Leaderboard

All mushrooms are edible. Some only once.

Tens[?], hundreds[?], of thousands of Tlaxcaltecs who were sacrificed by Aztec devotees every year would disagree with that. No atheist in their right mind would extract the beating heart of a living innocent person from their body. A religious person might. For those Aztecs, killing thousands of people as a sacrifice to their gods was totally moral. That's what god-fearing people can do.

If the Universe is not sentient, where do biological systems come from? They contain feelings like love, do that not exist because it is not testable? You say that physics and mathematics is all that is required to describe how the universe evolves from a hot dense state regardless of my opinion. Then again, how does a biological body/virus/human being finally evolve out of sheer physics - automatic mathematical formula conducted only?

https://apnews.com/article/robert-kennedy-rfk-bear-cub-central-park-f7e6cba9aa19dc2066a8d9c543974a97

The agreement was there would be no fact-checking

The aliquot sum of any prime number is 1.

... albeit only logarithmically.

When I'm tired, I like jokes that require less concentration.

I regularly make these for sale out of cedar. They sell fairly well.

That's basically a conspiracy theory. The idea that rules against murder, theft and such aren't about the observable harm they cause and are part of some secret cabal's desire to "control people" just for jollies is worthy of Alex Jones. "Controlling people" isn't necessary a bad thing, especially if they won't control themselves. That's why we have laws. Right, the larger group of society doesn't accept murder and rape, and the subgroup who commits murder and rape gets outnumbered. That's a good thing. And in reality, that scenario isn't even accurate, as there would likely be plenty of instances where the group making and enforcing the rules is the minority. I'd argue that there are plenty of arguments in the Bible against slavery, so if some are cherry-picking parts of it while ignoring the whole then that's on them. There's nothing within Christianity or the Bible that says similar principles can't exist elsewhere. If anything the ubiquitous of them argues in favor of them being universal. Likewise, the Bible says that sin is "common to man", so I'd argue this further substantiates the idea of universal principles of right and wrong behavior. And while I'm not an expert on Buddhism, whether or not it specifically invokes a God, it more or less argues in favor of ultimate truths about how people should or shouldn't behave. Right, but there are examples of social groups (e.x. drug cartels) who have little to no respect for these rules, and this type of behavior would be easier to justify by holding a purely materialist worldview. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that "most people don't" commit extremely atrocious crimes, but, in theory, they could justify doing so much easier from a particular worldview.

For example, some have asked for physical evidence, which would be unnecessary to provide since God is not a physical being. Anyone can demand an arbitrary standard of evidence for anything. For example, I could demand that someone provide a video recording that proves Julius Caesar existed, and declare that unless such a recording is provided, that there is "no evidence" for Julius Caesar's existence (while naturally discounting any other types of evidence). The reality is that people believe in lots of things which don't have or need the types of evidence that one might provide for the existence of gravity, they're just very selective about it, and I think that often selfish or emotional reasons come into play here (such as people simply not wanting to have to mentally tax themselves inquiring about the existence of a God, or what it means about humanity's place in the universe, or their fate after death).

No, I made it pretty simple. A person could create a law against eating chocolate ice cream just as they could create a law against murder. But, objectively, eating chocolate ice cream would not cause the harm to another person that murder would, and the harm would objectively occur even if there was no law against murder. So, obviously, there are reasons that it is illegal to murder but not illegal to eat chocolate ice cream, and these reasons heavily relate to the harm that murder causes. People didn't just create laws against murder on a whim. The idea that everyone should adhere to reason and truth is made up.

Even though an atheist can claim they have morals or ethics, I would argue that immoral behavior is easier to justify as an atheist than as one who believes in a God, meaning that they are morally accountable to something higher than themself. An atheist could easily believe that, since there is no life after death, that any immoral behavior they want to engage in is justified so long as they escape earthly punishment, such as by the law. I'm aware that many atheists argue in favor of morality, but even if they do, I think they'd be hard-pressed to find a source for it, or render it entirely subjective and subject to the feelings and whims of the individual (e.x. an atheist may say they personally find killing people abhorrent, but if someone else does not find abhorrent, an atheist would have a hard time coming up with a coherent argument as to why that person shouldn't kill). An ultimately, even if an atheist believes that murder is absolutely wrong, they would have to simply rest this axiom on faith (meaning it would be little different than resting it on God or on the 10 Commandments).