Okay. How does he know what they can't know, if he doesn't know what exists?
Atheist taken literally means "not theist". Anything and everything is necessarily classified as atheist or theist. You can't be not atheist and not theist. If you aren't atheist or theist, then you aren't.
As much as Dawkins would disagree, I think religion does restrain some people from doing awful things. It also gives them an excuse to do bad things, but like others said, they'd probably be doing those things anyway. Maybe not after being educated and civilized, though.
So why don't we say anything and everything is necessarily classified at astrological or non-astrological?
I mean we just don't have people who call themselves non-astologers. It's faintly ridiculous, isn't it?
So from a logical point of view it is equally ridiculous to call ourselves atheists.
Atheists tend to be more educated and crime and poverty tend to match up, it's more about your options.
Do you think there is a stigma associated with it?
Is that a fact or your opinion? Jung says something to the contrary.
Federal Bureau of Prisons had this study, which puts the atheist number at .209 % near the bottom. Haven't seen a study about the general population with a percentage less than that.
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists#note-6
I think it is a stategic error to call ourselves atheists because theists have their stock arguments against atheism. I think it is far better to focus on the individual teaching of a particular religion. For instance, it is better to focus on jihad than defending oneself as an atheist.
So if God told you to torture your love ones to death, then that would make it morally acceptable?Because God is the value.
Yes.So if God told you to torture your love ones to death, then that would make it morally acceptable?
But what if he told you there will be no repercussion if you refused?Yes.
Assuming the existence of a God, what do you think would be a better determiner of morality than the creator of the universe?
But what if he told you there will be no repercussion if you refused?
You said god's will is value itself. If it was his will for you to do something horrible, would you still do it if there were no threat of punishment?I don't understand how that question follows from what I posted. Right and wrong has nothing to do with consequence. Otherwise, it would be fine to do anything if you didn't get caught.
In this theoretical situation, it wouldn't be horrible, because it would be what God wanted. Morality is determined by his will.You said god's will is value itself. If it was his will for you to do something horrible, would you still do it if there were no threat of punishment?
In this theoretical situation, it wouldn't be horrible, because it would be what God wanted. Morality is determined by his will.
Why would it be considered "good" to torture your loved ones to death simply because it pleases a powerful being?
Do you think it would be better if everyone were an atheist?
(please explain)