Your website is just the opinion of many others..... nobody knows for sure. its all guesswork......
You don't get to decide that someone else's evidence is irrelevant just because it disagrees with what you believe. In other words, if you aren't willing to contest what that site says, you're conceding the discussion about lightning.
it seems you've not grasped my objection. If i think to put a gun on someone's head, and shoot the guy, and think, that was the best thing i could have done in my life, and that it needs perfectly my personal moral standard, who can say, i am wrong , and based on what ??
I grasp it just fine. However, your objection is irrelevant to what I was actually saying. To keep it very simple so you have no trouble understanding, if someone else were to shoot you in the head, you would certainly consider it wrong for them to do so. Basic morality is about considering the impact of your actions on another; if you're the kind of person who only considers how something affects you, then you don't have morality even if you believe in an objective morality passed down from some god.
But you still think, Hitler got it wrong , made very bad things, right ? Based on what you said above however, you should agree that Hitler and the Germans did it right, since they acted as a group with a common sense of how they should act......
Not in the slightest. What you are failing to understand is that Hitler's actions did tremendous harm to a lot of people, and he did them because of personal motives (he hated Jews and used them as an excuse to gain and hold power). The fact that non-Jew Germans agreed with him is irrelevant in this case, because they were fooled into believing Hitler's lies, and many of them simply did not know the full scope of his plans. So no, I won't agree that Hitler and the Germans did right, and your attitude that I should clearly shows that you really don't understand how morality works.
So how do you know that the life of animals is less worth than of humans ? are they not result same as humans, of mindless natural forces ?
The fact that cows and other food animals came from the same evolutionary process as humans did means nothing in and of itself. Modern diseases developed through that same evolutionary process, and I don't consider it a problem to treat them (which involves killing the disease microorganisms). As for the rest, I reiterate, cows aren't people. If they were, it would be different, but as it stands, it's a little silly to worry about them when we specifically grow them for food.
Sure there is. But why should there be made a distinction ? Isnt it harmful for animals, to kill them ? Why not kill humans, but animals ?
Because humans are people. They have culture, civilization. We can communicate with each other in a meaningful fashion. We can't communicate with cows, or virtually any other animals for that matter. There's a case to be made for intelligent animals (for example, tool-users), and I would argue that they should not be treated as mere animals, but cows certainly don't qualify as such.
If i think it is a good thing to cause a conflict to a Hindu, how could you say i am wrong ? My moral and ethic system is just different, and tells me that hindus are worthless. So based on what could you say, i am wrong ?
Given that you would almost certainly object strongly to someone causing a conflict with a Christian because they have a different moral and ethical system, and who thinks Christians are worthless, yes, I can and would tell you that you're wrong.
Sure. So what ? That still doesnt make my different moral and ethics be wrong. They are just different.
If you harm someone else, or advocate harming someone else, then you have no room to complain if someone harms you. I can and will say that this attitude is wrong, because it just exacerbates the problem. "Different" only applies to something that is not harmful to other people.
If i risk to be harmed , that is just my problem. You have still not shown me, that my moral perception is less valid, better or worse, than yours. If naturalism is true, no good or bad exists. Everything becomes relative. Total Nihilism, senselessness, and emptyness is the end of the road for atheism thought trough.
No, it is not just your problem. By doing something like this, you would be attacking your community for purely selfish interests. That is without question immoral, and such a person is nothing but a danger to society as a whole. So it's everyone's problem. not just yours.
And atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with nihilism. Your belief that it does is based on pure ignorance; you get your information from other ignorant people who don't know any better. Given that I am quite sure you would object to someone declaring similar sentiments about Christianity, this also means that you're an immoral hypocrite; you're okay with it when it's you doing it to other people, but not so much when it's done to you.
No, you have not, as demonstrated.
You've failed to demonstrate anything except your ignorance here. I've associated with atheists here for over a year, talking with them and learning about them from their own mouths and actions. You get your information from equally-ignorant Christians who's only justification for their statements is that they turn their own beliefs inside out and then assume that they're describing atheists. And even leaving me aside, every single atheist here is immensely more qualified to talk about morality as it pertains to atheism than you, because they are atheists. Not a single one of them even slightly resembles the kind of nihilistic nonsense that you claim applies to them.
You have not yet shown how to define good behavior. If someone sets the standard that kill little babies is a good behavior, how possibly can you say that moral standard is wrong ? You cannot.
Yes, I certainly well have. You define good behavior by determining what you would not like to have done with you, and then applying it to other people. This is extended outwards through the family, the community, etc. There is no chance at all that this 'standard' that you're suggesting would ever become a societal standard, because it fails the test of "would you like to have it done to you/people you know". Even sociopaths are capable of applying that basic standard, despite them not having consciences. So yes, I can say that it's wrong behavior.
Well, could you point where the list got it wrong , and where you differe in opinion ?
The list got every single item wrong, and thus I differ in every instance with it. Personally, I think Astreja got it pretty close to right when she modified it.