to society?

I oppose it because it doesn't work. It is not a deterrent for others and it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to lock them up for life.

One atheist FINALLY answers the question. Thank you.

I answered the question in post #9. Or have you put me on ignore?

I put trolls, idiots and liars on ignore. Are you one of those?

"I oppose the death penalty. I think killing someone is wrong, unless it is in self defense or defense of another life.
And given the number of sentences that have been reversed, the amount of corruption in the justice system and the unreliable nature of the typical witness, I don't believe you can be 100% sure you got the right person."

Is that an answer to the question in the OP?

 

[K9Buck]

...for people who have committed murder and who can never be released back into public? Since the murderer is usurping resources from the community, why not just execute the murderer so that resources are expended on those that contribute to society?

I oppose it because it doesn't work. It is not a deterrent for others and it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to lock them up for life.

One atheist FINALLY answers the question. Thank you.

I answered the question in post #9. Or have you put me on ignore?

I put trolls, idiots and liars on ignore. Are you one of those?

"I oppose the death penalty. I think killing someone is wrong, unless it is in self defense or defense of another life.
And given the number of sentences that have been reversed, the amount of corruption in the justice system and the unreliable nature of the typical witness, I don't believe you can be 100% sure you got the right person."

Is that an answer to the question in the OP?

For the sake of the discussion, let's assume we know the murderer is guilty because we have video of him walking through a daycare shooting babies in the head. Let's also assume, for the sake of this discussion, that the murderer is deemed mentally competent. From the perspective of an atheist, what is the moral compunction to expend resources on such a person when said resources could be invested in someone who might actually contribute to society?

 

[alang1216]

For the sake of the discussion, let's assume we know the murderer is guilty because we have video of him walking through a daycare shooting babies in the head. Let's also assume, for the sake of this discussion, that the murderer is deemed mentally competent. From the perspective of an atheist, what is the moral compunction to expend resources on such a person when said resources could be invested in someone who might actually contribute to society?

It takes years to execute someone and there are many appeals along the way. The total cost is greater than if they get life. If you want to save money, change the rules or eliminate the death penalty.

 

[Weatherman2020]

...for people who have committed murder and who can never be released back into public? Since the murderer is usurping resources from the community, why not just execute the murderer so that resources are expended on those that contribute to society?

Plenty of atheists believe in the death penalty. Just as many religious folks reject it.

/thread

Liar.

 

[Weatherman2020]

...for people who have committed murder and who can never be released back into public? Since the murderer is usurping resources from the community, why not just execute the murderer so that resources are expended on those that contribute to society?

They always side with evil.

 

[K9Buck]

I hear atheists claim that abortion is fine because the unborn human is a "parasite". Why do some atheists, who claim this belief, not apply the same philosophy toward the unrepentant, mass-murderer?

 

[alang1216]

I hear atheists claim that abortion is fine because the unborn human is a "parasite". Why do some atheists, who claim this belief, not apply the same philosophy toward the unrepentant, mass-murderer?

People who believe a fertilized egg is human believe it isn't up to the mother to choose to carry it or not, she has no choice in the matter. Yet some of those same people believe the state has the right to choose to terminate an adult human being.

 

[K9Buck]

I hear atheists claim that abortion is fine because the unborn human is a "parasite". Why do some atheists, who claim this belief, not apply the same philosophy toward the unrepentant, mass-murderer?

People who believe a fertilized egg is human believe it isn't up to the mother to choose to carry it or not, she has no choice in the matter. Yet some of those same people believe the state has the right to choose to terminate an adult human being.

Well, the unborn have nothing do anyone, unlike the mass murderer who murdered you and your entire family and who, by remaining among the living, continues to be a threat to the community. So, your analogy is not exactly analogous.

 

[alang1216]

I hear atheists claim that abortion is fine because the unborn human is a "parasite". Why do some atheists, who claim this belief, not apply the same philosophy toward the unrepentant, mass-murderer?

People who believe a fertilized egg is human believe it isn't up to the mother to choose to carry it or not, she has no choice in the matter. Yet some of those same people believe the state has the right to choose to terminate an adult human being.

Well, the unborn have nothing do anyone, unlike the mass murderer who murdered you and your entire family and who, by remaining among the living, continues to be a threat to the community. So, your analogy is not exactly analogous.

Got it. Some believe that they have the right to determine the value of a human life but others don't have the same right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

...for people who have committed murder and who can never be released back into public? Since the murderer is usurping resources from the community, why not just execute the murderer so that resources are expended on those that contribute to society?

I don't have a problem with the death penalty but IMO the standard of proof must be higher than beyond a reasonable doubt if a person is to be executed

 

[K9Buck]

I don't have a problem with the death penalty but IMO the standard of proof must be higher than beyond a reasonable doubt if a person is to be executed

As a believer in Christ and, since I don't believe Christ would approve of executing anyone, I guess I'm opposed to the death penalty. My emotional side is for it, in some cases, but my mind and my soul tell me it is immoral and contrary to Christ.