The top 10 benefits of atheism

Originally posted by FMF
Your OP is a complete retread of stuff on Thread 171350 Thread 170817 Thread 171626 Thread 171595 and numerous threads in 2016 during which you showed absolutely zero inclination to engage in anything other than a tedious parody version of debate and discussion. I have no reason to doubt that you are going to behave in exactly the same way on this thread.

Tell yourself what you want. If you cannot add to the benefits of atheism that I have listed, so be it.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Tell yourself what you want. If you cannot add to the benefits of atheism that I have listed, so be it.

Why don't you copy paste some from a web site somewhere?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How did you make the jump from Geester thinks FMJ should believe 'it's not always wrong to kill children' because Geester thinks the Bible say so, to FMJ has no moral absolutes? 🙄

I'd didn't, I'm point out that you think the killing of children is not absolutely morally wrong. I think from this point you really have nowhere to go.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you disagree with any of the benefits I have listed for atheism feel free to tell me why.

I just have but you seem to want to dodge and deflect the issue. A lack of moral absolutism is not a benefit of atheism in fact you struggle to defend your own lack of moral absolutism with the killing of children. You loved talking about the moral absolutism of rape though didn't you 😉

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Tell yourself what you want. If you cannot add to the benefits of atheism that I have listed, so be it.

Every atheist I know thinks the killing of children is absolutely morally wrong. You don't.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Assuming that atheism is true, what would be the top 10 benefits of being an atheist?

"Assuming that atheism is true", as you put it in your OP, then the key overarching "benefit" would presumably be that everybody would then know that it is true, right? Beyond that, everything would simply be what it is ~ i.e. reality ~ rather than be seen as "benefits".

It seems pretty clear that you are not "assuming that atheism is true" at all, but instead you are trying to be sarcastic in your characterization of things you disapprove of on account of the fact that you assume Christianity is true and better than atheism.

Originally posted by divegeester
Every atheist I know thinks the killing of children is absolutely morally wrong. You don't.

Fetchmyjunk has also defended genocide ~ as long as it is done for a reason he deems morally acceptable ~ whereas I have never met any atheist who had any equivocation at all about condemning genocide.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'd didn't, I'm point out that you think the killing of children is not absolutely morally wrong. I think from this point you really have nowhere to go.

I think it is not morally wrong for God to take a life that he has given. You are welcome to think what you want.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I think it is not morally wrong for God to take a life that he has given. You are welcome to think what you want.

Was it morally wrong for the Hebrews to commit genocide and then write an account of it in which they claimed their god figure had told them to do it?

Originally posted by FMF
Fetchmyjunk has also defended genocide ~ as long as it is done for a reason he deems morally acceptable ~ whereas I have never met any atheist who had any equivocation at all about condemning genocide.

And I take it Geester only picks the parts of the Bible that he likes, and prentends the global flood didn't exist.

Originally posted by divegeester
I just have but you seem to want to dodge and deflect the issue. A lack of moral absolutism is not a benefit of atheism in fact you struggle to defend your own lack of moral absolutism with the killing of children. You loved talking about the moral absolutism of rape though didn't you 😉

You obviously have no clue what moral absolutism is do you?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And I take it Geester only picks the parts of the Bible that he likes, and prentends the global flood didn't exist.

"Assuming that atheism is true", would the supposed "global flood" then have not happened? Would that count as a "benefit"?

Originally posted by FMF
Was it morally wrong for the Hebrews to commit genocide and then write an account of it in which they claimed their god figure had told them to do it?

If their God figure doesn't exist and didn't tell them, it would only be subjectively wrong from your perspective of no moral absolutes. If He does in fact exist, he would have been using them to exercise his judgement, and then his judgement is absolute and no one can argue with his judgement.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I think it is not morally wrong for God to take a life that he has given. You are welcome to think what you want.

I "think" what you told me in another thread; which was that it was ok for god to kill children but not ok for humans to do so. Therefore for you, the killing of children is not absolutely morally wrong, but for all atheists it is absolutely morally wrong. Your OP is wrong, you are wrong.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And I take it Geester only picks the parts of the Bible that he likes, and prentends the global flood didn't exist.

You're making assumptions.
I do not allow my Christianity to erode my moral code, I look for it to improve it. I don't agree with morality that says it's ok to drown people, kill people or burning them in hell for eternity. Now if god is upset with me thinking like this then he and will one day take it up face to face. I simply refuse to accept that these things are Morally acceptable because they are written in a book.