Miss Anne Thrope

It's not exclusively "Christian morality"; that's the point. So Christianity adopted some good ideas from elsewhere and packaged them rather neatly (many hundreds of years after the death of its founder it must be said). What many of us are objecting to is the branding of those morals as "Christian". Christians did not invent them, they are not the only ones who (claim to) practice them and the rest of us are fed up with their stupid unwarranted self-righteousness about them.

You don't have to go back very far to find slavery, apartheid, blasphemy, religious wars, pogroms, witch-burning, inquisitions and lots of other nastiness all being very much part and parcel of Christian morality. Those things were conveniently dropped but they have been part of the package over most of Christianity's history. So keep your disgusting "Christian morality" thank you very much.

Indeed Christians (and most other religions) have to justify the basis of morality on some childish reward and punishment basis. Properly evolved people don't need that silliness but we are nevertheless content to tolerate Christians following our humanist morality since it makes them better co-members of our species.

OleJanx

No, I'm a short-barreled 12-bore shotgun kind of guy.

Desert Dubliner

...........and also Socialists, Liberals, Social-Democrats, etc. When you exercise your voting right, you hold yourself as the guardian of behavior of others. When you criticize religious folks (without producing a single evidence as to non-existence of god) you are holding yourself as the guardian of behavior of others.

If you're referring to my entries, than this is a rather autistic view. If you wanted to understand my posts, you'd have come to a conclusion that I most likely don't buy the whole package. I am not 'religious' per se.

Meow

Outdated? As in everyone will agree with you in the future? or as in we all die and that's the end of it? (Hint - the latter is the correct answer.)

We're not talking of a vague theory though when it comes to religion. If it was just a few beliefs I really wouldn't be bothered. What disturbs me is the money and power accrued and largely misused in the same of religion. The deaths, the hurt, the bullying - all in the name of something for which there is no evidence.

I may choose to believe that say, rainbows are magical, but whether right or wrong it is private belief, doesn't demand adherence from others, any monetary contribution, castigation for disagreement, or the plethora of unpleasantness that has been seen from every form of religious dogma over the years. That is why you cannot compare philosophy with religion doctrine.

Meow

As has been pointed out by others, the burden of proof is on you. Not on me, or other atheists.

Atheists do not tell others what to think, how to behave, what to wear, etc, etc etc. Ad infinitum...

Desert Dubliner

They took them from atheists.

Nothing in this world came to life in isolation.

It's like Microsoft. Much stuff was there but they packaged it neatly. Live with it.


Let me remind you that there is such a thing like 'hallmark of times'. Prior to WW1 socialist parties aligned themselves with national governments' desires to go to war. So screw you warmongering socialists, I guess. Which today they are not so how bloody relevant would such a claim be? Liberals were proponents of eugenic theories. Democrats defended slavery. Etc.

Global warming cultists are no different. We live with them, they are costing us money, what can we do.

Desert Dubliner

So let's test this premise. You are out walking with your 5 year old daughter and I decide to parade completely naked in front of you. You will not cover her eyes, judge my behavior and perhaps even call the cops (as this is illegal). Which brings me to my next point - you will support (actively or passively) my new 'Let's Walk Naked' party?

Meow

That's just too silly.

People don't need religion to be considerate of others. As you are helping demonstrate, those without religion are quite often the most considerate in society as they don't seek to force their own views on others.

Miss Anne Thrope

Among others. Like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle for example (who clearly did not believe all the religious nonsense pervasive at their times). Some of them were even - gasp - homosexuals!

redShark

I have a question to those who are on about the Burden of proof: Could some body prove to me the existence of the human mind? I can't see it, smell it, or touch it. Every body is adamant about its power and its existence, so where the hell is it?

Desert Dubliner

Let's say I am not considerate and want to walk completely naked. So what will you do:

a) nothing as you are tolerant and non-judgmental

b) something that implies your non-acceptance of such behavior?

shiva

Well having no religious prudish ideas about nakedness it simply wouldn't be an issue. Sorry but nakedness just isn't. I might point out that the world is full of people who find their own bodies offensive so much so that we don't go naked in public so we don't offend their ridiculous sensibilities. I might also point out that sunburnt privates aren't funny and that this is the real reason we don't go naked in the sun.

If you were deriving sexual pleasure from flashing I might explain that as well

As I say a non issue

Now can you do me a favour and give me a reason, any reason why I should believe in god ?

Desert Dubliner

Ah yes. This is why Plato disapproved of telling stories by Homer and some others that painted gods in bad light.

shiva

Nothing in isolation, global warming cultists!

Wow your scientific illiteracy is stunning. I'd start with quantum physics and black holes and go on from there if I were you

Desert Dubliner

That's beside the point. The point is to define the limit where atheists / liberals / whatever do start telling people how to behave.


I can't give you a reason. I can't give you any belief nor would I try.