Atheism is a religion

[Alondro]

Last time I checked, not everyone in Sweden, the Netherlands, or Japan was aetheist.  As far as people not becoming anarchic, that's simply because most still desire order and it's what they're raised in.  Law becomes a habit.  Just give it another generation or two when more and more aetheists understand that social contracts are as much an illusion as to them is religion and a law is only as powerful as the human ability to catch you breaking it.  And then too, if you don't care if your caught, then the object becomes simply to cause as much damage as possible before they can kill you.

For instance, recall that the Columbine school shooters asked mockingly if some of their victims believed in God.

I just have to look at how bioethics is progressing bit by bit to show me the path along which the world is traveling.  I would like to note Peter Singer again.  Why is it that a man who feels it is acceptable to kill children up to two years old because they're 'not really people yet', and at the same time thinks it's wrong to experiment on mice which in most cases don't even live two years naturally, in a position to determine what is ethical?  People like him will find it much easier to weasel their way into positions of influence in situations where there is no absolute moral authority to place a brick wall in their path.  It's a slow progression, like all changes, taking decades to progress to the next stage.  Unless one takes to the time to look back and understand how its changing it cannot be seen.

Oh, and as for the burning forever in hell thing.  That depends on the distorted version of Christianity which took hold once Constantine began to form the Roman Catholic Church.  And that's one thing I can't understand about most versions of Protestantism.  They reject any notion of the Pope's religious authority, yet worship on Sunday, a change which was orchestrated by the Pope in the 4th century.  Again, force of habit. 

Habits of law are changing though.  Just ask most teenagers today what they think of law.  Teens today are willing to do things that never would have even entered the minds of youth several decades ago.  I speak to my parents and other older people I know about what they remember.  Hence, some of the evidence of the decay in society.  The world is becoming a larger version of Rome, breaking apart almost invisibly from within.  It seems to me that all these things are the same as what preceeded the collapse of every ancient civilization.  The only difference this time is that the civilization encompases the entire world and there's nowhere to run if comes crashing down. 

[Mao]

I honestly think that people who claim things were so much better way back when have merely forgotten all of the details.  Children and youth have always rebelled.  Wars have always been fought.  There has always been one group or another telling you how to live your life 'properly' and there will always be something that someone else considers 'evil'.  Yet for all of this... we're still here.  It's always coming up, in every generation, that this next generation is so bad that it wouldn't be a surprise if they were to end it all.  It'll all come crashing down now because of how far we have fallen as people.  Either morally, scientifically or by whatever other thing you hold important to you.

Sounds to me like everyone is just taking themselves way too darn seriously.  Not just in this thread, everywhere.

[Suwako]

The Netherlands populace was 44% aetheist in 2004 (and is rising)
(CIA world fact book)

So we should be starting a war any day now.

Of course most of these supposed aetheist would be agnostic, like myself. For a moral compass I rather use my own then someone else's you never know when the so-many-hand thing breaks, it's sometimes better to get a new and shiny one with insurance and everything.

Of course the moral compass I posses was made together with my parents, my parents thought they did not need a book to teach me those.  They also let me make my own religion and let me watch tv and play violent games.

[Vidar]

Last time I checked, not everyone in Sweden, the Netherlands, or Japan was aetheist.  As far as people not becoming anarchic, that's simply because most still desire order and it's what they're raised in.  Law becomes a habit.  Just give it another generation or two when more and more aetheists understand that social contracts are as much an illusion as to them is religion and a law is only as powerful as the human ability to catch you breaking it.  And then too, if you don't care if your caught, then the object becomes simply to cause as much damage as possible before they can kill you.

No, not everyone in Sweden, the Netherlands and Japan is atheistic, but there are more than enough atheists to consider the proposition of "atheism breeds anarchy" null and void. the very opposite seems to be true here: a proportional increase of atheists in a population has a positive correlation with the wellbeing of the entire population in a country.
Atheists following the law, because doing so is habit-forming is also null and void. Atheists want to earn respect from those around them as much as anyone following a religion, and going around breaking the law at any opportunity is not conductive to such ends.
The social contract is not an illusion. Following it will get you further than flagrantly disregarding other people. Being nice to people will result in other people being nice to you in return, which is good. Treating other people like they don't matter will result in other people avoiding you, and treating you like shit in return, which is bad.

For instance, recall that the Columbine school shooters asked mockingly if some of their victims believed in God.

The columbine school shooters did not what they did out of atheism, but out of a plethora of other reasons. It has also been suggested that video-games and Marylin Manson made them do their horrible deeds, but I don't believe that either.
Your argument of picking someone doing something bad and blaming it on atheism just doesn't work, unless you already assume that atheism is evil. This assumption is not based on fact, but on misinformation. I don't know where you learned that atheism is inherently evil, but I suggest that you ask your source for more than anecdotes.

For every "evil atheist" you some up with, I can counter with a positive example of an atheist. These are people who make a positive effort to improve the world around them, which is also counter to your argument that atheists only follow the law out of habit, and would do terrible things as soon as they shrug off this habit. Doing good because it is the right thing to do is above and beyond what the law expects from citizens.
Carl Sagan: Astronomer, populariser of science,  activist against nuclear weapons.
Douglas Adams : Author of "Hitchhiker's guide to the universe", environmental activist.
Richard Dawkins: Scientist, populariser of science, and activist to make atheism more accepted in America, in spite of him not being an American citizen.
there are scores more mentioned on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists

I just have to look at how bioethics is progressing bit by bit to show me the path along which the world is traveling.  I would like to note Peter Singer again.  Why is it that a man who feels it is acceptable to kill children up to two years old because they're 'not really people yet', and at the same time thinks it's wrong to experiment on mice which in most cases don't even live two years naturally, in a position to determine what is ethical?  People like him will find it much easier to weasel their way into positions of influence in situations where there is no absolute moral authority to place a brick wall in their path.  It's a slow progression, like all changes, taking decades to progress to the next stage.  Unless one takes to the time to look back and understand how its changing it cannot be seen.

I've read the wikipedia article about Peter Singer, but it never says Mr. Singer mentioned that the murder of anyone under 2 is morally acceptable. There is only the mention that abortion of a fetus up to 18 weeks after conception is morally acceptable, because during that time the fetus does not yet have the capacity to suffer.
What is your source for Mr. Singer's infanticide claim?
The argument around abortion is an interesting one, but it is separate from the atheist argument in this thread.

Oh, and as for the burning forever in hell thing.  That depends on the distorted version of Christianity which took hold once Constantine began to form the Roman Catholic Church.  And that's one thing I can't understand about most versions of Protestantism.  They reject any notion of the Pope's religious authority, yet worship on Sunday, a change which was orchestrated by the Pope in the 4th century.  Again, force of habit. 

Hell is part of the central doctrine of Christianity, no matter what denomination. The criteria of whether a person is going to hell differs from church to church, and even from person to person, but hell is still there. If you follow a Christian denomination without hell, you follow a very peculiar branch of Christianity indeed.
Hell, worship on sundays, the trinity, and scores of other notions aren't 'force of habit', they are doctrine.

Habits of law are changing though.  Just ask most teenagers today what they think of law.  Teens today are willing to do things that never would have even entered the minds of youth several decades ago.  I speak to my parents and other older people I know about what they remember.  Hence, some of the evidence of the decay in society.  The world is becoming a larger version of Rome, breaking apart almost invisibly from within.  It seems to me that all these things are the same as what preceeded the collapse of every ancient civilization.  The only difference this time is that the civilization encompases the entire world and there's nowhere to run if comes crashing down. 

I don't agree with your bleak assessment of the world in general. Crime rates per capita in America are lower than ever before, and life expectancy across the world is now at an all-time high, and climbing. Disabled people can now function better in society, and take better care for themselves than in grandmother's times. Technology empowers the common person to reach out to everyone in the world through the internet. We are the first civilisation that's capable of exploring the solar system. This is not a civilisation in decline, but a civilisation that's experiencing growing pains.
The 'better times' older people remember are just memories seen through a lot of nostalgia. History books have a better documented account of older times, and I must say I'm glad I didn't live in older times.

The world is not without it's problems, but I am confident that with some effort humanity will be able to surmount these problems, and create an even better world.
Values in the western world are changing, but this is not evidence of decay in society, but rather it's evolution into a better society. Not all changes are positive, but focusing only on the negative bits doesn't serve anyone well.

[Mao]

Very well said, in all posts, Vidar.

[Cogidubnus]

Atheism is not as corrosive to morals and ethics as you might think, Alondro.

This wasn't adressed to me, but it still managed catch my eye.

Are you, then, implying that there is some sort of larger moral or ethical standard?

[Vidar]

Atheism is not as corrosive to morals and ethics as you might think, Alondro.

This wasn't adressed to me, but it still managed catch my eye.

Are you, then, implying that there is some sort of larger moral or ethical standard?

Yes.
Even Christians who claim to get their ethics and morals from the bible pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow, and which parts they don't based on their own moral convictions.
For example, no Christian would take a disobedient child to the gates of the town to have him stoned by the entire village. It is just barbaric to do such a thing even if the bible says you must do such a thing.

Religion is a very poor place to get your morals from. The bible alone condones and promotes animal cruelty (Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4), incest (Genesis 4; 9:1; 19:30-38; 20:11-12, 2 Samuel 13:1-15), slavery (Numbers 31:31-35; Leviticus 25:44-45; Exodus21:2-7; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2), abuse of slaves (Exodus 21:7, 20-21; Luke 12:47-48), spousal abuse (Numbers 5:5-31; Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 28-29; 1 Peter 3:17), child abuse (Genesis 22; Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 23:2; Proverbs 13:10, 20:30, 22:15, 23:13-14, Psalm 137:9), child molestation (Numbers 31:17-18), abortion (Amos 1:13; 2 Kings 15:16; Hosea 9:11-16, 13:16 Numbers 5:5-31), pillage (Genesis 34:13-29; Deuteronomy 20:13-14; Numbers 31:7-12), murder (Exodus 2:12, Judges 9:5, 11:29-39, 14:19; 2 Samuel 18:15; 1 Kings 2:24-25, 29-34, 46, 9:27, 10:7; 2 Chronicles 21:4 Ezekiel 20:26), cannibalism ( Leviticus 26:29, Deuteronomy 28:53, Isaiah 49:26, Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:8-10, 2 Kings 6:29), genocide (Genesis 6:11-17, 7:11-24; Exodus 17:13, 32:27, Numbers 21:3, 35, Deuteronomy 2:33-34, 3:6, 7:2, 20:16; Joshua 8:22-25, 10:27-40, 11:8-23; 1 Samuel 15:3, 7-8), and prejudice against race (Exodus 23:23, 28, Numbers 21:35, Deuteronomy 3:6, 7:1; Matthew 15:22-28), nationality (Leviticus 25:46, Joshua 6:21-27, Matthew 11:21-24), religion (The whole bible, really. In particular: 2 Kings 10:19-27), sex (Genesis 38:16-24, Judges 9:53-54, 19:22-29, 21:10-12, Deuteronomy 21:10-14; 22:23-24, 28-29, 25:11-12, Zechariah 14:1-2, Leviticus 12:1-8, 14, 14:19-30, 18:19, 19:20, 21:9, 27:3-7, Numbers 1:2, 20:13-15, 30:3-16, 31:14-18), and sexual orientation (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22-23, 10:13). The Quran doesn't fare much better, if at all.
Buddhism seems to be something of an exception, and ironically, it doesn't have any gods to tell mankind what to do.

I find that the 'golden rule' (do unto others as they would do unto you) is a useful, though imperfect, guideline. This golden rule is much older than Christianity, and it permeates most well-meaning and well-thought out laws. Laws that do not follow this rule require an explanation, or expultion from the law.
For instance, the ban on gay marriage in America is a law that does not follow the golden rule by removing rights from people based on their sexual preference. I would not want to have my rights taken away from me because of any perceived sexual deviancy on my part (as long as it does not bring harm to anyone), and so, I would not like to see this happening to homosexuals either.

Morals come to us through out genes, our upbringing, and our culture.
I would say that the morals that permeate this civilisation can use some work here and there, but overall, we are doing a heck of a lot better than what the bible says. 

[Alondro]

There are quite a few laws that most people find quite acceptable that have no other basis than in religion.

The illegality of bestiality and pedophilia come to mind.  Those are two things that have, in fact, been present in many other cultures, especially what we consider pedophilia. 

I'm digging for that quote of Singer's about the two-year olds.  I can find one about killing disabled infants being ethically acceptable, even if the disability is hemophilia (people who are capable of living full lives).   Ah yes, and his ALF-spawing book "Animal Liberation". 

Quote from Mice R peeple 2:  "I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species."   The scary thing is that his logic matches what I came up with to let me know how horrific the ultimate state of a totally aetheist world culture will become.  The scarier thing is that he actually wants to act upon those logical conclusions.

From the ALF website itself: Singer argues that the ability of animals to feel pain and pleasure puts them on a plane of moral equivalence with us.

Insects react to harmful stimuli.  Worms pull away from a prodding fishhook.  By this reasoning, we cannot squish mosquitoes that bite us.  Killing swarms gypsey moth caterpillars with insecticide is equivalent to the Nazi gas chambers (Hitler killed Gypsies too!  We're all Nazis!)

Even the ALF has a problem with this view from him:  Suppose, for example, that parents knew in advance of a baby's birth that it would be born without arms and legs. In such cases, Singer supports the parents' right to terminate this life. His view becomes more controversial, however, when he argues that the same principle applies up to 28 days after birth. In the case of lives that would be irredeemably difficult and painful, Singer endorses not simply euthanasia of the unborn, but infanticide. What, asks Singer, is the difference between a seriously impaired fetus and a newborn? The mere fact that the latter is alive outside of the womb is trivial for him, since in either case this being has a painful life ahead of it that is not worth living.
But there is another case in which Singer supports infanticide that raises the blood pressure of his critics, one where he brings an impaired newborn into a cold calculation of pain and pleasure and concludes one life-form is exchangeable for another. "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed ... killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

For Singer's critics, there are two disturbing assumptions here: the fact that for Singer a life can be sacrificed in an effort to bring about a greater good, and that he considers hemophilia, chronic urinary tract infections, and other conditions sufficiently debilitating so as to disqualify their victims from "personhood."

How many disabled people do you know who are simply glad to be alive?  How many do you think would be deeply offended by this?

I am going to have to search more deeply for the two-year-old euthanasia comment.  It was a recent one and it hasn't made the rounds completely on the Internet yet.  I stumbled across it several months ago.

[Vidar]

There are quite a few laws that most people find quite acceptable that have no other basis than in religion.

The illegality of bestiality and pedophilia come to mind.  Those are two things that have, in fact, been present in many other cultures, especially what we consider pedophilia.

If we consider children to be human beings, with feelings, opinions, and personalities, then laws against pedophilia have benefits outside of religion as well. The Golden Rule would also support anti-pedophilia laws, since pedophilic acts would likely harm a human being. No religious background is needed for anti-pedophilic laws.
As for bestiality: animals are not capable of communicating with humans in any meaningful way, and the reverse is also true. This means that animals can not consent to sexual acts, and therefore it is difficult to establish whether an animal would want to engage in sexual relations with a human being. Beyond that is the possibility of diseases to be transmitted from animal to human, or vice versa. This makes bestiality something that is not desired in a civilisation as ours. Both are readily explained without the need for religion.

I'm digging for that quote of Singer's about the two-year olds.  I can find one about killing disabled infants being ethically acceptable, even if the disability is hemophilia (people who are capable of living full lives).   Ah yes, and his ALF-spawing book "Animal Liberation". 

There is something to be said for euthanasia of a disabled child, if said child would be unable to lead a fulfilling life. The question is, of course, who would be able to judge whether a disables individual would or would not be able to lead a fulfilling life. This in itself is an interesing issue to debate, and one of the many things in which modern civilisation could argue about, and maybe come to a consensus about what would be the correct course of action, and what criteria would be needed to have a fulfilling life. For now, no human being as far as I know, has the wisdom to make such decisions.

Members of ALF follow their own moral codes, and they might conflict with the moral codes of the mainstream. This does not mean that they are wrong. It simply means, that different people have different convictions about what is right and what is wrong. People can discuss this at length, and not come to any consensus, but these issues must be discussed if our civilisation is to improve it's moral and ethical standards. I am not about to state that everything ALF does is right or wrong. Somehings they do might be morally reprehensible, while others might be the way foreward in term of morality.

Quote from Mice R peeple 2:  "I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species."   The scary thing is that his logic matches what I came up with to let me know how horrific the ultimate state of a totally aetheist world culture will become.  The scarier thing is that he actually wants to act upon those logical conclusions.

From the ALF website itself: Singer argues that the ability of animals to feel pain and pleasure puts them on a plane of moral equivalence with us.

I personally don't think that animals would ever reach the moral equivalent of human beings, however, anyone who has had e beloved pet knows that animals can feel pain and discomfort. This would mean, that the animals under our care, and there wellbeing would be our responsibility. If animals feel pain, we should take them to a veterinarian to find out what is the cause of this pain, and how to relieve it. Even though I do not believe that animals rank as high as humans on a moral scale, we do have a responsibility to the animals under our care to give them reasonably comfortable lives.
Richard Dawkins has argued that we grant a limited set of fundamental rights to our nearest cousins (species-wise) of freedom, and to be left to their own devices. I tend to agree with him on this subject, but to extend these rights to , say, chickens would be absurd. That said, I do think that putting 6 chickens an a cage the size of a square foot is needlesly cruel.

Insects react to harmful stimuli.  Worms pull away from a prodding fishhook.  By this reasoning, we cannot squish mosquitoes that bite us.  Killing swarms gypsey moth caterpillars with insecticide is equivalent to the Nazi gas chambers (Hitler killed Gypsies too!  We're all Nazis!)

Even though humans are animals, not all animals are human beings. If a species of animal is disruptive in the environment, I feel it is our responsibility to step in, and limit the impact of such a disruptive species. killing caterpillars is not the same thing as the Nazi gas-chambers.

Even the ALF has a problem with this view from him:  Suppose, for example, that parents knew in advance of a baby's birth that it would be born without arms and legs. In such cases, Singer supports the parents' right to terminate this life. His view becomes more controversial, however, when he argues that the same principle applies up to 28 days after birth. In the case of lives that would be irredeemably difficult and painful, Singer endorses not simply euthanasia of the unborn, but infanticide. What, asks Singer, is the difference between a seriously impaired fetus and a newborn? The mere fact that the latter is alive outside of the womb is trivial for him, since in either case this being has a painful life ahead of it that is not worth living.
But there is another case in which Singer supports infanticide that raises the blood pressure of his critics, one where he brings an impaired newborn into a cold calculation of pain and pleasure and concludes one life-form is exchangeable for another. "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed ... killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

This is an interesting moral debate, but I doubt there would be many parent who would agree with Mr. Singer. Once again, there is the need for someone to judge how much fulfillment a person would get from a life with a handicap. No such person exists, so for now, when someone is borne with a handicap, it is our responsibility to make sure that such an individual has as much a full life as this civilisation allows.
If medical science can determint whether a fetus will have a disability before 18 weeks after conception, we go into the abortion issue again. as interesting as this issue may be, this is not the place for this debate. Many European countries allow for abortion up to a number of days after conception. For now, this may be the most viable option, morality-wise.

For Singer's critics, there are two disturbing assumptions here: the fact that for Singer a life can be sacrificed in an effort to bring about a greater good, and that he considers hemophilia, chronic urinary tract infections, and other conditions sufficiently debilitating so as to disqualify their victims from "personhood."

How many disabled people do you know who are simply glad to be alive?  How many do you think would be deeply offended by this?

At this point, Mr. singers opinions part with my own. I do not believe that a disability would disqualify someone from being a person. Most parent would be deeply offended by a verdict of "your son/daughter does not qualify as a person". No person alive has the wisdom needed to make such a distinction, and no person alive could bear the responsibility of expelling a human being from the human race. It reeks of crudely implemented eugenics, and I think we all know that that is something morally unacceptable.
That said, more subtle forms of eugenics have nearly eradicated certain hereditary diseases by giving advise to couples about whether or not they should have children. Damninteresting.com has an article on the subject. when implemented properly, these advises can be of great benefit to humankind. If implemented poorly, you get the American or Nazi-style eugenics that is morally unacceptable.

I am going to have to search more deeply for the two-year-old euthanasia comment.  It was a recent one and it hasn't made the rounds completely on the Internet yet.  I stumbled across it several months ago.

When I find it, I will cast my verdict when I read it. The comment sound reprehensible for now, and unless Mr Singer comes up with a damn good explanation for his comment, I will likely condemn it.

[Cogidubnus]

Yes.

etc etc

I find that the 'golden rule' (do unto others as they would do unto you) is a useful, though imperfect, guideline. This golden rule is much older than Christianity, and it permeates most well-meaning and well-thought out laws. Laws that do not follow this rule require an explanation, or expulsion from the law.

I am puzzled, then.

Even Christians who claim to get their ethics and morals from the bible pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow, and which parts they don't based on their own moral convictions.

You say, or at least imply, that what people can figure out for themselves about their own moral convictions is good enough, and at the same time, you say that the overarching, larger definition of what is Right is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
I can tell you now that people will not always choose the Golden Rule, and won't think it's wrong to do so. So, either they are wrong, or the Rule isn't what you say it is. That is to say - either the rule is a standard of morality or it isn't.

As well, setting the golden rule up as being the arbitrary definition of what is correct - that is, to say that what is Right, is to Do Unto Others, sounds very much like a religion to me. An arbitrary and final definition of what is good and correct, because it embodies Goodness and Correctness itself. It is right because it is Right.

What you probably would mean, is that it is right because it ensures the survival of the species and ensures good social order, not because it embodies any sort of larger correctness. To which, again, one has to ask - is what ensures the survival of the species and good social order what is Good and Correct? I think there is something called Utilitarianism, and this says much the same thing. Charline and Charles's schemes of world domination often involve this principle.

When a Christian asserts something to be right or wrong, he does point to the Bible. Which, in turn, makes me ask - what do you point to, to say that something is, morally, wrong?

There is something to be said for euthanasia of a disabled child, if said child would be unable to lead a fulfilling life. The question is, of course, who would be able to judge whether a disables individual would or would not be able to lead a fulfilling life.

If we are to agree that killing a human is wrong...

Does living a fulfilling life make something human? Or, if it is human, does being able to live a fulfilling life add value to it?

Members of ALF follow their own moral codes, and they might conflict with the moral codes of the mainstream. This does not mean that they are wrong. It simply means, that different people have different convictions about what is right and what is wrong.

Again, I find this an odd thing to say. Either the Golden Rule is overarchingly what is right, or it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too - you can't say that moral ambiguity is fine, while also saying that there really is any sort of larger moral or ethical standard. Even if the rule is an imperfect one, there are times and places that any rule is violated.

I would say that the morals that permeate this civilisation can use some work here and there, but overall, we are doing a heck of a lot better than what the bible says.

No greater love hath a man than this, that he would lay down his life for another. This is what the Bible commands, under the new covenant:

John 13:34 -34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another."

Galatians 5:14 - 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Romans 13:9-10 - 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

1 John 3:16-18 - 16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

Ephesians 4:31-5:2 - 31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. 32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you. 1 Therefore be followers of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 - 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 - 4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

1 John 4:21
21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

If we consider children to be human beings, with feelings, opinions, and personalities, then laws against pedophilia have benefits outside of religion as well. The Golden Rule would also support anti-pedophilia laws, since pedophilic acts would likely harm a human being. No religious background is needed for anti-pedophilic laws.

That's very true. Religion, or an ultimate standard of right and wrong, are for making consent a necessary thing.

[Reese Tora]

Cog, there's a difference between a standard and the ultimate standard.

There are lots of standards, and not everyone implements every standard or even implements the same standards in te same way.  (kind of like HTML or CSS )
The best standard of morality I've seen is the platinum rule: do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

That notwithstanding, cherry picking quotes from the bible to prove your point does neither side any good, because you can find a passage in the bible to support any viewpoint if you leave out the context, which quoting single passages does.(this directed to both of you.)

IMO, the ultimate arbiter of humanist morality is simply what is good for people and society.  The rules in the bible are, many of them, rules to minimize conflict and keep as many people as possible happy within the community that it originated, or to keep people healthy and maintain and expand the community.

Certainly there is a lot of new testament material that is about tolerance and love, but these are things that people can see as necessary without the bible to tell them so.

Yes, there are people who go against the rules, but they don't care where the rules come from, Deuteronomy or Dawkins, they'll break them all the same.

Aside, I'd love to see a source for that drop in crime rates thing; is it measured on a regional basis or overall world statistics?

[Cogidubnus]

Cog, there's a difference between a standard and the ultimate standard.

In terms of CSS and HTML, certainly. In terms of morality, I disagree. Either something is Right, or it isn't. It can't be both ways at the same time. If you say that it's wrong to steal, than it's wrong. If you say that it's generally a bad thing to steal, than that's not really a standard - like programming in HTML or CSS, it's simply a suggestion. To use a pirate term - they're more like guidelines, and in reality, anyone can do whatever they'd like, and it wouldn't be Wrong, per se.

If you are claiming that something is an overarching moral or ethical standard, one cannot then also say that moral relativism is fine too.

That notwithstanding, cherry picking quotes from the bible to prove your point does neither side any good, because you can find a passage in the bible to support any viewpoint if you leave out the context, which quoting single passages does.(this directed to both of you.)

It was not my intent to leave out context - it was, in fact, my intent to provide as much as I could, in the setting of a forum. I'd rather not post chapters here. I did want to provide more than Book and Number. If I've misrepresented something, I'd be more than glad to have it brought to my attention.

IMO, the ultimate arbiter of humanist morality is simply what is good for people and society.

A little thought, and one can see that's a very dangerous road to travel.

Addendum:
These sorts of threads are like punching a tar baby. This will be my last post here, and I will resume my strict rule of closing my mouth, lest my foot find its way in, and I be proved the fool I am.

[Stygian]

By the way, Atheism is a religion as well, a religion where there is nothing bigger than man individually and ultimately an individual is only answerable to themselves. Everyone is a god to themselves and there is nothing beyond the here and now, really it is quiet a depressing religion.

The Romans didn't know how to count with the number zero either. Then, more modern and convenient and logical systems of calculation were formed, and we were given modern mathematics, which have ultimately taken us a good way toward knowledge and illumination.

Ah, if only irrefutable logic could be applied to theories and beliefs as well.

You know, I'm not going to contest you. I know that there is nothing that can prove or convince you of the fallaciousness of your thinking. And you can't convince me of mine either. Sadly, technically, I can't take solace in the fact that your thinking holds no sway and dictates nothing, because theoretically, that acts as a universal affirmative to the fact that neither does mine.

Though, I'm willing to point out and ridicule you for the fact that your view seems quite a lot more narrow-minded and prone to making you seem unsympathetic and unintelligent, of course.

Cheers.

[Boog]

You know, I once put forward a similar theory amongst my friends and acquaintances, and I'm rather glad that it's not me being yelled at for it now. =D A religion or belief system is defined by what they believe, not a lack of what they believe, and there's plenty of moral atheists. Hell, a friend of mine once put it rather nobly; you do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because some god offered you a bribe if you did.

[PencilinHand]

Atheism is not as corrosive to morals and ethics as you might think, Alondro.

This wasn't adressed to me, but it still managed catch my eye.

Are you, then, implying that there is some sort of larger moral or ethical standard?

Yes.
Even Christians who claim to get their ethics and morals from the bible pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow, and which parts they don't based on their own moral convictions.
For example, no Christian would take a disobedient child to the gates of the town to have him stoned by the entire village. It is just barbaric to do such a thing even if the bible says you must do such a thing.

Religion is a very poor place to get your morals from. The bible alone condones and promotes animal cruelty (Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4), incest (Genesis 4; 9:1; 19:30-38; 20:11-12, 2 Samuel 13:1-15), slavery (Numbers 31:31-35; Leviticus 25:44-45; Exodus21:2-7; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2), abuse of slaves (Exodus 21:7, 20-21; Luke 12:47-48), spousal abuse (Numbers 5:5-31; Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 28-29; 1 Peter 3:17), child abuse (Genesis 22; Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 23:2; Proverbs 13:10, 20:30, 22:15, 23:13-14, Psalm 137:9), child molestation (Numbers 31:17-18), abortion (Amos 1:13; 2 Kings 15:16; Hosea 9:11-16, 13:16 Numbers 5:5-31), pillage (Genesis 34:13-29; Deuteronomy 20:13-14; Numbers 31:7-12), murder (Exodus 2:12, Judges 9:5, 11:29-39, 14:19; 2 Samuel 18:15; 1 Kings 2:24-25, 29-34, 46, 9:27, 10:7; 2 Chronicles 21:4 Ezekiel 20:26), cannibalism ( Leviticus 26:29, Deuteronomy 28:53, Isaiah 49:26, Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:8-10, 2 Kings 6:29), genocide (Genesis 6:11-17, 7:11-24; Exodus 17:13, 32:27, Numbers 21:3, 35, Deuteronomy 2:33-34, 3:6, 7:2, 20:16; Joshua 8:22-25, 10:27-40, 11:8-23; 1 Samuel 15:3, 7-8), and prejudice against race (Exodus 23:23, 28, Numbers 21:35, Deuteronomy 3:6, 7:1; Matthew 15:22-28), nationality (Leviticus 25:46, Joshua 6:21-27, Matthew 11:21-24), religion (The whole bible, really. In particular: 2 Kings 10:19-27), sex (Genesis 38:16-24, Judges 9:53-54, 19:22-29, 21:10-12, Deuteronomy 21:10-14; 22:23-24, 28-29, 25:11-12, Zechariah 14:1-2, Leviticus 12:1-8, 14, 14:19-30, 18:19, 19:20, 21:9, 27:3-7, Numbers 1:2, 20:13-15, 30:3-16, 31:14-18), and sexual orientation (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22-23, 10:13). The Quran doesn't fare much better, if at all.
Buddhism seems to be something of an exception, and ironically, it doesn't have any gods to tell mankind what to do.

I find that the 'golden rule' (do unto others as they would do unto you) is a useful, though imperfect, guideline. This golden rule is much older than Christianity, and it permeates most well-meaning and well-thought out laws. Laws that do not follow this rule require an explanation, or expultion from the law.
For instance, the ban on gay marriage in America is a law that does not follow the golden rule by removing rights from people based on their sexual preference. I would not want to have my rights taken away from me because of any perceived sexual deviancy on my part (as long as it does not bring harm to anyone), and so, I would not like to see this happening to homosexuals either.

Morals come to us through out genes, our upbringing, and our culture.
I would say that the morals that permeate this civilisation can use some work here and there, but overall, we are doing a heck of a lot better than what the bible says. 

Hello, world meet wall of text.


I have to ask, did you get this from some place? 
It seems like a lot of trouble(research and writing) to go through to make a point, and that you originally put it in italics...it just seemed oddly done. 

The Short Version

A number of the cited passages are out of context or have no relevance to the topic.  Some are irrelevant taken in light of the New Testament, and most of the remainder should be viewed in light of the times.  Example, the consequences of losing a war in Biblical times were MUCH greater and more extensive than in recent times, it was common for whole cities to be emptied of wealth and its entire population either carted off or slaughtered on the spot.

However, a there are a few spots have a valid if overblown point.

Largely, I don't think your claims are valid.


Regarding,
"Even Christians who claim to get their ethics and morals from the bible pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow"
Please review my previous posts regarding humanism, man acting as his own moral authority, and et. all.


The Long Version

animal cruelty (Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4)
In both cases it speaks of hamstringing horses and destroying chariots, which are weapons of war, and particularly weapons which the Israelis (at the time at least) did not have the technology to maintain.  By doing so they are removing the ability of their enemy to wage war.  To me at least, this does not indicate the Bible condones animal cruelty.


incest (Genesis 4; 9:1; 19:30-38; 20:11-12, 2 Samuel 13:1-15) 
There are indeed instances of incest but to say it is condoned is incorrect.  Leviticus 18:17 clearly does not condone it. 


slavery (Numbers 31:31-35; Leviticus 25:44-45; Exodus21:2-7; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2)
A difficult subject; however, there seems to be a difference between modern slavery and slaver in the Bible.  In the Old Testament Bible, slavery seems to almost be a social/economic status where you could sell yourself into slavery to pay a debt but had to be released after a few years.  New Testament or Roman slavery was a little different and not an easy or light subject to discuss; however, in Philemon, which is a letter written by Paul to be carried by a runaway slave back to his owner.  Paul seems to imply he should be set free(see verse 16).  I disagree that the Bible condones slavery in the modern sense. However, it does not seem to explicitly rebuke it either, but the New Testament at times seems to imply it.


abuse of slaves (Exodus 21:7, 20-21; Luke 12:47-48)
These three seem to be loosely related.  Exodus 21:7-11 is related to if someone buys a wife and how she is to be treated if he goes back on it.  Beating someone or killing them seem to be the primary means of punishment during Bibliclal times and up until very recently in history. In Exodus 21:20-21, it says that if someone beats someone else and they don't survive then the beater is to be punished.  However, if you look at Exodus 21:26-27 you will see that if the slave loses a tooth or an eye they are to be set free.  The passages in Luke 12 seem to be Christ using lazy slaves as an analogy, and basically saying a just punishment for someone who knew better would be greater than for someone didn't know better.  These seem to me to be more closely related to "don't punish(beat) someone more than they deserve and let the punishment fit the crime" than condoning abuse.


spousal abuse (Numbers 5:5-31; Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 28-29; 1 Peter 3:17)
Number 5:5-31 is an odd one.  It seems to be describing a ritual to rectify a unfaithful(or thought to be unfaithful) wife with her husband, where in the wife drinks bitter muddy water.  Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is a matter of breaking the law, at the time if you slept around and got caught you died.  Deuteronomy 22:28-29 isn't related to spousal abuse, it says what is to be done when a man rapes a woman.

1 Peter 3:17 is "It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil."  I think you meant 1 Peter 3:7 but even that is at best a stretch, "7 In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered."  I don't feel you can support your statement that the Bible condones spousal abuse.


child abuse (Genesis 22; Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 23:2; Proverbs 13:10, 20:30, 22:15, 23:13-14, Psalm 137:9)
Genesis 22 is the account of Abraham being tested by God to see if he held his son in higher regard to God.  " 12 "Don't lay a hand on the boy!" the angel said. "Do not hurt him in any way, for now I know that you truly fear God..."  Deuteronomy 21 is a harsh example of the law which in that day applied not only to adults but also to children, it is a foreign concept as most developed modern nations almost don't consider the law applicable to someone under 18.  Deuteronomy 23:2 is regarding regulations for worship assembly, specifically that someone of illegitimate birth(for 10 generations) may not be allowed to assemble for worship.  Proverbs 13:10 has nothing to do with children, punishment, or abuse.  You may be thinking of Proverbs 13:24 which says "24 Those who spare the rod of discipline hate their children.  Those who love their children care enough to discipline them."  Also,
Proverbs 22:15, and  Proverbs 23:13-14 also say that children need discipline.  This runs counter to a lot of modern thinking on how to raise children, but to say it condones child abuse is a stretch at best.

Also, Psalms 137:9 is used out of context, it is a song of lament for when the Jews were in bitterly displaced in Babylon.
"8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
       happy is he who repays you
       for what you have done to us-

9 he who seizes your infants
       and dashes them against the rocks."


child molestation (Numbers 31:17-18)
Numbers 31 deals with the spoils of war or pillaging and doesn't condone or promote child molestation.  That is how it was done, war wasn't just a matter of life and death for those immediately involved but for everybody.  It wasn't until chivalry was common that war was done much differently, this was absolute total war.


abortion (Amos 1:13; 2 Kings 15:16; Hosea 9:11-16, 13:16 Numbers 5:5-31)
Regarding, Amos 1:13, 2 Kings 15:16, Hosea 9:11-16, Hosea 13:16 see my previous comment on "child molestation".  Numbers 5:5-31 has nothing to do with abortion(see previous comments about "spousal abuse").


pillage (Genesis 34:13-29; Deuteronomy 20:13-14; Numbers 31:7-12 )
See comments regarding "child molestation" and "abortion" above.

murder (Exodus 2:12, Judges 9:5, 11:29-39, 14:19; 2 Samuel 18:15; 1 Kings 2:24-25, 29-34, 46, 9:27, 10:7; 2 Chronicles 21:4 Ezekiel 20:26)
Do not feel I need to individually refute this as I think part of the 10 commandments Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder." is enough.   


cannibalism ( Leviticus 26:29, Deuteronomy 28:53, Isaiah 49:26, Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:8-10, 2 Kings 6:29)
Leviticus 26:29 is part of a punishment by God if the Jews don't obey him(that means it is a "bad thing").  Deuteronomy 28:53 is similar to Leviticus 26:29.  Isaiah 49:26 is a judgment on Israels oppressors.  Jeremiah 19:9 and Ezekiel 5:8-10is a proclamation of Gods judgment on Israel.  2 Kings 6:29 is an evidence of a judgment.  In no way is cannibalism condoned or promoted.


genocide (Genesis 6:11-17, 7:11-24; Exodus 17:13, 32:27, Numbers 21:3, 35, Deuteronomy 2:33-34, 3:6, 7:2, 20:16; Joshua 8:22-25, 10:27-40, 11:8-23; 1 Samuel 15:3, 7-8) Genesis 6 and 7 are about the same incident of the "great Flood" and how men were so wicked as to be beyond help except for Noah and his family.  Exodus 32:27 has to do with putting down rebellion in the Israelite camp when they were fleeing from Egypt.  See my comments on "child molestation" for Numbers 21:35,  Deuteronomy 2:33-34, Deuteronomy 3:6, Deuteronomy 7:2, Joshua 8:22-25, Joshua 10:27-40, Joshua 11:8-23, and 1 Samuel 15:3, 7-8. Exodus 17:13 doesn't have anything to do with genocide, so I assume you mean verse 14, but this is also covered.


prejudice against race (Exodus 23:23, 28, Numbers 21:35, Deuteronomy 3:6, 7:1; Matthew 15:22-28)
I don't see race mentioned anywhere in Exodus 23:23,28, Numbers 21:35, Deuteronomy 3:6, Deuteronomy 7:1 nor in Matthew 15:22-28, though nationality is mentioned and will be covered under the appropriate section.


[prejudice against] nationality (Leviticus 25:46, Joshua 6:21-27, Matthew 11:21-24)
Other examples for this would include Exodus 23:32, 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:1-3, 20:10-18, 23:3-8; Ezra 9:2-15, 10:1-18, Nehemiah 13:1-3, 23-31 some of which is already mentioned but all speak of the foreigner being different.  However, Exodus 22:21, 23:9; Leviticus 19:10, 33-34, 24:22 speak of treating foreigners equally.  Furthermore, in Acts 10:28 and 34-35 differences of nationality are abolished. 


[prejudice against] religion (The whole bible, really. In particular: 2 Kings 10:19-27)
No real argument on this one, except for the mater or prejudice.  The Bible is pretty clear about Christ being only one way to heaven.  However, most other major religions say something similar.  Regarding prejudice, bigotry isn't the issue it is a matter of belief.  If you believe in the Bible, Christ, etc. then you believe that everyone is going to hell or whatever, regardless of religion or any thing.  To be truly "Christ like" you need to fulfill the "Great Commission" as laid out in Matthew 28:19-20.


[prejudice against] sex (Genesis 38:16-24, Judges 9:53-54, 19:22-29, 21:10-12, Deuteronomy 21:10-14; 22:23-24, 28-29, 25:11-12, Zechariah 14:1-2, Leviticus 12:1-8, 14, 14:19-30, 18:19, 19:20, 21:9, 27:3-7, Numbers 1:2, 20:13-15, 30:3-16, 31:14-18)
I am tired and I am doubting someone is going to read this far down very soon.  I will edit this in later as it has very many cited passages and I need to read all of them to be certain.  However, if I were to venture a guess I would say that the "prejudice against sex" is a combination of different times and possibly needing to be viewed in light of the New Testament considering how every passage here is from the Old Testament.

[prejudice against] sexual orientation (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22-23, 10:13)
In the Old Testament, sexual orientation was a matter of the law, archaic, but that is the way it was.  In the New Testament, it is handled a little differently.  It is still considered "sin" but "sin" is "sin" regardless of what "sin" it is.  So lying, stealing, homosexual relations, murder, cheating on a test, even dwelling on lust, are all on the same level of "sin" and all deserving of the same punishment(being death)and the same redemption(being "salvation in Christ").  There is a little more detail than that but that is the basis.

[Reese Tora]

Cog, there's a difference between a standard and the ultimate standard.

In terms of CSS and HTML, certainly. In terms of morality, I disagree. Either something is Right, or it isn't. It can't be both ways at the same time. If you say that it's wrong to steal, than it's wrong. If you say that it's generally a bad thing to steal, than that's not really a standard - like programming in HTML or CSS, it's simply a suggestion. To use a pirate term - they're more like guidelines, and in reality, anyone can do whatever they'd like, and it wouldn't be Wrong, per se.

If you are claiming that something is an overarching moral or ethical standard, one cannot then also say that moral relativism is fine too.

I am not claiming any such thing as an ultimate standard; I don't believe any such thing exists(or, if it does, no human has knowledge of it).  Pointing out that there's a difference between something being a standard and something being an ultimate standard, and implying that nothing mentioned earlier was the latter was kinda the point when I posted that.

[Vidar]

Greater Wall of Text.

I got the verses from a youtube video, so I didn't do the research myself. I'm glad someone is taking it this seriously, though.
In any case, the bible is full of stuff we consider barbaric by any standard. I'm not going over all the verses, as you seem to have done a thorough job, but I will make a few comments.

Slavery: not so difficult at all. Slavery is now seen a barbaric, ad the bible never explicitly states that keeping slaves is morally reprehensible. Vague hints that a slave should be set free is not what I would call explicit.

Abuse of slaves: I would say that keeping a slave is already a form of abuse, since you rob them of their freedom. The bible places some restrictions on how hard you can beat your slaves, but essentially, it still condones the beating of slaves.

spousal abuse: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does say what to do when a man rapes an unmarried woman. It says that the poor girl must marry her rapist, thus becoming his spouse. He is then free to do with her as he pleases, except he can't divorce her. The girl is then forced to live with her rapist for the rest of her life. How is that not spousal abuse?

child abuse: Genesis 22 is indeed about "god testing Abraham", but how do you think Abraham's son would feel to see that his father is about to slaughter him, because god told him so? Sounds like a pretty goddamn traumatic experience to me. A just and moral god would never tell a father to sacrifice his son, and an all-knowing one would not need to test anything, since he already knows everything.
Deuteronomy 21 is specifically about the killing of a disobedient child by stoning. Child abuse at it's most harsh if you ask me. To say that this was ok in those times because the law applied also to children does nothing to mitigate the barbarism of this act.
The passages in proverbs, with the exception of 13:10, deal with beating your children with rods. It not only condones the practice, it actively promotes this barbarism.

Child molestation: Numbers 31 does deal with he spoils of war, and among the spoils, mentioned right after the cattle, are 32000 virgin girls, who are force to marry the murderers of their entire family, except for the 32 that are sacrificed to god. Sacrificed as in bound on an altar, having their throat slit, and set on fire. A lot of these girls would be under 18 years old. I dare you to say that this is not child molestation.

Also, the conduct of the Israelites in war is barbaric. If a good and just god would have let them, we should Israel act in a far more chivalrous manner. If a good and just god led them, we should expect nothing less.

Murder: Yes, the 10 commandments say "thou shalt not murder", but in the next chapter god says the equivalent of "go kill those people" in reference to the Canaanites, who's only crime was living in their own country. God like to play loose with his own rules, it seems.

Genocide: God apparently thought that destroying the world is a better idea than educating people before things get out of hand, if the flood story is to be believed. Could god really not have done something to prevent the need to flood the world, killing innumerable innocents (newborn come to mind), and creatures that had nothing to do with the apparent wickedness of mankind? It's not like everyone broke the 10 commandments, because the 10 commandments didn't exist yet.

Prejudice against sexual orientation: Saying "that was the way it was" is no justification for this prejudice. It's still bigotry.


If the bible really was the inerrant word of god it would have profound moral insights in it. I have yet to see any profound moral insights coming exclusively from Christianity.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I am tired and I am doubting someone is going to read this far down very soon.  I will edit this in later as it has very many cited passages and I need to read all of them to be certain.  However, if I were to venture a guess I would say that the "prejudice against sex" is a combination of different times and possibly needing to be viewed in light of the New Testament considering how every passage here is from the Old Testament.

Why not, I read it all.

I must say, I'm impressed with how much effort you're putting into this. And you've certainly thought through your responses, which is muchly appreciated.

[Gabi]

Vidar, I think your logic is flawed in that you basically assume atheist and intelligent to be synonyms.

History only proves that most people can't handle themselves without fighting. It's not the existence of religion that causes the problems. Stupid people can be told they have to kill others for whatever reason (be it a God, their Nation or even, ironically, things like freedom and human rights). Once more, that has nothing to do with religion. If the stupid people in question are atheists, that only leaves out one excuse to get them to kill others. And if you're dealing with thinking religious people, then no one will convince them to kill others because God says so. The problem is not religion, it's stupidity and gullibility.

Finally, if the reason for atheists to deny the existence of a supernatural being is, as you say, lack of evidence, then they shouldn't affirm His/Her/Its/Their inexistence either, as there is just as little evidence on that respect.

[Amber Williams]

[Gabi]

XD Good call, Amber. But there is actually some content within the wall of words.

[Amber Williams]

I would hope so! The great text-wall of China wouldnt be nearly as great if it couldn't keep the mongols from invading!

[Zina]

But....
but it didn't.

[Amber Williams]

oh...

well shit. 

[Brunhidden]

no to mention the Gauls, Teutons, Visigoths, Celts, and Norsemen

the Huns usually hang around with the Mongols and feel shy attacking alone.





i am going to throw my lot in with stoicism, at least somewhat, and ponder how many even know what that is without resorting to wikipedia

and if thats not enough, try deific clock, i like that one too

[Stygian]

I would hope so! The great text-wall of China wouldnt be nearly as great if it couldn't keep the mongols from invading!

But....
but it didn't. D:

oh...

well shit. 

Scheit. Who's going to tear down this useless wall of text then? Hm? Llearch's going to be pissed.

I mean, it's arguably gone off-topic. Notice how fast the discussion turned from arguing that atheism is an active religion, and going to defending the message of religions. I think that ought to say something.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Scheit. Who's going to tear down this useless wall of text then? Hm? Llearch's going to be pissed.

No, I'm not. Why would I be pissed? It's not like anyone has even bought me a drink yet...

[Stygian]

No, I'm not. Why would I be pissed? It's not like anyone has even bought me a drink yet...

Very witty. I laugh until I split my lip and get another scar there.

[Brunhidden]

there is a severe difference however between not believing in god and fervently believing there is no god

its a quite simple breakdown, the lack of belief is not a religion, just as silence is not a sound. actively disbelieving is a form of belief however

[Stygian]

http://loopzy.com/v/debate_forum