Atheist Penelope

[Pypoli]

Pennelope probably feels betrayed by the people responsible for her early education.

It's a classic reaction for a person who feels like they are given no choice to go against what they are forced to do, without asking themselves wether it was right or wrong in the first place.
In this case, Penelope feels like she was indoctrinated when she was younger and unable to form an informed opinion, and as soon as she realized this, she withdrew from that earlier education so far that she's no a vehement opposer. Ironically, if she hadn't been in such a heavily christian environment to start with, she either would be a "casual" atheist, or might even be a believer herself. Who knows .

[Dliessmgg]

It is normally OK but in this debate it was exceedingly important since it was one of the topics.
English is not my mothertongue either it is slovak .
What is yours?

Mine is German (actually Swiss German (if that's a difference is up to debate (BRACKETS YAY!))).

My error . But then , it is more a kind of pantheistic  concept than the concrete deities we were looking at.

Not really. It's like god, except it isn't thought of as a person. I actually think more educated believers of any religion see god as something like Brahman.

The example is artificial and not something you experience.

It's a real person who wrote this, so yeah.

Secondly it is absurd since a reasonless decision is not free but random. The question can be abstracted as Would you do something without any reason? to see its full absurdity.

Who said it was a reasonless decision? I see that this person has another sort of reason than us two, but it's not completely reasonless. This person probably thinks that morals are given by god, therefore they are meaningless without god who is watching if you follow them. The assumption is not ours, but reason is reason.

And besides the (probably christian)god which stopped one respondent from shooting a random person, there were historically, deities which would encourage such an action.

Most of those, if not all, were exploited by the government, who mostly was the priests. Again, at that time priests were politicians.

On the contrary many such people would be glad to kill a 'heretic' or a 'sinner' which is equally stupid but directly encouraged by many religions (it is ordered in the old testament for example).

The only religions who have texts that encourage killing people for religious reasons are the abrahamic religions. They also have texts that say otherwise and it's often only practised by a tiny minority.

Again  i repeat. In reality religion does not force evil  people not to do evil deeds, to the contrary it gives good people honorable reasons to commit abominable acts

Are they good people if they do evil? It's only used as an excuse by evil people either a real excuse or as a psychological rationalisation). It's the same for the cause of their home country and other stuff.

[danman]

It's a real person who wrote this, so yeah.

No but it is artificial in the sense that such situations do not occur. and the example that i stated are situations that do occur.

Who said it was a reasonless decision? I see that this person has another sort of reason than us two, but it's not completely reasonless. This person probably thinks that morals are given by god, therefore they are meaningless without god who is watching if you follow them. The assumption is not ours, but reason is reason.

You are not really answering. Shooting or not someone random with no information about him as an hypothetical
decision is a reasonless one because you lack information. I would not do it precisely for that reason - to do something i need some reason. external or internal. Killing someone just because one has an option to do so is just as stupid whether there are objective morals or not.

The only religions who have texts that encourage killing people for religious reasons are the abrahamic religions. They also have texts that say otherwise and it's often only practised by a tiny minority.

Then they are selfcontradictory nonsense! Believing a statement and its negation is the most primitive kind of logical error

Are they good people if they do evil? It's only used as an excuse by evil people either a real excuse or as a psychological rationalisation). It's the same for the cause of their home country and other stuff.

Anyone will do almost anything given right reasons. It is called brainwashing. For example it is not a problem for someone who devoutly believes in an afterlife (eg certain fundies) to execute people with little evidence (as is done in some US states) since in their belief God will sort them so those who were innocent will be rehabilitated post mortem,
Same with crusades.
This is an arbitrary example, but as long as you accept some ideas, many of these things follow logically. Those who tortured the heretics to admit the error in their ways often thought they are doing so to save their souls ie a good deed.

[Dliessmgg]

No but it is artificial in the sense that such situations do not occur. and the example that i stated are situations that do occur.

The end result is the same, this person follows certain morals because he believes that they are given by god. And it's impossible to say that such situations don't occur. Have you ever seen a history book that counts people who weren't killed?

You are not really answering. Shooting or not someone random with no information about him as an hypothetical
decision is a reasonless one because you lack information. I would not do it precisely for that reason - to do something i need some reason. external or internal. Killing someone just because one has an option to do so is just as stupid whether there are objective morals or not.

Is it a difference? As you say, a lack of reasons to shoot somebody is a reason not to shoot somebody. That's your reason. This person's reason is because god says so. And the situation isn't that hypothetical. There are many wars where innocent people have been killed for no real reason. In the Thirty Years' War, 3 or 4 million people were killed (of 17 million inhabitants in these regions, that's about 20 %), and a lot of these were farmers who didn't fight at all.

Then they are selfcontradictory nonsense! Believing a statement and its negation is the most primitive kind of logical error

It's good marketing, because everybody will quote what he wants to and forget the rest. I've also heard that the selfcontradictions apply to different situations, but I can't verify that.

Anyone will do almost anything given right reasons. It is called brainwashing. For example it is not a problem for someone who devoutly believes in an afterlife (eg certain fundies) to execute people with little evidence (as is done in some US states) since in their belief God will sort them so those who were innocent will be rehabilitated post mortem, Same with crusades.
This is an arbitrary example, but as long as you accept some ideas, many of these things follow logically. Those who tortured the heretics to admit the error in their ways often thought they are doing so to save their souls ie a good deed.

I don't believe real brainwashing (with torture, sleep-deprivation, etc.) is used by more than a tiny minority. It's psychologically evident that the desire to kill is a part of human nature. Some use religion as a rationalisation, some use other stuff.