[grimfang999]

Again, the wrong meaning of "belief" is being read here. I believe that if I sit in my chair, the chair will hold me. I have faith that sitting in the chair is what it is meant for. That does not mean I believe in a "Chair" religion, based on the fact that chairs do in fact work.

You are disputing religion, which in the context of religion, belief means following of religious code and God.

As soon as you go into talking about chairs, a thing which is there, and all senses can percieve it as real, you delve into particle physics and philosophy, the former explaining the chair as a means of atoms and force, the latter saying hwo incredible it is that it has a physical form despite there being massive gaps between each atom. I used the analogy of the condom because you used the term believe as a broad context. If you said "religion is a code of teachings and believe in a divine being that you believe in" then I may not have critisised. But you said it extremely vaguely to leave open the gap to believing in anything being a relgion.

I never mentioned Communism, did I? Communism is all focused on the government and society as a whole. Although Marxism-Leninism and Secular Humanism have similar beliefs in that there is no such god, they are very different in their beliefs about ethical philosophy.

You stated this:

Atheism=No belief in God
Atheism=Secular humanist
Secular humanist=No belief in God
Secular humanist=individualistic

Meanwhile
Communism=Collectivist
Individualism opposes Collectivism
Communism=/=Secular humanist

Therefore
Communism=/=Atheist

However, Communists are anti-religious. The way you phrased it, all Atheists are secular humanists, therefore communists cannot be Atheists, but they in fact generally are. This therefore renders your argument pointless. You didnt menion communism, and that was the exact problem.

Exactly, the extent depends on your view of human nature, which is one of the factors that make your worldview. Now, the real discussion here on this very topic is where that truth is coming from. Why is it that killing innocent people is wrong? Could the same definitions be set if the world were different, and killing was as natural as breathing? These natural morals, instincts, and truths are coincidentally similar in many cases. Worldviews often collide over the existence or origin of these natural morals.

As I stated, many moral views come from society itself, but some ideas are universally held and have clear links into the means of survival. One such is not killing a member of your own tribal group, which extends to the whole of society. Killing is part of our nature, but as is society. Hell even the right wing which see humans as evil recognise we are dependant on each other and use nationalism to unite and control. The two statements I made have been seen in even the most isolated tribal cultures, which therefore stands to reason that that is part of our nature.

The focus of the meaning is in why. Why does a person risk his life for another? Because he believes that it is the right thing to do. Why do people give money to help the poor? Because they believe it is the right thing to do. Focus on the subject pronoun in these sentences.

Are you sure you are a Christian? You sound more like a Nihilist. However even if they believe its the right thing to do, they are still putting someone else about their own needs, therefore making themselves less important over the needs of the other person. You can argue all you like that its to make them feel good, but if you give your life for someone else, then how will you feel good being dead? Just because you feel its the right thing to do does not make you place yourself higher than others.


Finally, for the law section, Ill let fared deal with it, Im not too familiar with law.


Overall, I would say you need to be more specific with your statements. You overstate some defintions and generalise other words, while talking about how words have different contexts. Specifiy your context, but do not redefine.