I say it is meaningless or "it would be better for a man not to be born than to be brought into the world", but Im just curious and somewhat sick of debates at the moment so you can criticize my view I just may not answer and Id like to hear yours
Also another question I have for Atheists is why should I (or anyone else) be moral if there is no God? I wont accept it if it is subjective because subjective morals makes Nazism moral.
How do you decide if someone or something is moral. Why is assuming a baby has done evil immoral? Is it not plausible that a baby has done something evil? Don't all people do something wrong? Who are you to call me immoral?
The question is... how do you decide if someone or something is moral? You don't seem to have a clear view of what's right and wrong and are completely dependent on the Bible to give you some idea, which is why you have no idea because the Bible doesn't actually speak out against child abuse, but condones it (tells us to beat and stone them).
No, not all people do something wrong. You only say they do because "the Bible tells me so".
To us yes, it is not plausible that a baby has done anything evil. Or should I say no, it is not possible. I'm not sure which is more correct English-grammar-wise. But it is NOT plausible for the baby to have done anything evil. Please enlighten us if you know of any possible example scenario where the baby could be capable of evil. Otherwise we'll assume that yes, you're horribly incorrect. The fact that you blame innocent people including babies as being guilty of something, even if you don't know what that something is that they're guilty of... that is something that is the opposite of moral in my book. In my book you should be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Hence why I don't like to follow the Bible. I was raised Catholic but I always was raised by parents who thought kids were pure and innocent so I don't think I ever really believed in Original Sin. I remember learning about it in CCD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_of_Christian_Doctrine and knowing what it meant but I never really understood it, it never logically made sense to me that someone naturally had sinned just by being born.
It's ironic to me that Christians tend to be the most patriotic and defend the "American Way", one of those "ways" being the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. Why does that not apply spiritually? Why is it assumed all are guilty until they prove their innocence? It's really disgusting.
Let me ask you, can a pet rock commit an evil act? It can't can it? If your answer is anything but a resounding "NO" don't bother responding. At 6 months a child has the same potential to commit evil as a pet rock, which is none at all. Unlike a pet rock, a 6 month old child does have a brain, but it is undeveloped and incapable of thought processes that you and I consider basic.
I dont know but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence
First of all, that doesn't even come close to answering the question.
Second of all, even Christians realize that argument is stupid because it can apply to a wide number of nonsense imaginary creatures. Absence of evidence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not evidence of absence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Et al. Etc etc.
1) You've yet to prove that god exists.
2) You are yet to prove that even if god existed, that he is good.
We have shown you MANY examples in the Bible of god acting like a total douche. If you live by the morals of that god, then you advocate rape. You advocate slavery. You advocate pedophilia. You advocate gender discrimination. You advocate genocide. Tell me right now that you agree with those things, because if you do not, then you do not follow god's word or his morality.
3) "As someone who holds to a set of relative morals you cant really say that something is good or evil because your just stating your opinion not the truth"
Sir... there are MANY religions in the world. Each of them claim to be the only authority on 'truth.' Our government finds them to all be unproven, therefore they are not used as the basis of law. Our laws are what define morality in society. Your truth is legally held as nothing more than individual superstitions.
4)"my definition of evil is the absence of good"
If that is the case, then you have just argued against god.
If god is all good and omnipresent, then evil cannot exist. Either god is everywhere and in everything therefore goodness is everywhere and in everything, or god is NOT everywhere and in everything...and that is where evil is. So tell me, what are these absences of god that permit evil to exist? Is it when god goes on vacation? Or is he so weak that he cannot be everywhere and in all things?
5) "mercy is good but so is justice."
Please explain to me the 'justice' in torturing a beloved child for all eternity for a mistake? If god loves us unconditionally and gives us free will, then Hell is not possible. Hell is a permanent solution to a temporary problem and literally unjust by definition. If you are not ever given a chance to redeem yourself, then you are not unconditionally loved. God supposedly created humans. He knew what we were capable of, and yet he still sticks a tree in the garden, sticks a talking, evil snake in with us, and then acts shocked when we screw it up. Further, he decides to punish every single human being for the mistake of two individuals. That is not just. That is entrapment and then punishment for nothing more than the crime of being born.. a crime which none of us willfully committed, since god is the one that decides when we live and when we die. Which of course brings us to another point. If god decides when we live and when we die, then he purposefully damns people by making them die before they are 'saved.' This also negates the idea of freewill. As humans, we are given a whole lot of shifty stories written by goat herders 2,000 years before our birth. These stories contradict the natural laws of science (which god supposedly wrote) but based on these stories we are told that we must believe in and love god with our whole hearts, or else face suffering, agony and punishment..FOREVER.
Sorry, but that isn't free will. That is intimidation and threatening behavior, the likes of which we usually see in abusive relationships. Forced love isn't love. It is rape.
This is what I see. You came to this site looking for... something. I'm not sure what. I read your words and picture a very lost, very sad individual that was looking for other sad, lost individuals. You mistakenly thought that the atheist community was filled with hopeless, depressed people filled with hatred and disgust towards your god. Instead what you found were well balanced, thoughtful and educated folks that turn to atheism as a conclusion, not a conviction.
I tell you now, that if you could say even one thing that makes sense, I'll get down on my knees and pray with you.
But you don't. You can't. No matter how good your intentions are, the fact of the matter is that you are arguing for something that does not exist.
I understand that there is something wrong with you. Maybe it was your upbringing. There is a sense community within a church. Religious leaders do lavish their members with attention and affection. Maybe (and this is my thought) that it is biological.
Perhaps you've got a chemical imbalance and at one point you reached a meditative state while in prayer. Maybe that state temporarily relieved the symptoms of your imbalance. You incorrectly assumed that feeling of peace and love was coming from some deity, though instead it was a natural reaction happening within your own neurology. I am sure that if I were to experience such a scenario, I might incorrectly label that as 'proof.'
I'm sure such 'proof' would carry me through a whole lot of counter arguments, even though I logically knew better.
Or maybe I'm way off target, and this doesn't apply to you at all.
Hell, I'm sure there is a reason for the way you are, but please understand that there is a reason for the way we are, too.
A lot of us started on the path of atheism because we wanted to 'prove' either to ourselves or our disbelieving friends that our religion was correct.
Unfortunately, once we studied the facts without emotion, the only logical conclusion a person can reach is that of atheism. Apply religion to any other clinical trial, any other test, any other skepticism that you would for a drug, a food safety test, a science experiment. The results are always the same.
I hope you find whatever it is that you are looking for.
I hope you get help and find happiness. If religion does that for you, then I am honestly happy. Just understand that for a lot of people, religion is an evil force used to subjugate, humiliate and even kill. If your religion does not do that, and if it does not interfere with my legal rights, then I've got no issue. But more than likely it does. That's the problem.