Atheism is contradictory.

[smoke weeb]

Just a thought I had, but here it is:

Atheists say that the is no God. Fair enough.
However, they always say "It's wrong to..." anyway.
Hold up. What?
The contradiction lies there.
As a race, we've established "All humans are equal."
So how can morality exist when there isn't someone of greater authority to make the rules?
In other words, either humans are not equal (either through survival of the fittest or self-reduction),
OR there is no real way to say what is "right and wrong."

Discuss. Preferably think before doing so, unless you'd like to contribute proof to my theory.

[If Only I Was Juxtaposed]

So to have a sense of morality or ethics you must have religion?

[smoke weeb]

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

So to have a sense of morality or ethics you must have religion?

No, but there must be someone to distinguish and enforce the rules.
Surely you don't believe EVERYONE'S moral code is the same?
Certainly not. It's as easy as looking at the news.
Abortion, Death Sentence, Homosexuality...
People from all regions and religions view these things differently.
Clearly, moral code is subjective to each person.
If it wasn't, there would be no crime.

[If Only I Was Juxtaposed]

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

So to have a sense of morality or ethics you must have religion?

No, but there must be someone to distinguish and enforce the rules.
Surely you don't believe EVERYONE'S moral code is the same?
Certainly not. It's as easy as looking at the news.
Abortion, Death Sentence, Homosexuality...
People from all regions and religions view these things differently.
Clearly, moral code is subjective to each person.
If it wasn't, there would be no crime.

I'm quite confused as to why morality and ethics is an argument against atheism. There will always be people in some position of power creating rules.

[smoke weeb]

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

So to have a sense of morality or ethics you must have religion?

No, but there must be someone to distinguish and enforce the rules.
Surely you don't believe EVERYONE'S moral code is the same?
Certainly not. It's as easy as looking at the news.
Abortion, Death Sentence, Homosexuality...
People from all regions and religions view these things differently.
Clearly, moral code is subjective to each person.
If it wasn't, there would be no crime.

I'm quite confused as to why morality and ethics is an argument against atheism. There will always be people in some position of power creating rules.

Exactly.
However, that contradicts the theory that "All humans are equal, despite any factor."
By allowing another human to hold authority over you, you admit "This human is superior to me."
And I would hold this argument against other groups than Atheists, yet that is the only group that believes both that "humans are equal" and "there is no force superior to humans."

[If Only I Was Juxtaposed]

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

So to have a sense of morality or ethics you must have religion?

No, but there must be someone to distinguish and enforce the rules.
Surely you don't believe EVERYONE'S moral code is the same?
Certainly not. It's as easy as looking at the news.
Abortion, Death Sentence, Homosexuality...
People from all regions and religions view these things differently.
Clearly, moral code is subjective to each person.
If it wasn't, there would be no crime.

I'm quite confused as to why morality and ethics is an argument against atheism. There will always be people in some position of power creating rules.

Exactly.
However, that contradicts the theory that "All humans are equal, despite any factor."
By allowing another human to hold authority over you, you admit "This human is superior to me."
And I would hold this argument against other groups than Atheists, yet that is the only group that believes both that "humans are equal" and "there is no force superior to humans."

No group believes humans are equal. You cannot measure equality if everyone is completely different.

There is no theory that states, all humans are equal.

[Kiumaru]

1) Axioms.
2) Just because morality/ethics can be selected subjectively, it does not mean that we cannot use them objectively once we establish which ethical/moral system we are going to use pragmatically.

By the way, do you mean to say that atheists are saying "It's wrong too..."? As in, it's also wrong? In what fashion are we saying "wrong"? Are we talking about morality/ethically wrong for a deity to exist? Which atheists say this? Have you inquired what they meant? So on and so forth. You haven't established the context.

Also, atheism doesn't say anything about any other beliefs that are held other than "I don't believe in a deity".

By the way, you seem to be misinterpreting "all humans are equal".

[smoke weeb]

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

So to have a sense of morality or ethics you must have religion?

No, but there must be someone to distinguish and enforce the rules.
Surely you don't believe EVERYONE'S moral code is the same?
Certainly not. It's as easy as looking at the news.
Abortion, Death Sentence, Homosexuality...
People from all regions and religions view these things differently.
Clearly, moral code is subjective to each person.
If it wasn't, there would be no crime.

I'm quite confused as to why morality and ethics is an argument against atheism. There will always be people in some position of power creating rules.

Exactly.
However, that contradicts the theory that "All humans are equal, despite any factor."
By allowing another human to hold authority over you, you admit "This human is superior to me."
And I would hold this argument against other groups than Atheists, yet that is the only group that believes both that "humans are equal" and "there is no force superior to humans."

No group believes humans are equal. You cannot measure equality if everyone is completely different.

There is no theory that states, all humans are equal.

Then why is discrimination based on uncontrollable factors illegal in most nations?
This is based on the theory of "equality."

@Kiumaru
No, I do not. I mean to say "It's wrong to...", leaving the ellipsis as a connector to any possible phrase, such as "It's wrong to discriminate against African-Americans" or "It's wrong to discriminate against homosexuals."
Also, Atheism does indeed support solid beliefs. The only belief system which, ironically, does not hold solid belief on any given subject is Agnosicism. This is a system based on uncertainty of any given subject.
Also, no, I am no. Equal means equal. There is no room to interpret differently.
If I said "I'm going to adhere by Kiumaru's rules," I'd be admitting "At least for the time being, Kiumaru is superior to me in some fashion." Otherwise, I'd listen to myself.

[If Only I Was Juxtaposed]

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

So to have a sense of morality or ethics you must have religion?

No, but there must be someone to distinguish and enforce the rules.
Surely you don't believe EVERYONE'S moral code is the same?
Certainly not. It's as easy as looking at the news.
Abortion, Death Sentence, Homosexuality...
People from all regions and religions view these things differently.
Clearly, moral code is subjective to each person.
If it wasn't, there would be no crime.

I'm quite confused as to why morality and ethics is an argument against atheism. There will always be people in some position of power creating rules.

Exactly.
However, that contradicts the theory that "All humans are equal, despite any factor."
By allowing another human to hold authority over you, you admit "This human is superior to me."
And I would hold this argument against other groups than Atheists, yet that is the only group that believes both that "humans are equal" and "there is no force superior to humans."

No group believes humans are equal. You cannot measure equality if everyone is completely different.

There is no theory that states, all humans are equal.

Then why is discrimination based on uncontrollable factors illegal in most nations?
This is based on the theory of "equality."

Based on the theory of equality doesn't make anything so. Most people feel that people should have equal rights regardless of uncontrollable factors.

[Agorist]

Codes of morality and ethics are established through general consensus and proposed based on their utility to the population as a whole.

Personally, I believe that those ethical or moral codes that have little or no utility to the general population, and no basis in philosophical reasoning (i.e., those codes proposed by religious sects) are unreasonable and silly.

Communist anarchists, for example, have a moral/ethical code that posits that property is illegitimate, and their reasoning for this is what they presume to be the negative applied effects of property. They believe that property leads to suppression of free will through the use of exclusivity of natural resources to prevent individuals from, well, accessing resources.

Propertarian anarchists, such as myself, have a moral/ethical code that posits that property contributes very positively to the prosperity of all individuals, allowing them to call what resources they have expended their labor to create as their property.

Neither of these philosophies claim any "divine right" or "natural right" to person or property, or anything. They propose that a propertarian/anti-propertarian society will be most utilitarian and most liberating because of a certain set of reasons/reasonings.

So yes, moral codes are relative to those individuals that propose them. Does that make every code of ethics bunk and senseless? No. That's called nihilism. And all nihilists, themselves, subscribe to ethical codes established by society.

[Kiumaru]

Strychnine Revolution

Then why is discrimination based on uncontrollable factors illegal in most nations?
This is based on the theory of "equality."

@Kiumaru
No, I do not. I mean to say "It's wrong to...", leaving the ellipsis as a connector to any possible phrase, such as "It's wrong to discriminate against African-Americans" or "It's wrong to discriminate against homosexuals."
Also, Atheism does indeed support solid beliefs. The only belief system which, ironically, does not hold solid belief on any given subject is Agnosicism. This is a system based on uncertainty of any given subject.
Also, no, I am no. Equal means equal. There is no room to interpret differently.
If I said "I'm going to adhere by Kiumaru's rules," I'd be admitting "At least for the time being, Kiumaru is superior to me in some fashion." Otherwise, I'd listen to myself.

But that's hard to understand from the context. "It's wrong to..." could easily have attached to "It's wrong to eat ice cream before dinner."

No, atheism, itself, does nothing to say anything about anyone's beliefs other than that they don't believe in a deity.

And... "Equal means equal" doesn't tell you much if we're not defining what equal is. Just like when we say that we are "Free" doesn't mean I can go around killing, maiming, and injuring other people "freely". We have qualifiers for what we mean. The axiom "all men are born equal" is basically the idea that no human is necessarily superior over another, not that we cannot be superior over another in some aspects. For example, I can freely admit my inferiority when it comes to devoting myself wholly to a single thing or to that of a genius. However, this does not mean that they are necessarily superior. We relegate some of these people to lead for us and such. If we are going to use a Hobbesian definition of freedom, it's that anyone pretty much has the ability to kill another person.

By the way, "All men are born equal" is not a theory, it's an axiom. It's something that we simply accept to be true much like people usually accept the axiom that causation is true.

[smoke weeb]

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

I'm quite confused as to why morality and ethics is an argument against atheism. There will always be people in some position of power creating rules.

Exactly.
However, that contradicts the theory that "All humans are equal, despite any factor."
By allowing another human to hold authority over you, you admit "This human is superior to me."
And I would hold this argument against other groups than Atheists, yet that is the only group that believes both that "humans are equal" and "there is no force superior to humans."

No group believes humans are equal. You cannot measure equality if everyone is completely different.

There is no theory that states, all humans are equal.

Then why is discrimination based on uncontrollable factors illegal in most nations?
This is based on the theory of "equality."

Based on the theory of equality doesn't make anything so. Most people feel that people should have equal rights regardless of uncontrollable factors.

So since the majority believes it, that is what we accept?
Which of course makes the majority a superior being to the minority.
The minority being those who believe exactly what the majority is proving.
Proving that because M>m (Majority is greater than minority), Majority gets to say "Everyone has equal rights."
Despite the fact that the right that the minority here is saying is "Everyone does not get equal rights."
The contradiction lies in this precisely.
In fact, it's even a paradox.

@Agorist
See above.
I mostly agree with what you say, perhaps the only difference being how I classify myself.
But yes, under a culture which believes in no God and equal rights, moral codes do not hold any value.
There is no one who can honestly say, "I have the right to make rules," especially under and equality notion.
As you state, a human's only right is what he/she earns, if I read that correctly.
"Property contributes very positively to the prosperity of all individuals, allowing them to call what resources they have expended their labor to create as their property." being the quote.

I suppose I should have mentioned this earlier, but this is a good time to bring it up.
As stated, a human earns their rights. Thus, a human who earns a right to make rules is superior, and deserves to be.
My argument is not "Atheism is wrong" (though, I do believe that, it's a topic I refuse to fight as it cannot be proven), moreover it's "In a world without a God, humans cannot be equal, and thus modern beliefs are contradictory."

@Kiumaru
Even so, it could be saying just that. The thing to ponder is "Who has the right to say that it's wrong?"
I fear I am unable to establish another line of thinking as far as modern Atheism beliefs, so I'll drop that. It doesn't simply pertain to Atheism anyway.
"Equal means equal" is self-explanatory. Equal is a common word, so forgive me if you haven't encountered it. The meaning of "equal means equal" means that "human equality" is not subjective. If humans are equal, then there are no exceptions.
However, my argument is that, like stated above, without a greater being, human equality cannot exist. Not that I'm saying anyone should discriminate, but moreover I feel as if I see far too often the argument "God doesn't exist so how can you say it's wrong to _____? _____ are just like everyone else! It's wrong for you to _____!" Fill in the blanks with any controversial argument. Contradictory, indeed.
How can one get upset for one person's opinion and then fight it with theirs? If a God truly does not exist, neither person is more right or wrong than the other, no matter whether equality exists or not, unless an Earthly law prohibits it, which would be contradictory unless humans are unequal anyway.

This argument has two points:
(1) If a God does not exist, either everyone is equal and no one is wrong, nor can rules be made or no one is equal and no one is right, except for those who are superior.
(2) With either given situation, any modern controversial argument is without base, and people should calm down and stop getting stressed out.

[Craja]

Strychnine Revolution

Just a thought I had, but here it is:

Atheists say that the is no God. Fair enough.
However, they always say "It's wrong to..." anyway.
Hold up. What?
The contradiction lies there.
As a race, we've established "All humans are equal."
So how can morality exist when there isn't someone of greater authority to make the rules?
In other words, either humans are not equal (either through survival of the fittest or self-reduction),
OR there is no real way to say what is "right and wrong."

Discuss. Preferably think before doing so, unless you'd like to contribute proof to my theory.

I'm tired of the whole "But we need objective morals" argument. Morals are subjective unless defined. For example, murder would be morally wrong if morals were determined by "Human Suffering". Personally I feel that human suffering is bad, and thus things that promote human suffering is wrong. I do not require a deity to explain this.

[Agorist]

Strychnine Revolution

@Agorist
See above.
I mostly agree with what you say, perhaps the only difference being how I classify myself.
But yes, under a culture which believes in no God and equal rights, moral codes do not hold any value.

That simply shifts the power of moral dictum to those that "know the true will and motivations of God" which is absurd. "God" is whatever sectarians believe "God" ought to be. God isn't a being unto itself, and doesn't communicate its ideas to us if it is. Any God that doesn't tell each and every being that it has created what is good and what is evil isn't legitimate. It's just a tool to grant power to those that "he speaks to".

[If Only I Was Juxtaposed]

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

I'm quite confused as to why morality and ethics is an argument against atheism. There will always be people in some position of power creating rules.

Exactly.
However, that contradicts the theory that "All humans are equal, despite any factor."
By allowing another human to hold authority over you, you admit "This human is superior to me."
And I would hold this argument against other groups than Atheists, yet that is the only group that believes both that "humans are equal" and "there is no force superior to humans."

No group believes humans are equal. You cannot measure equality if everyone is completely different.

There is no theory that states, all humans are equal.

Then why is discrimination based on uncontrollable factors illegal in most nations?
This is based on the theory of "equality."

Based on the theory of equality doesn't make anything so. Most people feel that people should have equal rights regardless of uncontrollable factors.

So since the majority believes it, that is what we accept?
Which of course makes the majority a superior being to the minority.
The minority being those who believe exactly what the majority is proving.
Proving that because M>m (Majority is greater than minority), Majority gets to say "Everyone has equal rights."
Despite the fact that the right that the minority here is saying is "Everyone does not get equal rights."
The contradiction lies in this precisely.
In fact, it's even a paradox.

The majority generally decides what happens for everyone else. The majority is superior because that's exactly what it is. Putting it as some idiotic tautology doesn't further your post.