Gawen

How about we calm down and not so personal?

Riverwind

No problem. {{Edited}}

JamesBannon

The Abrahamic religions are bigoted by definition.

Ephemerid

Riverwind, enquiring minds want to know...

Cheerful Charlie

{{Edited}}

Anybody who can tell me that as an atheist I can have no basis for morals and rejecting genocide of 500,000 children is not somebody I consider likable. A religion that will allow the poiliticians it elects to do that is not a religion I can like either.

A lot of Christians sneer at the Quran's verses commanding Moslems to attack the infidels and kill them, but have no problem with doing worse than Islam can possible do to us.

They rant about Hitler and then follow in his footsteps.

They rave about Stalin's murders, but learn nothing from considering Stalin's murders when it comes to our leaders doing just as bad.

How can I like somebody who argues I have no right as an atheist to claim to be moral about such atrocities and our callous attitude in this nation since the GOP was handed control of the US by religious voters responding to the GOP's skillful playing of religious cards in elections?

CC

Cheerful Charlie

You haven't even got near rmy arguments.



You are the diversionary argument spewer here. Most people here are net vets and recognize what you did very easily, its is typical people like you.
Do you think repeating dishonest arguments fools anybody?

Halt. This is a personal attack on me.
You have no right to claim that.

I am calling for an apology



Strawman. My point has been, mass murder, genocide, went on 10 years and the religious far right never complained and the mainline denominations with 100 + million members did not arise and end it. My point? American Christainity has been a rank and obvious moral failure. And that is true. Many Christians tell us atheists we cannot really be moral as we do not believe in God.

You have repeaedly claimed atheists have no claims to have morals. You are a bigot as are many Christians, all we have to do is go back and read your posts to see that.

The point is, Christians who have long been vocal in claiming atheists are evil or cannot have morals or cannot possibly be considered patriots or good citizens lose the right to fail faced with evil such as a genocide of 500,000 children tolerated by the politicians the Christian right pushed into office starting over two decades to attack atheists over issues of not being moral.

Your good Christian boys Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich took over Congress and did not halt these evils. It was your boy Bush who started it. No atheists here! Reagan, supporter of mass murder, evil genocidal thugs and bastards had a compliant GOP Senate supporting him in these evil acts, many placed in office thanks to the religious far right in 1980.

You lose the right to attack Atheists as having no basis for morals when it is YOUR side that has tolerated genocide when it was your god Christians that handed the government to these evil men.

Christianity in America has been an immense failure overall with only a few exceptions. No matter how you rhetorically twist or writhe, this cannot be denied by anybody with reason.
and this is the point.

This is no longer tolerable. Christianity lacks morality, judgment and cannot be trusted to set national priorties and policies.

CC

Riverwind

Disappointing that you are so quick to judge on such little data, but I perceive that to be about how you make decisions.

I notice you changed your tune here. You're right. I do not believe that atheists/agnostics have any basis other than personal preference for their morals. It is not enough to say, simplistically, "I have morals" or "My morals are innate". I don't believe that, so I will ask you again to write up a book of morals and explain to me the rational reasons behind them, allowing me to analyze and critique each of them.

Drop the hare-brained idiocy... First, I wouldn't ever condone the genocide of anyone, especially children. I have no idea where you get the figure of 500,000 Iraqi children. Second, I haven't said that's not a horrible thing. Third, you don't even acknowledge that no one who went to war did so to intentionally commit the genocide of 500,000 Iraqi children. Finally, you have not admitted that you care one iota for Iraqi (much less Afghani) children, so you have nothing to complain about.

This book you talk about writing about the Iraq war and the evils of religion... Will you answer whether you plain to give all the proceeds (or even a significant portion of them) to Afghani or Iraqi orphans or families in need? Otherwise, you know, you leave the distinct impression that you are simply captializing off the death of those 500,000 dead Iraqi children and your hatred of religion.

So, answer please....Will you put your money where your mouth is and give the proceeds to help Iraqi and Afghani orphans and families in need, or are you just a no-good hypocrite? (I'm going to keep drilling this one...so, I hope you answer well...)

Ok. You just contradicted what I thought you seemed to understand above. You can claim to be moral all you like. You just have no grounds for saying that your morality is any better than that of Christians...well, except for personal preference. "I like blue...so should you...otherwise there's something wrong with you..." 'Morality' means nothing.

Riverwind

Simple questions Charlie, that tell everyone here just how much of a hero or hypocrite you are:

Have you done anything at all (other than spew hateful invectives against the religious and republicans) to help the children and adults of Afghanistan and Iraq?

(You're assuming an indifference on my part to a genocide in Iraq, so I want to ask you how you've overcome that indifference in action.)

After you call me evil and say you don't like me?

Ok, fine, I can be the bigger guy. I apologize because I made assumptions about you like those you've made about me. That was stooping to your level, and I apologize for it. (Again, please realize I'm not mad, not even irritated or hot under the collar...just statin' things very directly as I see them with a bit of sarcasm thrown in for good measure. Don't take offense at mere words. Actions are what make the difference.)

Hmm...perhaps you didn't do all that you could do if you believed it was something horrible. Did you spend money to fly over to Iraq and sit in their buildings so the US wouldn't bomb them? Just curious what your actions were, or if you just have a pet peeve against religion.

American Christians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to help the people there. What have you done lately?

Yes. Let them go back and see who said "I don't like you." Let them go back and see who wants me to accept that Christianity as a whole is somehow responsible for genocide, as if they ordered it...that, my child, is bigotry and hatred.

I don't hate or even dislike atheists/agnostics. I have quite a few of them as friends. I very much dislike the tendencies of militant atheists and 'fundamentalist' Christians (by that, I mean those who condemn but don't seem to seek to better themselves). Their tactics are identical, hate-filled, and hypocritical.

They're not 'my boys'. I never liked either of them, and I didn't and wouldn't have elected 'em (unless they were the lesser evil of the only two choices available).

Bush ain't my boy and never has been. He's not who I wanted to see as president, but I'll admit that I wanted to see flap-in-the-breeze-of-opinion-polls Al even less.

I will always challenge those who initiate a discussion in which they condemn my Christian morals in hateful tone, using the generalizing language of homicidal dictators to demonize Christians.

Here's another word I love to pick on. What is 'tolerance'? There is no such thing. Christians are constantly reprimanded and told to be tolerant of others, but who is tolerant of our beliefs and practices?

I would say that many top politicians, in general, lack a good moral compass. I would likely stick Sen. Kennedy right at the top of that list in many instances.

It has nothing to do with Christianity as much as you "twist and writhe" in your failed rhetoric.

Sauron

Ah. But there are no people here like that.

Some people merely construct strawman. You've constructed a straw dancing partner. Enjoy yourself, do-see-do.

The reason your example fails is because you deliberately leave things out - like the fact that christians claim a universal morality exists, then fail to follow it.

Skeptics don't make the kinds of grandiose claims about universal morality, therefore they cannot be caught on that hook.

Ergo, your example is non-tangent on the key point. Color me surprised.

Sauron

Sure there is.
Christians are unfamiliar with it, but it exists nonetheless.

Maybe because those "christian beliefs and practices" you refer to include attempts at conversion, whether it is welcome or not? And those "christian beliefs and practices" include asking others to change their beliefs and practices? Asking someone to change their beliefs and practices to match your own is *not* being respectful or tolerant. It's the exact opposite.

The christian point of view, summarized as "You're wrong, change and become like me" is not a belief system that deserves to be respected, since it seeks to destroy all other belief systems except its own.

Your question is rather juvenile anyhow. Last time I checked, christians were the majority in the country. And of course, there are the attempts to commandeer the public coffer to pay for it all.

1. The poster said nothing about politicians.

2. The point is that even without politicians involved, and just looking at the biblical examples themselves, christian moral principles offer a substandard yardstick by which to govern a society.

3. Bush lied, took the country to war, and then lied again to cover the mistakes. In spite of that, it's kinda funny that your first thought was about Kennedy. Must be that christian point of view we're all supposed to respect, huh?

Uh, sorry. It has everything to do with christianity, as it is christians who are pushing this stuff.