"There is nothing that atheism (on its own) claims is 'right.' "?

[A Vestigial Mote]

Can then Atheism and people belonging to it be immoral?

Please answer the question colored in magenta above, please.

Of course they can. Just as anyone, falling under literally ANY other label can be immoral. Even if only because one can easily lie about their label in the first place!

 

[Nakosis]

What about three balloons? There is only one universe in this reality, right?

Is there? I don't think my assumptions should be relied on.

And I don't want my balloons to be in a separate one from me.

Reality doesn't seem to care much about what we want.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

@Shushersbedamned - Maybe if we had a red balloon filled with male bovine fecal matter. I'd agree to calling that balloon "God," if that's any consolation.

So glad you're with us. ..kröhm.

First of all, wtf is a red bulloon?
Secondly, bovine?
Thirdly, why are you trying to offer me consolation - or to anyone else for that matter?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So glad you're with us. ..kröhm.

First of all, wtf is a red bulloon?
Secondly, bovine?
Thirdly, why are you trying to offer me consolation - or to anyone else for that matter?

It makes no sense to try and explain. I think I will instead just stop responding to or engaging with you.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

It makes no sense to try and explain. I think I will instead just stop responding to or engaging with you.

I thank you sincerely for the kind thought. This just proves that god is in all of us.

 

[ChristineM]

Why would I when the sentence ended with a question mark? In the English language a sentence formed like that expresses that the before said was not an assertion but a mere hypothesis.

The , right? Ended with a question mark, the right indicating an assertion to your claim

 

[ChristineM]

When do you suggest it may have been that religion was invented?

After civilization

 

[Shushersbedamned]

The , right? Ended with a question mark, the right indicating an assertion to your claim

It was part of the sentence. Unless the English language counts both as whole sentences in which case I apologize for the inaccuracy. The meaning of what I said, however, does not change.

 

[ChristineM]

Or - on the other hand - it could (also) be that perhaps - and I do mean perhaps - their explanation was not, after all, as simple as you think (at the moment) that it is.

Several others seem to think it was simple. You don't for some strange reason. Perhaps because it pops your misrepresentation of atheism bubble

 

[Shushersbedamned]

After civilization

When did civilisation begin? How do you define civilisation and why do you believe there was no religion "invented" prior to that?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Several others seem to think it was simple. You don't for some strange reason. Perhaps because it pops your misrepresentation of atheism bubble

Wasn't it just you who said so? Or am I confusing you with a close cousin in logic?... in any case I didn't see it said but once that it was simple - other than that the comment was rather blissfully ignored as far as I can see. Though, yet again, it doesn't really make a difference.

 

[paarsurrey]

When did civilisation begin? How do you define civilisation and why do you believe there was no religion "invented" prior to that?

A good question.
Regards

 

[ChristineM]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"It (Atheism) no more makes claims about morality"
Can then Atheism and people belonging to it be immoral? I don't believe that, please.

Please answer the question colored in magenta above, please.
Regards

I did, did you not understand the answer? I'll repeat it...

Human morality exists long before religion was even invented, religion does not having the rights to being human

 

[ChristineM]

When did civilisation begin? How do you define civilisation and why do you believe there was no religion "invented" prior to that?

The earliest signs of civilization are dated around 12000 bc in the levant

The first record of religious practice is around 3500 bc

For the definition of civilisation i suggest you look up the definition

 

[ChristineM]

Wasn't it just you who said so? Or am I confusing you with a close cousin in logic?... in any case I didn't see it said but once that it was simple - other than that the comment was rather blissfully ignored as far as I can see. Though, yet again, it doesn't really make a difference.

No it wasn't just me.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

No it wasn't just me.

Who else was It?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

The earliest signs of civilization are dated around 12000 bc in the levant

The first record of religious practice is around 3500 bc

For the definition of civilisation i suggest you look up the definition

It's relevant how you define civilisation yourself as you speak. And where do these numbers come from? What do they mean/how do they support your point?

 

[paarsurrey]

The earliest signs of civilization are dated around 12000 bc in the levant

The first record of religious practice is around 3500 bc

For the definition of civilisation i suggest you look up the definition

That doesn't mean for sure that there was no religion before that. Right, please?
Regards

 

[ChristineM]

Who else was It?

I am not here to read for you.

 

[ChristineM]

It's relevant how you define civilisation yourself as you speak. And where do these numbers come from? What do they mean/how do they support your point?

No, what is relevant is the a accepted definition

Google is your friend, im not interested in time wasting questions of no point