Guys: Would you ever rape and murder a girl?

[Alex K]

I still think this is a sock trying to backdoor the argument from morality.

In principle a great idea, but in this instance a bit too heavy-handed

[Losty]

I have no idea why I opened this thread. I made it to page 2 and I feel as if I've been bathing in the OP's filth. Disgusting. I'll go ahead and place you on ignore and then I need a shower.

[Aoi Magi]

Hmm, this calls for an experiment.
Call your cousins, and then rape and murder each other.
Once you are certain all of you have successfully and completely murdered each other, come back and post your and their opinions.

[Aractus]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

What an asshole!

Look, Christian-pretending-to-be-an-atheist-because-he-thinks-we-won't-answer-a-Christian's-question-about-secular-morality, humans are moral animals. We have quite literally evolved a sense of morality based on the ability to empathize with our fellow human beings (and often, things that are not human, which is why we enjoy the company of pets and get sad when we see an animal suffering), unless that sense of natural moral feeling fails to develop... we call those people sociopaths, people incapable of feeling empathy for their fellow human being.

It's not all instinct, though. Children are born with a poor sense of empathy, and have to be carefully taught (and sometimes punished for choosing selfishness over others' feelings/safety) in order to develop this sense of moral feeling toward others, to place the worth of others as equal to their own, in the sense of not doing harm. If you were a parent, you'd already know that. Our brains are sponges for social coding, from language to behavior, and continue to develop until into early adulthood (~25 years old), so a person who may naturally be able to feel empathy can still do great harm if they are not taught to be good, social/moral creatures.

Again, this is how we evolved as a tribal, social species. People who disregard the lives of others (violent criminals, such as you describe) are no more likely to be atheists, and in fact prison studies have shown that more people in prison are religion than atheists by a wide margin. It is clear that being religious does not make a person more moral, and that being an atheist does not make a person likely to disregard the rights of others. In other words, check your premise at the door; it is flawed. The evidence speaks for itself.

It is deeply insulting to us that you would even ask why we're not sociopaths without God telling us we shouldn't do it in a Holy Book. We have a natural and perfectly-good set of reasons to treat our fellow humans well. Indeed, one of the most common philosophies of atheists is called Secular Humanism, which is entirely based on the equal worth/rights of all human beings.

So, since you fooled no one by your attempt to disguise yourself as "one of us" in order to ask the question your preachers have told you is "a problem for atheists", and you hopefully have read enough to realize that we do in fact have such a basis for morality, could you kindly stop acting like "because we feel empathy for others" is not an answer? Seriously, the first couple of pages of this thread reads a bit like:

"Why do you atheists eat food?"

"Because we get hungry."

"Yeah but other than hunger, why would you eat food if the Bible doesn't tell you to?"

It's really no different from that.

[Iroscato]

Well, there's my dose of stomach-turning revulsion sorted for the afternoon.

[Aractus]

We have quite literally evolved a sense of morality based on the ability to empathize with our fellow human beings

We have? Then explain to me Hale's state of mind please.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I'm not a troll. I've already stated that I'm an atheist. I fail to see evidence in a god.

Your god punishes liars by eternal slow-roasting, but he prefers his trolls boiled.

---

What an asshole!

Look, Christian-pretending-to-be-an-atheist-because-he-thinks-we-won't-answer-a-Christian's-question-about-secular-morality, humans are moral animals. We have quite literally evolved a sense of morality based on the ability to empathize with our fellow human beings (and often, things that are not human, which is why we enjoy the company of pets and get sad when we see an animal suffering), unless that sense of natural moral feeling fails to develop... we call those people sociopaths, people incapable of feeling empathy for their fellow human being.

It's not all instinct, though. Children are born with a poor sense of empathy, and have to be carefully taught (and sometimes punished for choosing selfishness over others' feelings/safety) in order to develop this sense of moral feeling toward others, to place the worth of others as equal to their own, in the sense of not doing harm. If you were a parent, you'd already know that. Our brains are sponges for social coding, from language to behavior, and continue to develop until into early adulthood (~25 years old), so a person who may naturally be able to feel empathy can still do great harm if they are not taught to be good, social/moral creatures.

Again, this is how we evolved as a tribal, social species. People who disregard the lives of others (violent criminals, such as you describe) are no more likely to be atheists, and in fact prison studies have shown that more people in prison are religion than atheists by a wide margin. It is clear that being religious does not make a person more moral, and that being an atheist does not make a person likely to disregard the rights of others. In other words, check your premise at the door; it is flawed. The evidence speaks for itself.

It is deeply insulting to us that you would even ask why we're not sociopaths without God telling us we shouldn't do it in a Holy Book. We have a natural and perfectly-good set of reasons to treat our fellow humans well. Indeed, one of the most common philosophies of atheists is called Secular Humanism, which is entirely based on the equal worth/rights of all human beings.

So, since you fooled no one by your attempt to disguise yourself as "one of us" in order to ask the question your preachers have told you is "a problem for atheists", and you hopefully have read enough to realize that we do in fact have such a basis for morality, could you kindly stop acting like "because we feel empathy for others" is not an answer? Seriously, the first couple of pages of this thread reads a bit like:

"Why do you atheists eat food?"

"Because we get hungry."

"Yeah but other than hunger, why would you eat food if the Bible doesn't tell you to?"

It's really no different from that.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[LastPoet]

I am perfectly happy having consenting sex with girls. So no.