A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia is next on the Slippery Slope . . .

[Dr.Drock]

Sorry GT gotta side with Marty here.

I'm a non-believer like you, and I think people would have mostly good morals if no religion existed, however that doesn't mean they'd have the SAME morals. Many people I'm sure make adjustments to their set of morals based on their religion.

 

[G.T.]

Nice dodge, but typical of your ilk. Its more of the "I don't believe in relgion, therefore I must be right" mentaility of certain types of atheists that make people not really able to stand people like you.

I am abivalent on religon at best, but I do not begrudge devout people of thier beliefs. Congrats, the "abscence of proof" is good enough for you. It still does not remove the fact that the worlds religions provide most of the moral compass for our societies, from chrisitanity to buddism.

Does shitting on people beliefs by calling them "fairy tales" make you feel like a smug superior asshat?

If you don't say "my ilk," I won't call you pussy, pussy. But if you diminish my individuality by saying "your ilk" again, I'm going to have to keep calling you pussy, pussy.

I don't give a a flying fuck if you can't stand my opinions. I didn't say "I must be right," but to the contrary, I stated my **opinion** that I DONT KNOW EITHER WAY, and you're the one "arguing it," aka saying "I must be right," yourself, pussy.

Lastly, again, I'll assert it one more time for you: I disagree. The world's moral compass does not come from Religions. It comes from people, and further, people wrote said Religions which offers you further evidence of my contention.

The very fact that the Bible says that all men sin, yet the same Bible wants me to take it on Man's word that Man (The writers) is cpnveying the word of god in said bible, is enough rich irony for me to call it a day, pussy.

No problem, asshat.

There are people who believe like you do, hence "your ilk", there is nothing wrong with me stating that.

Fine, you think religons are created by man. Those religons, however are still used as a moral compass by the majority of the worlds population, regardless of the source, no matter how hard you try to beleive it isnt so.

And on the pussy thing:

You don't know by belief system, I am an individual that you've had all of three minutes of reading with. You don't know "my ilk," so you do not have the authority to proclaim how "my ilk" think, or behave.

Hence, saying "your ilk" is a big-headed, pompass insult. And in circle jerk fashion, I reciprocated that same respect to you, and asserted that you're a pussy. Now, do I know you're a pussy? Hrrm, just about as much as you know how "my ilk" roll, pussy. It's nothing to do with being "tough," it's doing unto other as other has done unto me.

And again, no. The morals inside of the Religious texts began before said Religious texts, and in fact, much of the Religious text is amoral, to today's societal standards. It's especially convenient that said barbaric ideals have been brushed aside out of convenience and cast as "old testament."

Oh gee, how convenient. As human beings become more humane, they can all of a sudden re-interpret ancient books better than they were interpreted closer to their time frame.....to conveniently match more closely a more CURRENT moral compass.

Funny that.

 

[G.T.]

Sorry GT gotta side with Marty here.

I'm a non-believer like you, and I think people would have mostly good morals if no religion existed, however that doesn't mean they'd have the SAME morals. Many people I'm sure make adjustments to their set of morals based on their religion.

And their Religion got those morals from the hand of man, not from God, and so not from the Religion, but from man. Confoozed? It is, confoozing, I have to agree.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sorry GT gotta side with Marty here.

I'm a non-believer like you, and I think people would have mostly good morals if no religion existed, however that doesn't mean they'd have the SAME morals. Many people I'm sure make adjustments to their set of morals based on their religion.

And their Religion got those morals from the hand of man, not from God, and so not from the Religion, but from man. Confoozed? It is, confoozing, I have to agree.

I agree I think religion and gods are man's creation, but that religion does still sometimes have an affect on someone's morals.

 

[G.T.]

Sorry GT gotta side with Marty here.

I'm a non-believer like you, and I think people would have mostly good morals if no religion existed, however that doesn't mean they'd have the SAME morals. Many people I'm sure make adjustments to their set of morals based on their religion.

And their Religion got those morals from the hand of man, not from God, and so not from the Religion, but from man. Confoozed? It is, confoozing, I have to agree.

I agree I think religion and gods are man's creation, but that religion does still sometimes have an affect on someone's morals.

Yea, maybe some people like the morals they happen to agree with organized within a book.

 

[martybegan]

If you don't say "my ilk," I won't call you pussy, pussy. But if you diminish my individuality by saying "your ilk" again, I'm going to have to keep calling you pussy, pussy.

I don't give a a flying fuck if you can't stand my opinions. I didn't say "I must be right," but to the contrary, I stated my **opinion** that I DONT KNOW EITHER WAY, and you're the one "arguing it," aka saying "I must be right," yourself, pussy.

Lastly, again, I'll assert it one more time for you: I disagree. The world's moral compass does not come from Religions. It comes from people, and further, people wrote said Religions which offers you further evidence of my contention.

The very fact that the Bible says that all men sin, yet the same Bible wants me to take it on Man's word that Man (The writers) is cpnveying the word of god in said bible, is enough rich irony for me to call it a day, pussy.

No problem, asshat.

There are people who believe like you do, hence "your ilk", there is nothing wrong with me stating that.

Fine, you think religons are created by man. Those religons, however are still used as a moral compass by the majority of the worlds population, regardless of the source, no matter how hard you try to beleive it isnt so.

And on the pussy thing:

You don't know by belief system, I am an individual that you've had all of three minutes of reading with. You don't know "my ilk," so you do not have the authority to proclaim how "my ilk" think, or behave.

Hence, saying "your ilk" is a big-headed, pompass insult. And in circle jerk fashion, I reciprocated that same respect to you, and asserted that you're a pussy. Now, do I know you're a pussy? Hrrm, just about as much as you know how "my ilk" roll, pussy. It's nothing to do with being "tough," it's doing unto other as other has done unto me.

And again, no. The morals inside of the Religious texts began before said Religious texts, and in fact, much of the Religious text is amoral, to today's societal standards. It's especially convenient that said barbaric ideals have been brushed aside out of convenience as cast as "old testament."

Oh gee, how convenient. As human beings become more humane, they can all of a sudden re-interpret ancient books better than they were interpreted closer to their time frame.....to conveniently match more closely a more CURRENT moral compass.

Funny that.

See, here you actually responded to the point, without going into the typical insults "asshole atheists" use to make themselves feel superior to those who believe in religion.

The basic morality laid down by the religons as the developed may have been thought of before they were either revealed by a deity, or written down by man, but the first Codifiction of human morality was formed in religon.

Going back to the original topic, I do disagree with rawlings that atheism could lead to pedophillia being considered if not moral, at least not immoral. However my contention is that the current trend of moral relativsm, defined by me as the questioning of the basic human morals, regardless of thier source, is allowable and even encouraged could lead to it being considered at least, immoral.

All moral guides, be it religous or secular, say that murder for material gain is immoral. Moral relativists would say it depends on the cultural context, or the view of the majority of the people involved. A non moral relativst would retort that you can make murder for material gain LEGAL, you can never, however make it moral.

Saying "your ilk" is not an insult. My final line about asshattery is far closer to an insult than that. Your use of calling religon a "fairy tale" is what brought both terms out, as I see it from other atheists, and see it as really being a pompous douchnozzle when someone uses it.

 

[G.T.]

No problem, asshat.

There are people who believe like you do, hence "your ilk", there is nothing wrong with me stating that.

Fine, you think religons are created by man. Those religons, however are still used as a moral compass by the majority of the worlds population, regardless of the source, no matter how hard you try to beleive it isnt so.

And on the pussy thing:

You don't know by belief system, I am an individual that you've had all of three minutes of reading with. You don't know "my ilk," so you do not have the authority to proclaim how "my ilk" think, or behave.

Hence, saying "your ilk" is a big-headed, pompass insult. And in circle jerk fashion, I reciprocated that same respect to you, and asserted that you're a pussy. Now, do I know you're a pussy? Hrrm, just about as much as you know how "my ilk" roll, pussy. It's nothing to do with being "tough," it's doing unto other as other has done unto me.

And again, no. The morals inside of the Religious texts began before said Religious texts, and in fact, much of the Religious text is amoral, to today's societal standards. It's especially convenient that said barbaric ideals have been brushed aside out of convenience as cast as "old testament."

Oh gee, how convenient. As human beings become more humane, they can all of a sudden re-interpret ancient books better than they were interpreted closer to their time frame.....to conveniently match more closely a more CURRENT moral compass.

Funny that.

See, here you actually responded to the point, without going into the typical insults "asshole atheists" use to make themselves feel superior to those who believe in religion.

The basic morality laid down by the religons as the developed may have been thought of before they were either revealed by a deity, or written down by man, but the first Codifiction of human morality was formed in religon.
Going back to the original topic, I do disagree with rawlings that atheism could lead to pedophillia being considered if not moral, at least not immoral. However my contention is that the current trend of moral relativsm, defined by me as the questioning of the basic human morals, regardless of thier source, is allowable and even encouraged.

All moral guides, be it religous or secular, say that murder for material gain is immoral. Moral relativists would say it depends on the cultural context, or the view of the majority of the people involved. A non moral relativst would retort that you can make murder for material gain LEGAL, you can never, however make it moral.

Saying "your ilk" is not an insult. My final line about asshattery is far closer to an insult than that. Your use of calling religon a "fairy tale" is what brought both terms out, as I see it from other atheists, and see it as really being a pompous douchnozzle when someone uses it.

The big statement is actually factually incorrect. Morals were codified for tribes long before organized Religions we ever written. That's a hard fact, not a soft one.

B: I'm not an atheist, so ascribing what's typical of atheists to ME is epic fail sauce.

C: Calling Religions fairy tales is not an insult, it's the opinion of one who doesn't believe in their Authenticity in what they say. That's called a "difference of opinion," not an insult. The fact that I don't believe in Religion makes it a TEXTBOOK FAIRY TALE, to anyone who shares that opinion. It's not an insult, it's a VIEW.

 

[G.T.]

And back to that "your ilk" gayness.

Assuming you KNOW MY ILK, is where the insult lies. Your ASSUMPTION that you know, is insulting. You don't know much at all about ME, let alone proclaiming to know "my ilk."

It's not that hard.

 

[martybegan]

You don't know by belief system, I am an individual that you've had all of three minutes of reading with. You don't know "my ilk," so you do not have the authority to proclaim how "my ilk" think, or behave.

Hence, saying "your ilk" is a big-headed, pompass insult. And in circle jerk fashion, I reciprocated that same respect to you, and asserted that you're a pussy. Now, do I know you're a pussy? Hrrm, just about as much as you know how "my ilk" roll, pussy. It's nothing to do with being "tough," it's doing unto other as other has done unto me.

And again, no. The morals inside of the Religious texts began before said Religious texts, and in fact, much of the Religious text is amoral, to today's societal standards. It's especially convenient that said barbaric ideals have been brushed aside out of convenience as cast as "old testament."

Oh gee, how convenient. As human beings become more humane, they can all of a sudden re-interpret ancient books better than they were interpreted closer to their time frame.....to conveniently match more closely a more CURRENT moral compass.

Funny that.

See, here you actually responded to the point, without going into the typical insults "asshole atheists" use to make themselves feel superior to those who believe in religion.

The basic morality laid down by the religons as the developed may have been thought of before they were either revealed by a deity, or written down by man, but the first Codifiction of human morality was formed in religon.
Going back to the original topic, I do disagree with rawlings that atheism could lead to pedophillia being considered if not moral, at least not immoral. However my contention is that the current trend of moral relativsm, defined by me as the questioning of the basic human morals, regardless of thier source, is allowable and even encouraged.

All moral guides, be it religous or secular, say that murder for material gain is immoral. Moral relativists would say it depends on the cultural context, or the view of the majority of the people involved. A non moral relativst would retort that you can make murder for material gain LEGAL, you can never, however make it moral.

Saying "your ilk" is not an insult. My final line about asshattery is far closer to an insult than that. Your use of calling religon a "fairy tale" is what brought both terms out, as I see it from other atheists, and see it as really being a pompous douchnozzle when someone uses it.

The big statement is actually factually incorrect. Morals were codified for tribes long before organized Religions we ever written. That's a hard fact, not a soft one.

B: I'm not an atheist, so ascribing what's typical of atheists to ME is epic fail sauce.

C: Calling Religions fairy tales is not an insult, it's the opinion of one who doesn't believe in their Authenticity in what they say. That's called a "difference of opinion," not an insult. The fact that I don't believe in Religion makes it a TEXTBOOK FAIRY TALE, to anyone who shares that opinion. It's not an insult, it's a VIEW.

Guess what? Its an insult no matter how you try to sugar coat it. Calling someones belief structure a fairy tale is not something one does to get on thier good side.

And when those primative tribes codifed those morals, most of them probably subscribed them to thier religon, or whatever belief structure they had at the time.

 

[martybegan]

And back to that "your ilk" gayness.

Assuming you KNOW MY ILK, is where the insult lies. Your ASSUMPTION that you know, is insulting. You don't know much at all about ME, let alone proclaiming to know "my ilk."

It's not that hard.

Calling religon "fairy tales" puts you in the group of asshole atheists, regardless of what group you think you are in.

 

[G.T.]

See, here you actually responded to the point, without going into the typical insults "asshole atheists" use to make themselves feel superior to those who believe in religion.

The basic morality laid down by the religons as the developed may have been thought of before they were either revealed by a deity, or written down by man, but the first Codifiction of human morality was formed in religon.
Going back to the original topic, I do disagree with rawlings that atheism could lead to pedophillia being considered if not moral, at least not immoral. However my contention is that the current trend of moral relativsm, defined by me as the questioning of the basic human morals, regardless of thier source, is allowable and even encouraged.

All moral guides, be it religous or secular, say that murder for material gain is immoral. Moral relativists would say it depends on the cultural context, or the view of the majority of the people involved. A non moral relativst would retort that you can make murder for material gain LEGAL, you can never, however make it moral.

Saying "your ilk" is not an insult. My final line about asshattery is far closer to an insult than that. Your use of calling religon a "fairy tale" is what brought both terms out, as I see it from other atheists, and see it as really being a pompous douchnozzle when someone uses it.

The big statement is actually factually incorrect. Morals were codified for tribes long before organized Religions we ever written. That's a hard fact, not a soft one.

B: I'm not an atheist, so ascribing what's typical of atheists to ME is epic fail sauce.

C: Calling Religions fairy tales is not an insult, it's the opinion of one who doesn't believe in their Authenticity in what they say. That's called a "difference of opinion," not an insult. The fact that I don't believe in Religion makes it a TEXTBOOK FAIRY TALE, to anyone who shares that opinion. It's not an insult, it's a VIEW.

Guess what? Its an insult no matter how you try to sugar coat it. Calling someones belief structure a fairy tale is not something one does to get on thier good side.

And when those primative tribes codifed those morals, most of them probably subscribed them to thier religon, or whatever belief structure they had at the time.

And guess what? Unless you believe in all of their Religions, you are submitting to the fact that each and every moral inside of their Religious teachings came from good ole' man kind.

When you don't believe that a Religious text is true, it's a fairy tale. If that's an insult, get a tissue?

 

[G.T.]

And back to that "your ilk" gayness.

Assuming you KNOW MY ILK, is where the insult lies. Your ASSUMPTION that you know, is insulting. You don't know much at all about ME, let alone proclaiming to know "my ilk."

It's not that hard.

Calling religon "fairy tales" puts you in the group of asshole atheists, regardless of what group you think you are in.

And ASSuming to know whether or not I'm an atheist puts you in the WRONG@ life, "ilk."

 

[martybegan]

And back to that "your ilk" gayness.

Assuming you KNOW MY ILK, is where the insult lies. Your ASSUMPTION that you know, is insulting. You don't know much at all about ME, let alone proclaiming to know "my ilk."

It's not that hard.

Calling religon "fairy tales" puts you in the group of asshole atheists, regardless of what group you think you are in.

And ASSuming to know whether or not I'm an atheist puts you in the WRONG@ life, "ilk."

I can only base my opinion on what you post, and by using the term "fairy tale" for religious texts, I can only assume you are one of the many ashole atheists we have posting on this board.

Assumtions are the norm here, because we can only base our opinions on what people post.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Morals don't come from Religion.

Whose says they do? The author of this piece claims they come from God.

But if morality comes from neither, what is morality and where does it come from?

 

[martybegan]

The big statement is actually factually incorrect. Morals were codified for tribes long before organized Religions we ever written. That's a hard fact, not a soft one.

B: I'm not an atheist, so ascribing what's typical of atheists to ME is epic fail sauce.

C: Calling Religions fairy tales is not an insult, it's the opinion of one who doesn't believe in their Authenticity in what they say. That's called a "difference of opinion," not an insult. The fact that I don't believe in Religion makes it a TEXTBOOK FAIRY TALE, to anyone who shares that opinion. It's not an insult, it's a VIEW.

Guess what? Its an insult no matter how you try to sugar coat it. Calling someones belief structure a fairy tale is not something one does to get on thier good side.

And when those primative tribes codifed those morals, most of them probably subscribed them to thier religon, or whatever belief structure they had at the time.

And guess what? Unless you believe in all of their Religions, you are submitting to the fact that each and every moral inside of their Religious teachings came from good ole' man kind.

When you don't believe that a Religious text is true, it's a fairy tale. If that's an insult, get a tissue?

Nope, considering most of the religions agree on basic morality, with very few exceptions, almost like each was an INTERPRETATION by humanity of something revealed to them by, I don't know, maybe some type of higher power?

You could also call it a story, and not be so insulting, resorting to the term "fairy tale" implies either animosity, or overall smug douchebaggery on your part.

 

[G.T.]

Guess what? Its an insult no matter how you try to sugar coat it. Calling someones belief structure a fairy tale is not something one does to get on thier good side.

And when those primative tribes codifed those morals, most of them probably subscribed them to thier religon, or whatever belief structure they had at the time.

And guess what? Unless you believe in all of their Religions, you are submitting to the fact that each and every moral inside of their Religious teachings came from good ole' man kind.

When you don't believe that a Religious text is true, it's a fairy tale. If that's an insult, get a tissue?

Nope, considering most of the religions agree on basic morality, with very few exceptions, almost like each was an INTERPRETATION by humanity of something revealed to them by, I don't know, maybe some type of higher power?

You could also call it a story, and not be so insulting, resorting to the term "fairy tale" implies either animosity, or overall smug douchebaggery on your part.

That's your sensitivity training showing. I'm not going to apologize for your choice to be offended.

 

[G.T.]

Morals don't come from Religion.

Whose says they do? The author of this piece claims they come from God.

But if morality comes from neither, what is morality and where does it come from?

It can come from neither, *and* have an unknown origin, *and* still be relatively universal. Life doesn't have to be so simplistic as to require explanation for every little detail, "or else: God," but for sure we should continue to seek answers and understanding.

But my opinion?

Evolution is where morals come from. A mother is given the basic instinct to protect her child because Reproduction is a necessary means for species survival, and that basic instinct has evolved as man's intelligence has evolved to realize that each child is safer and has a better chance of survival if we're all, for the most part, non-violent towards one another.

Inside of non violence is a whole slew of other branched-off morals, because most "amoral" acts lead to some form of violence.

 

[martybegan]

And guess what? Unless you believe in all of their Religions, you are submitting to the fact that each and every moral inside of their Religious teachings came from good ole' man kind.

When you don't believe that a Religious text is true, it's a fairy tale. If that's an insult, get a tissue?

Nope, considering most of the religions agree on basic morality, with very few exceptions, almost like each was an INTERPRETATION by humanity of something revealed to them by, I don't know, maybe some type of higher power?

You could also call it a story, and not be so insulting, resorting to the term "fairy tale" implies either animosity, or overall smug douchebaggery on your part.

That's your sensitivity training showing. I'm not going to apologize for your choice to be offended.

You dont have to. It still doesnt change the fact that calling religous texts "fairy tales" is being an asshole.

 

[G.T.]

Nope, considering most of the religions agree on basic morality, with very few exceptions, almost like each was an INTERPRETATION by humanity of something revealed to them by, I don't know, maybe some type of higher power?

You could also call it a story, and not be so insulting, resorting to the term "fairy tale" implies either animosity, or overall smug douchebaggery on your part.

That's your sensitivity training showing. I'm not going to apologize for your choice to be offended.

You dont have to. It still doesnt change the fact that calling religous texts "fairy tales" is being an asshole.

In your opinion.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Morals don't come from Religion.

Whose says they do? The author of this piece claims they come from God.

But if morality comes from neither, what is morality and where does it come from?

It can come from neither, *and* have an unknown origin, *and* still be relatively universal. Life doesn't have to be so simplistic as to require explanation for every little detail, "or else: God," but for sure we should continue to seek answers and understanding.

But my opinion?

Evolution is where morals come from. A mother is given the basic instinct to protect her child because Reproduction is a necessary means for species survival, and that basic instinct has evolved as man's intelligence has evolved to realize that each child is safer and has a better chance of survival if we're all, for the most part, non-violent towards one another.

Inside of non violence is a whole slew of other branched-off morals, because most "amoral" acts lead to some form of violence.

What are amoral acts and why is violence evil or wrong? Or is it? In other words, I look at human history and see that a great deal of good has come from violence.