your deduction does not follow the prerrogative.
This is trivial nitpicking. Or are you trying to suggest that lightning somehow operates on different principles than electricity? The method by which lightning discharges happens in clouds is practically the same as the method by which static electricity discharges between a person's hand and a piece of metal, provided the atmosphere is dry enough to retard the natural bleed-off of electrons (thus forming a concentration of negative ions). That is exactly the same mechanism that causes lightning in clouds.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-causes-lightning.html
There are several theories stating how lightning is formed, and these theories have generated scores of controversies as well. Scientists have still not succeeded in figuring out this phenomenon completely. However, the polarization mechanism in clouds is the theory which is widely accepted across the globe.
At the meantime, without lightning, life on earth is not possible.
If you're going to quote something from another site, put it in quote tags or at least use quotation marks.
Maibe not. If i want to commit suicide, but have not the courage, i highly welcome it, if someone does the job for me and triggers the gun 
. Same for others. I would make them a favour.
This is irrelevant to what I said. There is no question at all that under normal circumstances, you would not "welcome" someone shooting you to death, nor would they "welcome" you shooting them to death. I'm sure you can keep coming up with very specific "what-if" statements to try to 'prove' me wrong, but that's nothing more than trying to dodge the question, which you've been called on before. Furthermore, it's quite clear that you can't counter my statement generally, so you're forced to look for specific examples and try to apply them generally, which doesn't work. Nobody here is fooled by this, so you really need to stop.
Oh forgot. The right to acuse the other side of dodging, is given only to atheists..... 
This is pure baloney. If I were actually dodging, you'd be right to call me on it. But the fact is that I'm not dodging. I very clearly stated why that was; instead of rebutting and showing how what I said was dodging, you tried to play this "poor little me, I'm being victimized by atheists" card. Do you really think that this is going to fool anyone? All this does is show that you don't really have an argument left, so you're forced to play for pity instead.
how do you possibly know? maibe he was a masochist ( which is actually a real possibility )......
Give me a break. Hitler was not a masochist because masochists like having pain inflicted on them, and there is no record whatsoever of anything like what you insinuate here. I think you mean that there's a very real possibility that he was a sadist (someone who enjoys inflicting pain on others). Whether he was a sadist or not is irrelevant to this conversation, though. Quit grasping at straws; the fact that you were forced to resort to this "but but but Hitler might have been a masochist, you can't be sure he wasn't!" nonsense makes it very clear that you don't have any real arguments left to support your contention about Hitler.
If i am a masochist, and love to be peed into my mouth, does it mean according to your logic, that doing the same to others is a good thing ?
Nope. Because you also have to consider whether other people enjoy that sort of thing. But that's not particularly relevant, because the vast majority of human beings are not masochists. You can't use what a masochist likes or doesn't like as a baseline for what everyone who is not a masochist likes or doesn't like.
True, but they are living beings. Do they not have the same right to live, as we humans have ?
No, they do not have the same right to live as humans do. They should not be killed needlessly, but people have to eat something in order to survive, and one of the animals we use for food is the cow. Before you try to pull out this "but they evolved just like humans did, aren't they the same" argument you keep trotting out, that in no way makes them the equals of humans.
So what ?
See above. Culture and civilization are things that humans produce; it is not unreasonable to expect that to be the moral equals of humans, some other animal would have to be able to do the same in a way that can be evaluated and communicated meaningfully to humans.
So what ? arent they still living beings, having the rights to live ? According to your logic, is it alright to kill Orang Utans ? Endangered species of extinction ?
Orangutans are protected by laws that humans passed to protect them. If we passed a law protecting cows from being slaughtered to provide meat to feed people, then the same argument would apply there. But it doesn't apply; the fact that something is an animal that lives gives it no special privileges or exemptions. It's the rules that humans make that do that, if anything does.
I am all ears. Teach me, please.
I'm not the right person to ask. And it isn't a matter of teaching you, it's a matter of you observing and listening to atheists.
Morality is not needed in the whole animal world, for animals, that even live socially in groups, to survive. Why does it exist solely within the human race ?
What makes you think morality doesn't exist in other animals? I watched a really phenomenal nature video filmed on an African savannah of some lionesses who stampeded a herd of buffalo (or whatever they're called in Africa) and took down a calf. The lionesses had to cooperate in order to keep a crocodile from taking the calf away from them, and then the rest of the herd came back and literally drove the lionesses off to rescue the calf. Both of those serve as examples of morality in animals; the lionesses had to cooperate in order to hunt effectively, and the herd came back to rescue the calf. There's other examples of morality in animals, too, it just takes a bit of effort to look for them.
I just gave you a example of someone that lived its atheism consequently. I did not say, her life style was representative for atheists.
The point is that the way she lived was not representative of atheists. Think about it; if her lifestyle was not representative of atheists as a whole, then why would you assume that her behavior was in any way representative of atheists either?
The only way atheism not to be nihilistic, is if it would declare that objective moral standards exist, and present a solid foundation and ground of such. Unfortunately, atheism can't, since there is no higher instance to set the rules.
You don't need a "higher power" to set the rules in order to have rules to live by and to get others to agree with them. It's really that simple. The very fact that atheists, who strongly disavow the existence of any such higher power, have a moral framework that they live by is very strong evidence that no such higher power is needed at all. There are lots of things which can create an external moral framework, too, from the tribe on up. You don't need some kind of absolute universal source of morality for morality to exist, which is good because there isn't any such source.
Not towards atheists, but i show you what you seem not to understand or accept: nihilism is the logical consequence of atheism thought trough. There relies the dilemma. Of course you do not like the fact, that atheism does not deliver a solid foundation for morals - but you live as if it would . You know it is wrong to slaughter innocent children, everything inside of you cries out and says, that kind of behavior is terribly wrong - but if there is no God, you have no foundation to say so. So you make a leap of faith and affirm these values anyway. And doing so, you reveal the inadequacy of your world view without God.
Nihilism is not the logical consequence of atheism. Nihilism is the logical consequence of discarding one's moral framework. As atheists have a moral framework, it is completely incorrect to make the statement that nihilism is a consequence of atheism. Therefore, your 'dilemma' is false. Atheists do not need some imaginary god to give them morals, they are perfectly capable of following the logic which explains why morals are necessary. It requires no "leap of faith".
You cannot support this claim. Every time you try, it turns out that you are doing nothing but projecting how you would feel and act if you suddenly believed that God didn't exist and that the moral framework that you'd lived your life by was false. That is not how it works for atheists, it has never been how it worked for atheists, and it never will be how it works for atheists - the occasional exception aside, because there's always exceptions. I'm sure there are some nihilistic Christians out there, but it would be ridiculous to argue that they represented any kind of mainstream view of Christianity.
Still: on what else, than subjectivity, does this civil framework rely ? What today is en jour, yesterday it was maibe the complete oposit. How can you objectively say, the Papuas are wrong, in killing and eating their enemies, if they have established that this behavior is socially acceptable ?
Laws and customs just don't change that fast, for one thing.
As for the Papuas, I can state quite clearly that they are wrong, because they do not kill and eat their own tribe members. It would be insane to do so; their tribe would come apart if they tried to establish such a custom. Therefore, their attitude that it's right to do so to other people is because they do not consider other human beings to be people. In other words, it is inconsistent because they only apply it outside of their own tribe. For morality to be consistent, it must apply both inside one's social groupings and outside them. That's as close to objective as it's possible to get in reality.
Civilisations as the Maia were killing, slaughering their enemies, and eating their heart for centuries. That was something accepted in their civilisation as a whole. Based on what ground can you say, what they did, was objectively wrong ? Based on your world view, you cannot !! You behave as based on atheism you could judge it wrong, but where is the foundation to make that judgement ? you haven't any.
You do realize that almost every ancient tribe based its morality on the deities it believed in, right? Who are you to say that their gods never existed, when you claim that your own god exists? That's a problem you have to deal with when you claim that your morality comes from on high, and you can't get around it by claiming that all those other gods are false, and only your god is true. And by the way, no, I don't base my morality on atheism. That's patently ridiculous. Why would anyone base their morality something they believed didn't exist? If that's the reason you think atheism leads to nihilism, then perhaps you'd better rethink that conclusion.
In any case, the fact that a Central American or South American tribe had customs like ritual sacrifice in no way makes those customs right. However, that is not the same as saying those customs did not have a purpose. Ritual sacrifice of defeated warriors was a way to keep enemy tribes in line, as they would know that if they fought again and lost, they would become still weaker. I understand why they did it, but I can still say it was wrong of them to do it because of the harm it did those other tribes, as well as the inevitable harm that was done to their own tribe when they later fell to their enemies.
Laws of societies differ... again : based on what can you say, the behavior of Pol Pot, the Mayas, Hitler, Idi Amin, Assad, etc. is wrong ? Just because some societies that commited atrocities do not exist anymore, you cannot say they were morally wrong. Tribes in Papua do commit cannibalism until today. Nobody stopped them so far. How can you say then, they are wrong ?
Yes, I certainly can say they were morally wrong, because they did things which were not morally consistent. All those things that they did were done to 'outsiders', to "not-people", to the 'other', never to their own people. That lack of moral consistency is why I say that their actions were morally wrong.
I have not said that.
Quit trying to dodge. You said the one leads to the other, and that effectively means that they're the same thing to you, just at different stages, such as how a caterpillar is the same organism as the butterfly that later emerges from its chrysalis.
You have still not been able to show me a general and commonly accepted foundation on which morals and ethics can be build on, based on your world view. Mind to try again ?
I have been doing so through my entire time in this thread. If you are not able or willing to pay attention, then so be it, but you lose the right to keep claiming that I have not done so.
Tribes in Papua live peacefully together, while practicing men hunting of other tribes, and eat their enemies. They agree upon them this to be fine. Based on what can you say, they are wrong ?
A group of people who regularly attack and kill members of other tribes is not what I'd call "living together peacefully". If you think it is, then I must say that your definition of "living together peacefully" is completely incomprehensible and illogical.
what simpler concepts ?
I'm pretty sure that the ancient Israelite tribes had no conception of airplanes, automobiles, firearms, refrigerators, vaccines... I could literally go on for hours listing various things that the morality of ancient tribes would not have been able to deal with.
