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.
//What can be wrong with an action that affects no one? Is it really "wrong" to gather sticks on the Sabbath? Is it really wrong to "covet your neighbors ass" if you don't taken action and steal it? Is it really always wrong to lie, even when the lie stems from self-defense? Even in the Bible, circumstance dictates what of God's laws are adhered to. No action really is inherently "wrong", but it's wise to think about what the consequences of said action will be and who it will affect.//
It is wrong not to put the needs of others above your own needs.
How is an action that affects no one, like thinking a thought (aka coveting your neighbor's ass or even just being jealous of their wealth or something) or collecting sticks on the Sabath, putting the needs of others above your own? These things don't have anything to do with my needs nor yours nor anyone else's needs! I have no idea what you're talking about, quite frankly. What are you refuting?
I don't see the selfish part of Cara Coleen's statement. And it's definitely not the part you quoted.
No, you're wrong. You have to take care of yourself before you can take care of others. You've simply bought into an ideal that makes no practical sense. I don't know what's wrong with being selfish. Everything you do is driven by an interest in your self, even if it is feeding the poor. You know you'll be rewarded by God, or at least seen as righteous. Or you'll at very least feel good you did something nice! There is nothing you can do that is not selfish, but what is wrong with taking care of yourself? What is wrong with doing good because it feels good? Nothing, David. You've bought into the lie that your own life is worthless, but no one here agrees.
If there was undeniable proof that there was no god and everyone accepted that, you're argument is that everyone would start stealing and murdering and raping, but that it is not your intent and that you would not do that, right? Well if there was no god, what would keep you from doing it? Maybe because you have a sense of right or wrong regardless of whether there is a god, otherwise if you became an atheist you would rape and pillage and murder. You're logic is broken, you can't say "this is what society would do if there was no god, but I wouldn't do it if there was no god, and I don't advocate those views" you can't have it both ways.
We can't prove that there is no god, you can't prove nonexistence, the burden of proof is on you to prove that there IS a god... but regardless seriously. You wouldn't want to do that stuff. Read what Cara Colleen wrote on page 4 about 6 hours ago (page numbers and time may change but that's what it is right now for me). Seriously. It's an amazing explanation for why you wouldn't want to do that stuff even without your God.
Big fish don't just eat the little fish, someone already told you that's not how evolution works. One clear example of how that's not always true is how some animals work together in symbiotic relationships: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis
And anyway Humans are all the same species. Animals within their own species do not eat each other, nor try to kill each other. Survival of the fittest means surviving to reproductive age and reproducing - the members of the species that are too weak to survive til that point and/or who can't/don't reproduce will die off. They might die off due to diseases, or due to predators from different species, or MAYBE due to the same species doing something to it in select cases... but your "Big fish eating the little fish" thing does NOT apply to humans raping each other.