Can Atheists be Moral?

[Magnificat]

Still waiting for an example of how God violated this.

Provided example from the Book of Joshua:

And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.

Supposedly "the LORD" did, so was equally responsible. So much for Thou shalt not kill. Love thy neighbor. Blaa, blaa, blaa..

You have no understanding of Scripture. I'd explain it to you, but I'm sure I'd only be wasting my time.

 

[Hollie]

Atheists are the finest people on earth

They rescue cats from trees and help old ladies across the street

And they kill their own babies.

Far fewer than theists do.

24% were Catholic, 17% were mainline Protestant, 13% were evangelical Protestant and 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients had no religious affiliation.

a Christian would never have an abortion unless, perhaps, it would have severe genetic issues or the life of the mother was threatened. Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not make them one. A Christian obeys God. God says abortion is murder. Therefore, someone who has an abortion is probably not a Christian. Tbeer are countless false Christians out there.
THEY are the ones having the abortions.

It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.

 

[Grumblenuts]

God says abortion is murder

What Does the Bible Really Say About Abortion? - Freedom From Religion Foundation

 

[ding]

Freedom from religion foundation ?

 

[ding]

Atheists are the finest people on earth

They rescue cats from trees and help old ladies across the street

And they kill their own babies.

Far fewer than theists do.

24% were Catholic, 17% were mainline Protestant, 13% were evangelical Protestant and 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients had no religious affiliation.

a Christian would never have an abortion unless, perhaps, it would have severe genetic issues or the life of the mother was threatened. Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not make them one. A Christian obeys God. God says abortion is murder. Therefore, someone who has an abortion is probably not a Christian. Tbeer are countless false Christians out there.
THEY are the ones having the abortions.

It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.

You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.

Similar to how a subset of woodchucks will invariably chuck the wood out of a different subset of woodchucks who don’t meet some standard of chucking that different woodchucks define as the standard way woodchucks must chuck wood.

 

[ding]

It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.

Similar to how a subset of woodchucks will invariably chuck the wood out of a different subset of woodchucks who don’t meet some standard of chucking that different woodchucks define as the standard way woodchucks must chuck wood.

Yep. But humans differ from animals because not only do we have a sense of right and wrong but we expect everyone to understand the difference between right and wrong and then we do something very peculiar; when we violate the law of right and wrong, instead of abandoning the concept, we rationalize that we didn’t violate it.

Do you know why I told you that? Because it is exactly what you are doing. I’d have more respect for you if you said the hell with your invisible code of common decency, I don’t care if they are killing human lives.

Then you would at least be ******* honest about it. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself that you are right, they aren’t really ending a human life.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.

Yep, if you sliced open a woman and sewed "a defenseless child" into her womb both would likely die and that would be bad.

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty

 

[Grumblenuts]

It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.

Similar to how a subset of woodchucks will invariably chuck the wood out of a different subset of woodchucks who don’t meet some standard of chucking that different woodchucks define as the standard way woodchucks must chuck wood.

Yep. But humans differ from animals because not only do we have a sense of right and wrong but we expect everyone to understand the difference between right and wrong and then we do something very peculiar; when we violate the law of right and wrong, instead of abandoning the concept, we rationalize that we didn’t violate it.

Do you know why I told you that? Because it is exactly what you are doing. I’d have more respect for you if you said the hell with your invisible code of common decency, I don’t care if they are killing human lives.

Then you would at least be ******* honest about it. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself that you are right, they aren’t really ending a human life.

Well said. Bet you suck the fun out of social gatherings like none other.

 

[ding]

It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.

Similar to how a subset of woodchucks will invariably chuck the wood out of a different subset of woodchucks who don’t meet some standard of chucking that different woodchucks define as the standard way woodchucks must chuck wood.

Yep. But humans differ from animals because not only do we have a sense of right and wrong but we expect everyone to understand the difference between right and wrong and then we do something very peculiar; when we violate the law of right and wrong, instead of abandoning the concept, we rationalize that we didn’t violate it.

Do you know why I told you that? Because it is exactly what you are doing. I’d have more respect for you if you said the hell with your invisible code of common decency, I don’t care if they are killing human lives.

Then you would at least be ******* honest about it. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself that you are right, they aren’t really ending a human life.

Well said. Bet you suck the fun out of social gatherings like none other.

I do.

Actually I'm pretty fun to be around. I've got a good sense of humor.

 

[ding]

It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.

Similar to how a subset of woodchucks will invariably chuck the wood out of a different subset of woodchucks who don’t meet some standard of chucking that different woodchucks define as the standard way woodchucks must chuck wood.

Yep. But humans differ from animals because not only do we have a sense of right and wrong but we expect everyone to understand the difference between right and wrong and then we do something very peculiar; when we violate the law of right and wrong, instead of abandoning the concept, we rationalize that we didn’t violate it.

Do you know why I told you that? Because it is exactly what you are doing. I’d have more respect for you if you said the hell with your invisible code of common decency, I don’t care if they are killing human lives.

Then you would at least be ******* honest about it. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself that you are right, they aren’t really ending a human life.

Well said. Bet you suck the fun out of social gatherings like none other.

Seriously though, why would you care about right and wrong as an atheist?

I'm not asking that to be insulting. I'm asking that because one of my proofs for God is man's inability to abandon the concept of good and evil.

In fact, it is this peculiar behavior which led me to there might be a God.

 

[BreezeWood]

the metaphysical is responsible for life, there is no material that is not living

Now that makes sense to me. Requires a non-standard or redefinition of life, but I'm game. All dink's appeals to "space time" and so-called "laws of thermodynamics" aside, what kills me most is the name dropping of famous physicists who would never describe biblical time frames of "creation" as accurate if even possible, GIVEN they accepted and argued for any of the universe beginning theories discussed. Desperate, wishful thinking induced crap.

LMAO. BW thinks atoms are living matter. Boy, do I have a bridge to sell to you.

.

bond: LMAO. BW thinks atoms are living matter. Boy, do I have a bridge to sell to you.

it is bond that does not through their forged beliefs understand the simple steps to physiological life from living matter -

all matter is composed of the periodic elements all of which are viable by definition.

certain elements combine to create organic molecules

molecules combine to form compounds, eventually forming a cell

.

that evolve, metaphysically into physiological beings ...

there is nothing in the universe that is not alive. all life has a metaphysical equation for its existence that also continues to evolve. and a set standard that must be adhered to. from whence we came.

 

[ding]

You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.

Yep, if you sliced open a woman and sewed "a defenseless child" into her womb both would likely die and that would be bad.

Pro Tip: Any response is not necessarily a good response.

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty

Not according to every embryology textbook written.

 

[BreezeWood]

Atheists are the finest people on earth

They rescue cats from trees and help old ladies across the street

And they kill their own babies.

Far fewer than theists do.

24% were Catholic, 17% were mainline Protestant, 13% were evangelical Protestant and 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients had no religious affiliation.

a Christian would never have an abortion unless, perhaps, it would have severe genetic issues or the life of the mother was threatened. Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not make them one. A Christian obeys God. God says abortion is murder. Therefore, someone who has an abortion is probably not a Christian. Tbeer are countless false Christians out there.
THEY are the ones having the abortions.

It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.

You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.

.

You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.

as before bing how does that religion construe a vasectomy as any different than an abortion. in application as a solution. the solution you choose - did you ask your priests permission.

 

[ding]

And they kill their own babies.

Far fewer than theists do.

24% were Catholic, 17% were mainline Protestant, 13% were evangelical Protestant and 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients had no religious affiliation.

a Christian would never have an abortion unless, perhaps, it would have severe genetic issues or the life of the mother was threatened. Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not make them one. A Christian obeys God. God says abortion is murder. Therefore, someone who has an abortion is probably not a Christian. Tbeer are countless false Christians out there.
THEY are the ones having the abortions.

It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.

You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.

.

You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.

as before bing how does that religion construe a vasectomy as any different than an abortion. in application as a solution. the solution you choose - did you ask your priests permission.

Only you would take exception with someone saying that you don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.

Yep, if you sliced open a woman and sewed "a defenseless child" into her womb both would likely die and that would be bad.

Pro Tip: Any response is not necessarily a good response.

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty

Not according to every embryology textbook written.

'Cause you've checked them all. Obviously. {Cough..} Bullshit!
Here, since you don't like straight Wikipedia, this must be your speed:

An embryo is an animal or a plant in its earliest stage of development.

The embryo of vertebrates is defined as the stages between the first division of the fertilized egg to the birth or hatching.

An embryo is called a fetus at a more advanced stage of development and up until birth. In humans, this is from the eighth week after fertilization onward.

The embryo of invertebrate animals is usually called a larva.

In plants, the embryo is part of the seed, consisting of root, shoot, and cotyledons.

Words have purpose. Just because some idiots can't keep 'em separated and/or smush them all together for political purposes doesn't mean they're technically correct, making sense, or helping anyone but themselves when doing so.

 

[james bond]

The magnetic field is caused by plate tectonics which was explained by creation scientist, Alfred Wegener.

Thanks. Hilarious!

Hmm, "caused by plate tectonics"?

You can't tell the difference between a magnet and magnetic field. What else are you missing besides that hole in your head?

Why do you think that iron bar is hanging onto that horseshoe magnet? Invisible glue? Smoke and mirrors? Jeebus?

It definitely sounds like you do not know or else you would've told us. Since you brought it up, maybe whoever took the picture did glue what looks like two metals together. You posted the pic. What are we looking at?

 

[james bond]

Atheists are the finest people on earth

They join the Satanic Temple and support Hollywood values more than what you said.

 

[james bond]

Like most geniuses, Dollard is quite the eccentric, but also easily remains the most educated person in the world regarding the now extinct science of electricity. Without the Aether there could be no movement of electricity. That should be obvious yet we've been brainwashed into somehow believing otherwise. Dielectricity and magnetism seem abstract as well, but it's all really much simpler than the crap we've been led to believe for far too long.

Can you explain dielectricity and magnetism? I remember this scene.

And why does Dollard think conservation of energy is false.

And you want Hollie to comment on this.

Your babbling about the second law of thermodynamics is classic ID'iot creationist babbling about what they don't understand.



You will find a lenghty discussion here:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability


Dont be an accomplice to the fear and ignorance furthered by the ID'iot creation ministries.

Hollie, I'm sorry but am putting you on ignore. You keep lumping ID and creation science together when I explained and asked many times to not do so. You are not capable of recognizing two separate groups.

 

[james bond]

For starters... by definition, the first and second laws of thermodynamics only hold in "closed systems." Unfortunately, there's no such thing. All real systems leak. All are thus "open."

How do you know that "All real systems leak?" 'All are thus "open?"'

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system

Brrrp.. no such thing!

Haha. It's a scientific law, so what makes you so sure there is no such thing?

Of course the Aether is left unconsidered as well.

You lost me. What does aether have to do with all this?