Atheism has killed far more people.

Originally posted by Darfius
Right. They are illusions.

Could you elaborate what you mean by this?

For the sake of this argument, I am going to assume that God
doesn't exist and I'd like you to pretend He doesn't either. That
means, we are going to avoid making references to Him until this
claim (that morality is illusory) is satisfied.

Why does it necessarily follow (on the above assumption) that
morals are illusions?

I'll ask furthermore, is anything NOT an illusion (e.g., assuming that
God doesn't exist for a moment, is either music or math an illusion)?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Could you elaborate what you mean by this?

For the sake of this argument, I am going to assume that God
doesn't exist and I'd like you to pretend He doesn't either. That
means, we are going to avoid making references to Him until this
claim (that morality is illusory) is satisfied.

Why does it necessarily follow (on the above assumption) th ...[text shortened]... assuming that
God doesn't exist for a moment, is either music or math an illusion)?

Nemesio

If something can be objectively felt, seen, heard, smelled, or tasted (any one of the 5, for blind or death people), then it is not an illusion. Anything that can't be experienced by one of those 5 is an illusion. It has no basis in reality.

Originally posted by Darfius
If something can be objectively felt, seen, heard, smelled, or tasted (any one of the 5, for blind or death people), then it is not an illusion. Anything that can't be experienced by one of those 5 is an illusion. It has no basis in reality.

That's a strange way to use the word "illusion". My dictionary defines it as: "a misleading image" and the word derives from the Latin "illusio" which means "action of mocking". An illusion MUST be seen to be an illusion, so your definition is non-standard to say the least.

I fail to see how this disgression into whether human conceptions of good and evil are man-made constructs created by social conditions and perhaps evolutionary necessity (we are social animals after all) or handed down by a God is relevant to the issue at hand. Anatheist could think the first just as strongly as a theist believes the second; so what? And I thought the premise was a historical one: either atheism have caused more deaths or not. So this is all irrelevant.

Originally posted by Darfius
If something can be objectively felt, seen, heard, smelled, or tasted (any one of the 5, for blind or death people), then it is not an illusion. Anything that can't be experienced by one of those 5 is an illusion. It has no basis in reality.

Ok. So are you saying that the number '2' is an illusion? You can't
feel, taste, see, smell, or hear the number '2.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's a strange way to use the word "illusion". My dictionary defines it as: "a misleading image" and the word derives from the Latin "illusio" which means "action of mocking". An illusion MUST be seen to be an illusion, so your definition is non-standard to say the least.

I fail to see how this disgression into whether human c ...[text shortened]... was a historical one: either atheism have caused more deaths or not. So this is all irrelevant.

I get this from dictionary.com:

il·lu·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lzhn)
n.

An erroneous perception of reality.
An erroneous concept or belief.
The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception.
Illusionism in art.
A fine transparent cloth, used for dresses or trimmings.

And I digress to point out that if such things do not exist in an atheist' viewpoint, then murder, rape, etc. is not wrong and shouldn't feel wrong. Instinct doesn't stop animals from killing each other, does it?

As far as atheists, I present Hitler, Mao and Stalin for now. They alone have killed (combined) far more people than all religious wars combined.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Ok. So are you saying that the number '2' is an illusion? You can't
feel, taste, see, smell, or hear the number '2.'

Nemesio

You cannot see the number two. However, you can see two rocks. The number '2' is verbal clarification of something seen in reality.

Originally posted by Darfius
I get this from dictionary.com:

il·lu·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lzhn)
n.

[b]An erroneous perception of reality.
An erroneous concept or belief.
The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
Som ...[text shortened]... illed (combined) far more people than all religious wars combined.[/b]

Your argument is puzzling. Atheists don't believe in God; who says they don't believe in good and evil? They would have to disbelieve in those concepts for them to be false to them. You assert that the concept of good and evil comes from God; but so what? You assert a lot of things that are unprovable.

You're just ignorant to believe that an atheist can't believe that murder isn't wrong; have you ever heard of moral philosophy? Someone can believe something is wrong to do to another because of empathy i.e. I would not want that done to me so it's wrong to do it to others. You are projecting beliefs onto atheists that you must know are not held by them.

Most importantly, your thesis is that "atheism" has caused more deaths NOT individual atheists. How would you prove such a thing? Certainly none of the people you mentioned (assuming they were atheists, which is not clear) killed in the name of "atheism". You always complain when people say Christians killed because those aren't real "Christians" to you; explain what tenets of atheism lead to killing someone EVER.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your argument is puzzling. Atheists don't believe in God; who says they don't believe in good and evil? They would have to disbelieve in those concepts for them to be false to them. You assert that the concept of good and evil comes from God; but so what? You assert a lot of things that are unprovable.

You're just ignorant to believe ...[text shortened]... you; explain what tenets of atheism lead to killing someone EVER.

Believing in something doesn't make it exist, no1, as you love to say concerning God. Why do your ideals change to suit your argument??

And since good and evil are not empiraclly testable things, they don't exist unless a higher being says they do. If that is the case, your "feelings" mean very little. Atheism is a lack of higher authority, which can lead to justified (in your view) evil as easily as good.

Originally posted by Darfius
You cannot see the number two. However, you can see two rocks. The number '2' is verbal clarification of something seen in reality.

The number '2' is an abstract mathematical concept. It has no
substance. It cannot be seen, touched, tasted, smelt or heard (let's
use the word 'sense' as a summary for these five criteria).

But, ok, let's say that '2' DOES exist because you can see a
representation of '2' through '2 rocks.'

Does the moral concept 'charity' exist? Yes, you cannot 'sense'
charity, but you can see it in reality: when I give a sandwich to a
homeless person, that is 'charity.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The number '2' is an abstract mathematical concept. It has no
substance. It cannot be seen, touched, tasted, smelt or heard (let's
use the word 'sense' as a summary for these five criteria).

But, ok, let's say that '2' DOES exist because you can see a
representation of '2' through '2 rocks.'

Does the moral concept 'charity' exist? ...[text shortened]... it in reality: when I give a sandwich to a
homeless person, that is 'charity.'

Nemesio

It exists to me because a higher authority gave it to us. I don't see how charity makes any kind of sense if it came from evolution alone.

Originally posted by Darfius
Believing in something doesn't make it exist, no1, as you love to say concerning God. Why do your ideals change to suit your argument??

And since good and evil are not empiraclly testable things, they don't exist unless a higher being says they do. If that is the case, your "feelings" mean very little. Atheism is a lack of higher authority, which can lead to justified (in your view) evil as easily as good.

I don't accept your premise that "good and evil" don't exist unless a higher being says they do because we can't experience them with our 5 senses. Ever experienced a subatomic particle? They do exist and no higher being told us of their existence. So far as I can tell, you're just trying to assert definitions that "prove" that there is no good or evil unless there is a God and that just doesn't follow. As RWingett says these could be simply human constructs but if we act on our belief in them they exist for us and are as real as the two rocks.

Originally posted by Darfius
It exists to me because a higher authority gave it to us. I don't see how charity makes any kind of sense if it came from evolution alone.

OOOPS! You broke the mentioning God rule.

Remember, we are pretending that God doesn't exist for the time
being.

You said the number '2' (an abstract, unsensible concept) exists
because we can see a representation of it (i.e., we can see '2' rocks).

I asked if 'charity' as a concept can exist, even though it is unsensible,
because we can see representations of charity around us.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
OOOPS! You broke the mentioning God rule.

Remember, we are pretending that God doesn't exist for the time
being.

You said the number '2' (an abstract, unsensible concept) exists
because we can see a representation of it (i.e., we can see '2' rocks).

I asked if 'charity' as a concept can exist, even though it is unsensible,
because we can see representations of charity around us.

Nemesio

The word 'charity' implies good intentions. If you mean does the concept of handing someone something of yours exist, then the answer is yes. My assertion is that this makes no sense if a result of pure evolution because evolution is about survival of the fittest.

Originally posted by Darfius
The word 'charity' implies good intentions. If you mean does the concept of handing someone something of yours exist, then the answer is yes. My assertion is that this makes no sense if a result of pure evolution because evolution is about survival of the fittest.

The word charity means that a person recognizes that it is unjust
to have a lot while others have little, that it is equitable to share
when one has a bounty.

A person could come to recognize that charity is a good thing because
it is a bad thing when one person is hungry and another person has
more food than they can possibly eat.

No divine being needed for this conclusion.

The number '2' has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, so your
reasoning is flawed.

Originally posted by Nemesio
The word charity means that a person recognizes that it is unjust
to have a lot while others have little, that it is equitable to share
when one has a bounty.

A person could come to recognize that charity is a good thing because
it is a bad thing when one person is hungry and another person has
more food than they can possibly eat.

No divine being ...[text shortened]...
The number '2' has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, so your
reasoning is flawed.

You're equating something that is objective with something that is subjective. How much is too much? How much is more than enough? How much is not enough?

I can't argue against such illogical premises.