Why don't atheists reject values derived from religion?

[Dywyddyr]

Change the record, dywydyr, you sound like a religious fundie.

Still misreading I see.
And still providing nothing but opinion.

 

[Kellisness]

Yeah, people just giving their opinion, without anyone preaching at anyone else. You should try it some time, mr preacher man.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yeah, people just giving their opinion, without anyone preaching at anyone else. You should try it some time, mr preacher man.

An unsupported opinion is next to worthless in a discussion.
And you clearly have no idea what preaching is if you think I'm doing it.
But then again, you've shown that you're not too bothered about reality.

 

[Kellisness]

Stop preaching, preacher man.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Stop preaching, preacher man.

And how are you finding wilful ignorance as way of life?
Is it satisfying?

 

[gmilam]

Yeah, people just giving their opinion, without anyone preaching at anyone else.

That's good, as I can live without the preaching.

However, a little evidence to support an opinion is always useful. Especially if you want anyone to take your opinion seriously.

 

[Saquist]

Really?
Point out where I have fallen into this.

WHY? You can't SEE It. I already pointed out your stupidity because you accepted an unacceptable answer to your question which has too strongly implied just how irrelevant your intentions were and are and likely always will be.

You're making (false) assumptions again. I wanted links to support your claim. Not that hard to understand.

If it was false then logically your post would have been more concise. (Hail to the one word answers)
It takes you 5 post and 26 sentences to say what's apparently "not hard to understand". Which is clearly an implicit statement considering these facts.
I propose (due to your error) that you never intended to ask for links as a source. For one you didn't ask for links, secondly you didn't provide any links when asked for sources also which nullifies any evident demonstration of your intentions.

I propose that the initial reply was facetious.
I propose that you are currently lying in order to cloak your stupidity of your initial statements.

I knew exactly what I was asking for. Possibly the problem lies in your seeming lack of comprehension. Not only do you fail to provide links but you assume I have some ulterior motive.

I'm sure you think you knew what you were asking for.
I'm sure you would like to give me the impression that you knew what you were asking for. (thus your confidence statements to that effect)
And I'm sure you think the failure of comprehension lies with me.
However the facts show a schism between your behavior and your actions.
If your intentions and "motives" were above reproach and objective then logically your actions would be sustained by the standards you say you had at the outset but you did not follow through with those standards. As such the words "ulterior motive" and "hypocrite" would logically apply to you.

You really shouldn't use words when you're not aware of their meaning. (Or use).
It was an explicit statement.
And there's no such word as "explicity" - try "explicitness".

It was an implicit statement. There was no hypocrisy on my part. You made a confidence statement and did not properly back up your implicit statements with anything tangible such as a direct correlation and contradiction proving your statements. Thus is remains as it started...implicitly bold statements of confidence.

In fact thus far all of your statements have been strictly implicit.
I appreciate your attempt to play mentor and teach but there is certain things you are ignorant of or not privy to such as certain quotes from authors that like to use phrases like "implicitly rather than explicitly", or "implicit yet lacking in explicity" or "conversate" or "inforbidity". Are they actual words, no. But they occur in literature and in some of my favorite readings so sorry if it irritates you but regardless of your supercilious angst I'll be using them just the same. I'm sure you'll find a way to get over it if not over yourself.

 

[Dywyddyr]

WHY? You can't SEE It. I already pointed out your stupidity because you accepted an unacceptable answer to your question which has too strongly implied just how irrelevant your intentions were and are and likely always will be.

I see. You ASSUMED my motives and decided that somehow I really did mean what you thought I meant. I failed because you, once again, didn't read the question AS GIVEN, and went with your assumption. And you call me stupid...

If it was false then logically your post would have been more concise.

Utter bullshit.

I propose (due to your error) that you never intended to ask for links as a source.

Then you are mistaken. Again. When I post "Source?" it means I'd like a source.

For one you didn't ask for links

Ah, so to your mind the word "source" doesn't include the possibility of links? It didn't occur to you that I gave consideration to the off-chance that your source may have been a book?

secondly you didn't provide any links when asked for sources also which nullifies any evident demonstration of your intentions.

Again - balls. I didn't provide links for the simple reason that you appeared to assume that YOU weren't required to back up your opinion. If that were so then why should I? As explained previously.

I propose that the initial reply was facetious.
I propose that you are currently lying in order to cloak your stupidity of your initial statements.

Not only are you wrong, you have now accused me of lying.
Evidence please. Or issue a retraction and an apology.

I'm sure you think you knew what you were asking for.

On the contrary I DID know exactly what I was asking. I made the mistake of assuming you would read what I wrote and not assign false motives to me.

However the facts show a schism between your behavior and your actions.
If your intentions and "motives" were above reproach and objective then logically your actions would be sustained by the standards you say you had at the outset but you did not follow through with those standards. As such the words "ulterior motive" and "hypocrite" would logically apply to you.

Nonsense. If you weren't so defensive (somewhat unsure of yourself maybe? Feeling inadequate?) then you wouldn't assign motives to me.

It was an implicit statement.

Correction. Explicit.

There was no hypocrisy on my part.

Also wrong. You gave an opinion with no support. When I did the same you pulled me up on it. Why is your opinion not required to be supported while mine is?

In fact thus far all of your statements have been strictly implicit.

I suggest you buy a new dictionary.
My statement:

Stupidity? I was merely highlighting your hypocrisy.

Implicit:

implicit in - in the nature of something though not readily apparent

Explicit:

a. Fully and clearly expressed;

Now re-read the statement. "I was highlighting your hypocrisy". Which part of that is not clear?

I appreciate your attempt to play mentor and teach

And once more you assume you know my motives.

certain quotes from authors that like to use phrases like "implicitly rather than explicitly", or "implicit yet lacking in explicity" or "conversate" or "inforbidity".

And you assumed that everyone is familiar with these authors? (Which authors, by the way? Or are you just bullshitting again?)

 

[Saquist]

I see. You ASSUMED my motives and decided that somehow I really did mean what you thought I meant. I failed because you, once again, didn't read the question AS GIVEN, and went with your assumption. And you call me stupid...

nothing but blustering....
The facts stand unmolested by this series of evasive maneuvers.

Utter bullshit.

From confident statements to confident phrases.
That's very predictable regression.
That's too bad for you.

Then you are mistaken. Again. When I post "Source?" it means I'd like a source.

It's too bad your agenda didn't realize you weren't getting a source.
I doubt you really knew what you meant at the time.

Ah, so to your mind the word "source" doesn't include the possibility of links?

Whatever the interpretation you feel will exonerate your stupidity.
The facts stand that you did not ask for links.
The facts stand that you were satisfied with no links.
The facts stand that you did not give any links.
Your behavior was entirely predictable from beginning to end. Completely disingenuous of the meaning of what you said you wanted.

It didn't occur to you that I gave consideration to the off-chance that your source may have been a book?

What ever "consideration" you might have had is strictly in question as the line of behavior doesn't validate such an excuse. You clearly behaved as though you got what you asked for. Then when asked to supply a source you gave a comparable answer in generality. You weren't requiring links, or book reference because you didn't give any yourself. That's a pretty clear standard that you couldn't meet yourself. I did not set the higher standard for this discussion. You're the one that brought up links. You're the one that brought up sources. You set the standard and couldn't or didn't ever intend to actual use that standard.

I didn't provide links for the simple reason that you appeared to assume that YOU weren't required to back up your opinion. If that were so then why should I? As explained previously.

You didn't ask for links.
You didn't provide links because you didn't want to provide them. I have nothing to do with your slack standards.
You either didn't know what a real source was or were indulging in stupidity in a faux serious fashion.

Not only are you wrong, you have now accused me of lying.
Evidence please. Or issue a retraction and an apology.

There will be no retraction.
There will be no apology.

Evidence:
You asked for a source. When given no source and asked for a source of your own you didn't get one. As you like to say: AGAIN your actions are in-congruent. If I believe you are lying I don't have to retract anything as long as your contradictions stands. And it does.

On the contrary I DID know exactly what I was asking. I made the mistake of assuming you would read what I wrote and not assign false motives to me.

I'm sorry, I don't believe you. I believe your facade is more important to you than being truthful. I believe you came in to simply start and argument. You weren't looking for any sources you were looking to be obstinate. I'm as good a target as any so you proceeded as your track record shows you do time after time with not honesty but instead you approach with blustering stupidity which you thought I would blithely oblige.

Nonsense. If you weren't so defensive (somewhat unsure of yourself maybe? Feeling inadequate?) then you wouldn't assign motives to me.

I don't care.

Correction. Explicit.

Factually Implicit. No evidence for the term explicit.

Also wrong. You gave an opinion with no support. When I did the same you pulled me up on it. Why is your opinion not required to be supported while mine is?

You assumed it was an opinion.
You assume I believe I don't have to support my statement. Which I never said.
You are the instigator of the need for sources thus you should at least give them if you're going to ask for them out of the casual exchange.

I suggest you buy a new dictionary.
My statement:... Now re-read the statement. "I was highlighting your hypocrisy". Which part of that is not clear?

More Stupidity.

Implicit:
Implied indirectly, without being directly expressed; Contained in the essential nature of something but not openly shown; Having no reservations or doubts; unquestioning or unconditional; usually said of faith or trust; entangled, twisted together.

Explicit:
readily observable; leaving nothing to implication;


In other words the hypocrisy you accused of is merely by your word only.
The use of implicit and explicit vs each other is equal to in-evident and evident. Thus implicit would be confidence statements such as those you're inclined to make with out evidence.

And once more you assume you know my motives.

I extrapolate your motives from your actions and your behavior. It's the only thing I've observed that you give freely and are thus more honest than the questionable utterances issuing forth from your keyboard. You can call them what ever you like. I really don't care.

And you assumed that everyone is familiar with these authors? (Which authors, by the way? Or are you just bullshitting again?)

You assume I made an assumption when I have not.
You assume I have an inclination to assist your stupidity. I do not.
You also assume I care about how you classify your fallacies. I do not.

 

[Dywyddyr]

nothing but blustering....
The facts stand unmolested by this series of evasive maneuvers.

You have presented no facts.

It's too bad your agenda didn't realize you weren't getting a source.

And you're still assuming I have an agenda.

I doubt you really knew what you meant at the time.

You doubt it because...? Because it is true of you and can't understand how anyone else could actually know what they're writing?

The facts stand that you did not ask for links.

Lie.

The facts stand that you were satisfied with no links.

Also a lie.

The facts stand that you did not give any links.

Correct. For the reason stated.

Completely disingenuous of the meaning of what you said you wanted.

And another assumption.

You clearly behaved as though you got what you asked for.

Lie.

Then when asked to supply a source you gave a comparable answer in generality. You weren't requiring links, or book reference because you didn't give any yourself. That's a pretty clear standard that you couldn't meet yourself.

Keep trying. My lack of sources came after yours. For the reason given.

You didn't ask for links.

Lie.

You didn't provide links because you didn't want to provide them.

Lie.

You either didn't know what a real source was or were indulging in stupidity in a faux serious fashion.

Lie.

There will be no retraction.
There will be no apology.

Reported.

Evidence:
You asked for a source. When given no source and asked for a source of your own you didn't get one.

Correct.
Which highlighted your hypocrisy.

As you like to say: AGAIN your actions are in-congruent. If I believe you are lying I don't have to retract anything as long as your contradictions stands.

Also false. You're free to believe what you like. But stating it in public is another matter.

I'm sorry, I don't believe you. I believe your facade is more important to you than being truthful. I believe you came in to simply start and argument.

And again you're making assumptions. Facade?

I'm as good a target as any so you proceeded as your track record shows you do time after time with not honesty but instead you approach with blustering stupidity which you thought I would blithely oblige.

Please show this "track record".

Factually Implicit. No evidence for the term explicit.

You really should learn English.

You assume I believe I don't have to support my statement.

Evidently you believe that since you failed to do so upon request.

You are the instigator of the need for sources

Wrong. The forum rules require them.

In other words the hypocrisy you accused of is merely by your word only.

Your hypocrisy was evident. Therefore the statement was explicit.

I extrapolate your motives from your actions and your behavior.

And fail every time.

You assume I made an assumption when I have not.

Correction. You used a word that is not generally known. Either you assumed that it IS generally known or you were aiming for obscurity or the impression of not knowing the correct word.

 

[Saquist]

You have presented no facts.

How you interpret the evidence is not my problem.

And you're still assuming I have an agenda.

Indeed.

You doubt it because...?

Because it is true of you and can't understand how anyone else could actually know what they're writing?

Because your expectations were not applied to yourself.

Lie.

Denial

Also a lie.

Denial

Correct. For the reason stated.

Which reasons I doubt due to lack of adhering to your own standards.

And another assumption.

The dishonesty is is spoken by your actions.
If you don't like it you should change the actions rather than your words.

Lie.

Denial

Keep trying. My lack of sources came after yours. For the reason given.

Your standards your lack of meeting them.
There is no endeavor here only detailed facts.

Lie.

Denial

Lie.

Denial

Lie.

Denial

Reported.

Irrelevant.

Correct.

Of course it is.

Which highlighted your hypocrisy.

That implies that I had a agreement to a standard which I did not.

Also false. You're free to believe what you like. But stating it in public is another matter.

Contradicting yourself in public is also another matter you should address.
If such a standard exist then I have noted the moderators make such statements of belief of peoples character and veracity quite openly in public.

And again you're making assumptions. Facade?

Yes, facade, mask, a pretense at serious discussion when you had no such intentions.

Please show this "track record".

It is your behavior and you should be well familiar with it. How far shall we indulge this? That I should take such efforts... would you apply the information in an objective intellectual fashion. The Track Record shows you can't and you won't. So we race around in yet another bout of stupidity at your courtesy? I don't think so.

You really should learn English.

You really need to find better things to do with the time you say you're wasting.

Evidently you believe that since you failed to do so upon request.

Not evidently, apparently.

Wrong. The forum rules require them.

No you are the instigator for the needs for sources. I've already been told that such requirements are thread or topic specific.

Your hypocrisy was evident. Therefore the statement was explicit.

Negative. I did not agree that a source was necessary you did. The hypocrisy is your own.

And fail every time.

I don't believe you.

Correction. You used a word that is not generally known. Either you assumed that it IS generally known or you were aiming for obscurity or the impression of not knowing the correct word.

You contradict by means of "correction" and then proceed to give 2 possibilities over assumption after I said I didn't assume anything. That's not a correction. That's stupidity. You're adding to your own track record.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Because your expectations were not applied to yourself.

Wrong. As explained.

Contradicting yourself in public is also another matter you should address.
If such a standard exist then I have noted the moderators make such statements of belief of peoples character and veracity quite openly in public.

IF such a standard should exist? You are aware that believing someone to be a liar is quite different from expressing that belief, are you not? That's why we have laws on slander and libel.

Yes, facade, mask, a pretense at serious discussion when you had no such intentions.

Ah, your ridiculous assumptions again. You persist in the false assumption that your assessment is incontrovertibly correct. despite having been informed on numerous occasions that it is not the case.

The Track Record shows you can't and you won't.

The "track record" exists only in your mind.

No you are the instigator for the needs for sources. I've already been told that such requirements are thread or topic specific.

How can I be the instigator if you were already aware of (and ignored) that requirement?

Negative. I did not agree that a source was necessary you did. The hypocrisy is your own.

You asked for a source from me because YOU wouldn't accept my word. Yet you expected me to accept yours... Hypocrisy.

You contradict by means of "correction" and then proceed to give 2 possibilities over assumption after I said I didn't assume anything. That's not a correction. That's stupidity. You're adding to your own track record.

Also wrong.
You admitted it wasn't an "actual word". Therefore your use of it was either an assumption that readers were as aware of it as you are or you were being less than clear deliberately. It's quite simple.

You are dishonest and dishonourable.

 

[Saquist]

Wrong. As explained.

Factually true. The explanation was inadequate.

IF such a standard should exist? You are aware that believing someone to be a liar is quite different from expressing that belief, are you not? That's why we have laws on slander and libel.

This is not legal forum.
Much of the behavior displayed here on this forum would be in contempt of court. As such your repetitive statements of "lie" would be equally condemnable but it didn't prevent you from expressing it out loud. More hypocrisy.

Ah, your ridiculous assumptions again. You persist in the false assumption that your assessment is incontrovertibly correct. despite having been informed on numerous occasions that it is not the case.

False
I never said my assessment was incontrovertibly correct. You have a problem with perception through expression. And I still don't believe you no matter how confident you are of your intentions. You have to prove it too me.

The "track record" exists only in your mind.

Indeed.
That's is how it was meant. A series of mental notes of your aberrant behavior toward the irrelevant.

How can I be the instigator if you were already aware of (and ignored) that requirement?

You are the instigator because you made the initial request for sources.

You asked for a source from me because YOU wouldn't accept my word. Yet you expected me to accept yours... Hypocrisy.

LOL.
You still don't get it. You care about what I think but I don't care about what you think at all. (for good reason it seems) ...Remember? I asked for a source from you ....."BECAUSE" I knew you wouldn't give it even though you said you wanted them. I made a prediction, proceeded to test that prediction and resulted with a firm confirmation. Now if I was right about that, what else will I also be proven correct to? I knew after our PM that you would display the same lack of self control and same pattern of combative obstinate dishonesty. Throwing threads severely off topic. And despite what you said...I knew you would invariably bring it to me of all people who you know doesn't care at all about what you say. You proved me right thee as well. Simple behavioral study...fascinating.

Also wrong.

If only...

You admitted it wasn't an "actual word". Therefore your use of it was either an assumption that readers were as aware of it as you are or you were being less than clear deliberately. It's quite simple.

You are dishonest and dishonourable.

This is still indulging in rank stupidity.
Observe:
I said: it's not an assumption.
You said and repeated : It's either anassumption or "less than clear deliberately"

This IS SIMPLE. So your statement...minus "assumption" equals the remainder. "less than clear deliberately". WOW, you're a regular Sherlock Holmes and somehow you think you're justified with the stupid confident word of "Correction" . You're just begging for the error...so I give it. Just ...chaulking up another one on the Track Record here...

 

[Dywyddyr]

Factually true. The explanation was inadequate.

Also wrong. Simply because you did not accept the explanation (possibly due to your supposition that I have an agenda) does not render that explanation inadequate.

This is not legal forum.
Much of the behavior displayed here on this forum would be in contempt of court.

Beside the point. There are still standards of behaviour and expression laid down.

As such your repetitive statements of "lie" would be equally condemnable but it didn't prevent you from expressing it out loud. More hypocrisy.

Except for the slight difference that I am able to document the lies.
Your accusation of me, however, relies on proving that your assumption of my "agenda" is correct.

I never said my assessment is controvertibly correct. You have a problem with perception through expression. And I still don't believe you no matter how confident you are of your intentions. You have to prove it too me.

Also wrong. At no time did I state that you HAVE said it is incorrect. I simply point out that you persist in making that assumption about me.

That's is how it was meant. A series of mental notes of your aberrant behavior toward the irrelevant.

A perceived aberrant behaviour.

You are the instigator because you made the initial request for sources.

The instigation is in the rules of the forum.

You care about what I think but I don't care about what you think at all.

Also wrong.

And despite what you said...

So you didn't actually read what was written. As usual.

This is still indulging in rank stupidity.
Observe:
I said: it's not an assumption.
You said and repeated : It's either anassumption or "less than clear deliberately"

And your point?
Or maybe, once again, you didn't read exactly what was written?
English really isn't your forte. Nor honesty.

 

[Saquist]

Also wrong. Simply because you did not accept the explanation (possibly due to your supposition that I have an agenda) does not render that explanation inadequate.

I don't care.
The facts show contradiction. I don't believe your explanation. Instead of understanding the simplicity of the contradiction you seek to pass yourself off as blameless, which you are not.

Beside the point. There are still standards of behaviour and expression laid down.

Which hypocritically you can't meet these standards either.
So again I have no reason to care.

Except for the slight difference that I am able to document the lies.

False you can't prove intent. You have only your implicit denials.

Your accusation of me, however, relies on proving that your assumption of my "agenda" is correct.

Wonderfully I have shown your intentions through you action that you willfully and woefully enter the thread making unreasonable demands that you yourself weren't willing and still aren't willing to demand from yourself. That's evident demonstration of your hypocrisy. Everything you've said so far is irrelevant to those facts. So if you knew that "EXPECTATION" that you claim is ever present you too violated it soundly.

At no time did I state that you HAVE said it is incorrect.

More stupidity.
I made no statement of falsehood but of incontrovertible which were your words. This is sad. What in God's name are you talking about.

A perceived aberrant behaviour.

Combativeness is perceived as aberrant.
Duh...

The instigation is in the rules of the forum.

And you're the instigator here...

Also wrong.

I don't believe you.
I don't seek you out you seek me out.
Your actions speak volumes as to the truth.

So you didn't actually read what was written. As usual.

I'm not concerned with these sad, pathetic and desperate interpretations.
Spin till it pukes if you like.

And your point?

That your statement was stupid. Lacking a common intelligence because it was in contradiction of itself. That's stupid. I'm telling you because you're bringing the stupidity to me. (for some reason)

Or maybe, once again, you didn't read exactly what was written?

Or maybe you're just being silly.
You can't run around with the hypocrisy stamp and then bust your head on it.

English really isn't your forte. Nor honesty.

Says the one that has made consistently stupid statements after stupid statements. He that tried to start something he couldn't finish intelligently. A thread thrown wildly off course...All for the sake of your ego. And you will persist because you don't have any self control and because of your coveted reputation is on the online. So make it a good show...

 

[Dywyddyr]

Which hypocritically you can't meet these standards either.

I can document your lies, whereas:

False you can't prove intent.

And "intent" as seen by you is the basis of your accusation of me.

Wonderfully I have shown your intentions through you action that you willfully and woefully enter the thread making unreasonable demands that you yourself weren't willing and still aren't willing to demand from yourself.

False.

I made no statement of falsehood but of incontrovertible which were your words. This is sad. What in God's name are you talking about.

My apologies: it should have read "At no time did I state that you HAVE said it is incontrovertibly incorrect."

Combativeness is perceived as aberrant.
Duh...

And you're assuming "combativeness". Duh.

I don't believe you.
I don't seek you out you seek me out.
Your actions speak volumes as to the truth.

My apologies again. I hadn't realised the extent of your narcissism. I seek you out? If you'd care to check I entered this thread before you did.

That your statement was stupid.

Another failure to read. Which statement?

A thread thrown wildly off course...All for the sake of your ego.

Correction: thrown off-course because of your insistence that your claims don't require evidence.

because of your coveted reputation is on the online.

Reputation?
Now I know you're delusional.

I await the mod's decision regarding your false accusation. I'm done.

 

[Saquist]

I can document your lies, whereas:

And "intent" as seen by you is the basis of your accusation of me.


False.


My apologies: it should have read "At no time did I state that you HAVE said it is incontrovertibly incorrect."


And you're assuming "combativeness". Duh.


My apologies again. I hadn't realised the extent of your narcissism. I seek you out? If you'd care to check I entered this thread before you did.


Another failure to read. Which statement?


Correction: thrown off-course because of your insistence that your claims don't require evidence.


Reputation?
Now I know you're delusional.

I await the mod's decision regarding your false accusation. I'm done.

You were done a LONG time ago.

 

[quinnsong]

I think the topic question—"Why don't atheists reject values derived from religion?"—overlooks that the "values derived from religion" are themselves derived from life.

Agreed, morality has nothing to do with religion if this is what is meant by "values" which I assume it is. Morality evolved through human interaction and society, religion came about as a way to explain the universe and because of mankinds fear of death.

It's true that there are certain socialist tendencies in atheism's out look.
Morals and ethics have different consistency under atheism that reflect the scientific community. It's mostly the concept of Can Then Do. That's a well known philosophy that has no restraint or self control. Most governments also reflect that perview as well. Life isn't important but rights are and then those who can recognize their rights and more importantly demand them or have the power to do so will dominate. It's all about domination.

Benign Religions starts with a more fundamental quality of life. Nurturing and Caring. It's necessary for life to grow and thus it's socially progressive (if followed) I said this before in another thread, Morals are the considerations a single human puts ahead of himself when others are involved. It's an age old concept but strangely like technology it's taken thousands of years to develop.

Saquist, what in your opinion are benign religions? I have an idea which ones you are referring to but do not want to assume. IMO the big 3 religions are all about domination and the life of their followers more important than those that do not adhere to their beliefs. Also, your definition of morals is the definition of altruism not morals. Personally I believe socialism as an economic system is more progressive, working together for the collective good just like how successful families run whether religious or not. Finally, what is more honourable doing what is right because one fears a supernatural being or doing what is right because it is right?

 

[charles brough]

Really, how can anyone sum up what atheists believe or not believe other than that they do not believe there is some spirit-being up there playing around with natural cause and effect or, perhaps, just sitting up there doing nothing?

As a fellow Non-Theist, I think our problem is that we are also all divided by our other beliefs---so much so that we are an impotent force in our society. Some of us are Libertarians, others socialists, or animal/Earth liberation anarchists, race or gender entitlement provocetures, Objectivists, pro-abortion militants, vegetarians against the wearing of furs and leather, etc. etc. . . .

instead of a common mass of such conflicting secular cults, we Non-Theists could do much better if we all had the same and more moderate, more advance, more scientific belief system in common, a common ideology that would replace both the old religions and our badly divided and now-floundering secular ideology. With it, we could do more than influence society. We could take over and run the world! And do a much better job. We could limit population growth with birth control, reduce the immense disparity of wealth among the classes, settle national border disputes, and, since we would not be warring with ourselves, end the need for war.

The saying that "cultural diversity enriches us" is nonsense. Only in UNITY is there strength.

Such a replacement ideology is possible. All such ideologies answer four simple questions: what is our origin, what is our goal, the means we must use to achieve it, and what stands in our way?

More on this subject is available on my web sight.

 

[Saquist]

Saquist, what in your opinion are benign religions? I have an idea which ones you are referring to but do not want to assume. IMO the big 3 religions are all about domination and the life of their followers more important than those that do not adhere to their beliefs.

You know...I know where you're coming from. But everything we do as humans can be understood as attempts to dominate. Government is used to dominate in a similar way religion has in the past. I believe that we need to...get pass religion's transgressions as though they were...unique. I just finished studying the "honorable" US military and found the amount of atrocities quite prodigious. And before I made a list on this forum of miltary massacres and how many lives they've taken since recorded time. The number is monumental. But we still allow the military to exist.

Islam is a very benign religion it teaches peace, love and law.
Christianity we all know teaches Love of your neighbors. It was derived from Judaism.

If you look at the native Americans who also had religion they were mostly peaceful and interacted well with each other. But it's more than likely that was because the amount of space in the Western World and so few people. Look at Africa and it's just the opposite. They were war like and aggressive religion or not Buddhism is benign, Confucius is benign yet the conflicts persisted with their northern neighbors.

clearly religion isn't blameless. Whether you see it as merely a tool in the wrong hands or mind set of flaws it bears responsibility but that is a case by case assessment.

Also, your definition of morals is the definition of altruism not morals.

Absolutely.

Personally I believe socialism as an economic system is more progressive, working together for the collective good just like how successful families run whether religious or not. Finally, what is more honourable doing what is right because one fears a supernatural being or doing what is right because it is right?

I like the idea to. It makes sense but it hasn't been well applied in history.
What socialism needs is a series of checks and balances just like the US system. Then I believe it could work. Could you imagine what a socialist/capitalist society would be like with out the oppressive qualities?

I think China might be working it's way to that end.