Prove that it’s wrong to kill people.

Updated on January 19, 2020 in Atheism
7 on March 21, 2019

There is no god, and no afterlife. I can “prove” this.

There isn’t an invisible man behind you, You won’t act like there is an invisible man behind you because you know there isn’t.

If there is no proof god exists, then you shouldn’t act like he does. If god is the invisible man, there is no reason to believe he is really there at all. The same goes for an afterlife.

You believe what you can see, and what you can prove. You cannot disprove that an invisible man exists, but you won’t act like one exists because that wouldn’t make sense.

You cannot disprove that god is real, but you can’t prove it either. So whatever it’s worth, you should act like there isn’t one.


with that out of the way, there is no god, no afterlife.

The universe will eventually end due to heat death. That means nothing is permanent and always ends up as nothing, no matter what you do.

You evolved from earlier animals, so you are just an advanced collection of chemicals.

You will to survive, and do other things. But does that make you any better than anything else, if you’re just an advanced form of those things?

It’s okay to kill a cow for food, but not a human. That’s because we “feel bad” for the human. We evolved empathy as a species to survive. they’re just an advanced thing evolved from what a cow evolved from. when does it just “change”?

Is it actually wrong to kill someone? I don’t think so, logically.

Prove me wrong.


  • Liked by
1 on March 21, 2019

before you say being conscience makes it wrong,

how do you define conscience? everything feels pain. Everything has goals.

ours are just more complex.

How does that make us superior?

on December 10, 2019

Your questions gets to the root of philosophical considerations about the nature of moral properties. I am inclined to reject their existence and embrace moral nihilism for the following arguement ( a modified form of J.L. Mackie’s Arguement from Queerness):
P1) It is built into the nature of morality to be objectively prescriptive, meaning that moral statements that we presuppose to be true would give us reasons to act in a specified manner regardless of our desires or preferences.
P2) Objective prescriptivity does not exist. This is because it is inconceivable to have reasons to act that would be contradictory to our desires or preferences.
P3) Objective prescriptivity would be a metaphysical property complete estranged from our ordinary observation of empirical properties in the world. Thus, even if it existed our way of coming to know these objectively prescriptive facts would be by some unknown faculty of intuition similarly estranged from our ordinary methods of logical inference.
C) Consquently, morality does not exist and neither do moral properties.

Now one way around this is to let go of objective prescriptivity in morality and concede that statements such as killing is wrong should be parsed as boo stealing. David Hume does this and makes the case that morality stems from sentiments rather than some objective source. Now even if I know there isn’t any properties of right and wrong, I still feel as if they exist. Human beings have a myriad of genetic predispositions to cooperate, which have only be augmented and reinforced by social customs and conditioning. So even if I could commit murder, or steal, or do some other heinous act with no penalty I still wouldn’t do it because I wouldn’t like to anyway it would feel wrong to me. This is enough, at least for me, to prevent me from acting “immorally” even when I accept the atheistic position.

Show more replies
  • Liked by
0 on April 19, 2019

You have no proof. No one has proof of afterlife. It is just flat out WRONG to kill someone. You are taking their life away without reason. What if I killed you?

  • Liked by
2 on May 7, 2019

Okay,so there is “god”,you,me and everybody on this fucking planet is PROOF,okay,God is something that created us,every,whether it is a he or a she,or an it,it created us thus making it our god,just needed to get that straight,but the opinon on killing I feel that’s neither bad or good,its neutral,and theres nothing disproving that besides emotionally clouded judgments on it,which is just biased thinking

on October 17, 2019

The belief in “god” is just a way for people to explain things that there are no answers to. I’m not denying that some sort of god exists, there is just no factual evidence to support the existence of a god. No direct link. I believe in science more than I believe in the existence of a man in the sky that created everything… but thats just my point of view.

on January 19, 2020

US,we are the link,there has to be something that created us,like I said before,weather that be a he /she/it/they,something created us, thus making it our creator ,our “god”

Show more replies
  • Liked by
0 on June 17, 2019

i dont know what you find so logical about it. you’ve drawn no conclusions, no solid evidence, you’re just being fake-deep on a website no one cares about.
however, i’m humored.
sure, god isn’t real. or is he? humans feel the need to believe in a higher power, something beyond themselves to feel safe, like they’re not alone in this world.
they need someone to blame when something goes wrong. someone to thank for when life goes right. so the idea of a god, an all-knowing being, is simply a divinely tempestuous idea.
what this has to do with the morality of murder, i’ve no clue.
how having a conscience is simply the feeling of being scolded by some source beyond us is revelant, i also only draw a blank.
humans need to believe in something.
a vast, meaningless nothing is too much for many people to handle.
murder seems wrong, to most.
an ending of a life that they see holds value, meaning.
to take away someone’s born right to existence, well, aren’t you just fancying yourself some meager god?
capable of controlling who lives, who dies?
murder is immoral only to those with morals.
morals are ingrained into us. “right” and “wrong” are the only choices.
to choose some middle ground is unthinkable.
to believe in shades of gray, rather than blank and white is unimaginable.
i see nothing wrong with murder, given its reason.
its value.
its validity.
but repeated, meaningless, ends to life, is simply unnecessary.
the question shouldn’t be why killing someone is wrong.
the question is what makes killing someone right?
(if you believe in those kinds of things, of course.)

  • Liked by
Loading more replies