This is really going nowhere.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la I can't HEAR you!" every time someone answers your questions, waiting until they stop talking, and then pretending the question stands unanswered does tend to have that effect, oddly enough.

This would be an excellent explanation, if accompanied by :
-> definition of "meaningful" e.g. Christian definition would involve a family and a congregation and being accepted in those environments, an islamic definition would involve praising allah and living by his exact rules (for example, to kill, to go on jihad if you're male, that would be meaningful for a muslim), a Buddhist definition would probably be somewhat akin to "what enlightenment provides", which would be accompanied by a definition of enlightenment
-> definition of "happyness" e.g. Christian definition would be salvation and involve strong confidence in God. Islamic definition would probably be little more than "halal". A Buddhist definition would be having attained a minimum level of enlightenment.

You BASE your choices on "something" please elaborate the atheist "something".

Did you, or did you not, take the time to read the essays to which I linked you? Stop pretending that response was never offered; they should be more than enough to answer your question in regards to me.

Now then. Please see here, here, and preemptively, since the way you're going you'll be asking for this definition next, here.

The whole POINT of a religion is to define terms like "meaningful" and "good" and "evil". To provide answers to questions.

If that's the point of a religion, then why does yours insist that God's ways and purposes are unknowable?

Is killing evil ?[snip]
Christianity - Yes, except in self-defense, and always with the proven purpose of lowering levels of violence

Excuse me?

The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Taiping Rebellion, the Thirty Years' War, the Nazis' appeal to God's will and the Germans' supposed status as his chosen people in justifing their atrocities, the burning of supposed witches and confiscation of their lands by the church,

-Alex Weaver

How does this fit with your explanation of Christian values? The fact is that this view on killing and death is a *human* value, and one which was explicitly rejected by every branch of Christianity from the time it came to power until it was, as Adam put it, "housebroken by the Enlightenment."

So why don't you answer this question from an atheist perspective. Is killing wrong ? The atheist answer, and the atheist justification.

Has been explained to you repeatedly. Read.

I mostly follow Hillel's school in saying that. It is very accepted amongst Jews here. The verse in the old testament condemns killing, without any qualifications. It says nothing about observant Jews.

Read the quotes you were offered, plsthx.

Glad you answered the question. However reasonable you make it sound, it is only supported by dogma.

But you're just basing that peanut butter on snorkeling--they're just granite, like every other tango teaches. What's the special snorkeling of a Christian? What makes life inflatable to a Christian? Why aren't you answering the question?

The generally accepted scientific, philosophical point is that nobody's feelings are real but your own. Therefore there is no conclusive evidence that other people can actually feel pain, and more, it is an accepted truth that there never will be any such evidence.

This is false, as you have been repeatedly told.

Why value human life ? Human life, more than, say 100 million humans threatens your survival. It does not actually improve your own chances of survival (and it destroys nature). Left unchecked, all scientist agree that humanity will grow bigger than supportable.

You've been given the answer repeatedly. I will not recapitulate here. All you have to do is scroll up and READ.

I think killing is wrong because Ex 20:13 (and a few others) say so. Because my parents say so, and have always said so. They said so because of Ex 20:13, and I have no problem admitting that to myself.

Wow. Well, if that's the extent of your moral development, it's a fortunate coincidence that you picked Ex 20:13 as a moral guide and not Nu 31:1-54.

Because killing will always lead to disaster. This seems self-evident to me

Then what do you need Exodus for?

but I'm not so stupid to say that science agrees with me on this.

That's because science isn't, and was never intended to be, a moral guide. Like we've been saying all along.

I see the logic in a death sentence. It's deterrence. I've actually gone around and read the reasons they got convicted, and I see the logic in say those people are "beyond repair". Yet I disagree. Nearly everything I do I do because someone told me to do it, and 99,9% of that is non-religious stuff. I even read this blog because someone told me to. I know I can make a real contribution in one, very very narrow field of science, in everything else I will be following the ideas other people have. Nothing wrong with that.

I can offer you several very good reasons for disagreeing with the death penalty: the possibility of executing a wrongfully convicted person, the room for reasonable doubt as to whether the people convicted are truly "beyond repair", the disproportionate representation of racial minorities on death row, and the demontrated ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. No reference whatsoever to religion or dogma, except by the special definitions of these terms that only you can see.

*****And Chevy dealers will tell you that theirs are the best cars around. So what? Their own Bible clearly contradicts them. As admirable as it might be that they choose to cherry pick their scripture in that manner, it's nevertheless disingenuous.****

"Glad you answered the question. However reasonable you make it sound, it is only supported by dogma."

*****My own choice is dogma, eh? I analyze a situation and come to the conclusion that fairness is better than unfairness and make my choice that way. That's not dogma.****

"The generally accepted scientific, philosophical point is that nobody's feelings are real but your own. Therefore there is no conclusive evidence that other people can actually feel pain, and more, it is an accepted truth that there never will be any such evidence."

******You are confusing "knowing" with proof. You are bringing out some caricature of materialist philosophy in an attempt at some kind of argument ad absurdum (I think). This will not work. Materialists don't claim to be robots incapable of recognizing anything beyond the realm of scientific "proof." Given enough EVIDENCE, it's more rational to believe some things over others.****

"Why value human life ? Human life, more than, say 100 million humans threatens your survival. It does not actually improve your own chances of survival (and it destroys nature). Left unchecked, all scientist agree that humanity will grow bigger than supportable."

*****I'll 2nd schemanista's repsonse on this one. Although I am anti-abortion at any stage, contraception is the way to go.****

"I think killing is wrong because Ex 20:13 (and a few others) say so. Because my parents say so, and have always said so. They said so because of Ex 20:13, and I have no problem admitting that to myself. Because killing will always lead to disaster. This seems self-evident to me, but I'm not so stupid to say that science agrees with me on this. I see the logic in a death sentence. It's deterrence. I've actually gone around and read the reasons they got convicted, and I see the logic in say those people are "beyond repair". "

*****You just contradicted yourself. You think killing is wrong because it "will always lead to disaster." Can't you see that your REASON can guide you to conclusions without resorting to a higher power after you just proved it to yourself?What branch of science are you referring to? It doesn't sound like Physics, Chemistry, or even biology has countered or endorsed any such claims about killing****

"Yet I disagree. Nearly everything I do I do because someone told me to do it, and 99,9% of that is non-religious stuff. I even read this blog because someone told me to. I know I can make a real contribution in one, very very narrow field of science, in everything else I will be following the ideas other people have. Nothing wrong with that. "

****To an extent I agree, nothing wrong with accepting the claims of science and maybe even other experts in areas where I'm not qualified to do any better research. But, there's a big difference between having faith in a single authority and having faith in the process of PEER REVIEW. In order for me to doubt certain theories that have been well-established I'd have to conclude that the scientific community at large is deluded or engaged in a conspiracy. Delusion is possible, but I have no better alternative. Conspiracy is unlikely given the competitive nature of science and grant-writing.*****

I wish you'd cite your sources. I know plenty of scientists, ethicists, psychologists... and none of them hold this view.

Neither do any of the philosophers that I read. Pain has a physiological component. That can, and has been measured and observed, so research has conclusively demonstrated that other people feel pain. The rest of everything you post here suffers from the same solipsism.

Is killing evil ?

Judaism - Yes, always

I'll have what you're smoking.

Ex 2:11-12, 22:20, 23:27, 31:14
Lev 20:10, 20:12, 20:13, 20:14, 20:15-16, 20:27, 21:9, 24:16
Num 1:51, 3:10, 3:38, 33:50-52, 35:19, 21, 35:30, 33
Deut 7:2, 12:30, 13:1-5, 13:6-10, 13:12-16, 17:2-7, 17:12-13, 18-21, 19:11-13, 20:13
etc., etc.

Christianity - Yes, except in self-defense, and always with the proven purpose of lowering levels of violence

Rom 1:31-32

So why don't you answer this question from an atheist perspective. Is killing wrong ? The atheist answer, and the atheist justification.

The answer is the same as those given by all of the religions you've mentioned above: "it depends".

Start here

then go
here

next here

and here

And finally, read Carrier's book and pay attention when you do so.

And chapter 5 of Owen Flanagan's The Problem of the Soul: Two visions of mind and how to reconcile them

Course, you should just admit up front that you have no intention of considering any of this carefully. You've already made up your mind, without actually having to think about what atheism entails, and you're just hoping we'll lob you a soft one so you can (in your imagination) smack it out of the park.

PS: I think unjustified killing is wrong because I believe that nobody has any right to deny another person their right to life without good reason. I may have a different view of what is good reason and at what point we consider an embryo a person then you do however. I believe that there are way to many people, but I support lowering the birth rate through birth control rather then killing off the extras! If we can lower the birth rate below replacement worldwide for a few generations it will take care of the population problem.

I mostly follow Hillel's school in saying that. It is very accepted amongst Jews here. The verse in the old testament condemns killing, without any qualifications. It says nothing about observant Jews.

Glad you answered the question. However reasonable you make it sound, it is only supported by dogma.

The generally accepted scientific, philosophical point is that nobody's feelings are real but your own. Therefore there is no conclusive evidence that other people can actually feel pain, and more, it is an accepted truth that there never will be any such evidence.

Why value human life ? Human life, more than, say 100 million humans threatens your survival. It does not actually improve your own chances of survival (and it destroys nature). Left unchecked, all scientist agree that humanity will grow bigger than supportable.

I think killing is wrong because Ex 20:13 (and a few others) say so. Because my parents say so, and have always said so. They said so because of Ex 20:13, and I have no problem admitting that to myself. Because killing will always lead to disaster. This seems self-evident to me, but I'm not so stupid to say that science agrees with me on this. I see the logic in a death sentence. It's deterrence. I've actually gone around and read the reasons they got convicted, and I see the logic in say those people are "beyond repair". Yet I disagree. Nearly everything I do I do because someone told me to do it, and 99,9% of that is non-religious stuff. I even read this blog because someone told me to. I know I can make a real contribution in one, very very narrow field of science, in everything else I will be following the ideas other people have. Nothing wrong with that.

Judaism - Yes, always
Christianity - Yes, except in self-defense, and always with the proven purpose of lowering levels of violence

Killing an innocent person is wrong because it it is harmful to the person you're killing and those survivors who care about them. Also, it would be unjust for me to hurt others and then turn around and expect others not to hurt me. So, killing is wrong for two reasons:
1)It inflicts needless pain and as an atheist puts a premium on HUMAN life and HUMAN thoughts and feelings above dogma, unlike many religionists, I don't value senseless pain
2)It's an injustice. It's internally self-contradictpry to deem as acceptable the murder of others and not one's self. Logic tells me that if my equals are expendable then I must be, too. If their lives are to be respected, then so is mine. I can't have one without the other. I choose the latter.

Are you even vaguely familiar with the Old Testament. Where do you get the idea that Judaism considers killing always evil?!?!
The God of Judaism demanded the execution of men, women, and children in cities designated for Haram - total destruction.

Let me ask YOU, what makes YOU think killing is wrong? It's not the Bible. That only teaches that killing other OBSERVANT Jews is wrong. It's not Xian history, that's full of holy-spirit inspired horror. Your modern notion of killing being wrong would be strikingly appalling to your forebears.

The very point of being an atheist, as you have been repeatedly told, is that there is no predetermined purpose to life, no foreordained meaning handed down from on high; each individual atheist is free to choose whatever purpose or goal makes their own life most meaningful and gives them the most happiness and satisfaction. This is really not a difficult point to grasp. If an atheist chooses to raise a family, or explore the world, or become a scientist and contribute to humanity's knowledge, or engage in humanitarian work, or defend the separation of church and state, or whatever else - that is their individual choice. There is no prepackaged answer that all atheists will share, as there is in religion.

This would be an excellent explanation, if accompanied by :
-> definition of "meaningful" e.g. Christian definition would involve a family and a congregation and being accepted in those environments, an islamic definition would involve praising allah and living by his exact rules (for example, to kill, to go on jihad if you're male, that would be meaningful for a muslim), a Buddhist definition would probably be somewhat akin to "what enlightenment provides", which would be accompanied by a definition of enlightenment
-> definition of "happyness" e.g. Christian definition would be salvation and involve strong confidence in God. Islamic definition would probably be little more than "halal". A Buddhist definition would be having attained a minimum level of enlightenment.

You BASE your choices on "something" please elaborate the atheist "something".

The whole POINT of a religion is to define terms like "meaningful" and "good" and "evil". To provide answers to questions.

Is killing evil ?

Judaism - Yes, always
Christianity - Yes, except in self-defense, and always with the proven purpose of lowering levels of violence
Islam - No, muslims are obliged to kill "to prevent haram stuff", fellow muslims should be killed when there is reason to, infidels should be killed by default, except in certain cases
Buddhism - Yes, always.

The point of different religions is different answers. There are always explanations to accompany these answers :

Judaism - killing is wrong - Ex. 20:13
Christianity - killing is wrong except in self defense - 8th commandment - Deut. 5:17
Islam - killing is not wrong - At Tb. 111 or Quran 9:111
Buddhism - I don't understand how to look this up yet.

So why don't you answer this question from an atheist perspective. Is killing wrong ? The atheist answer, and the atheist justification.