Atheism, a dangerous idea?

I said earlier that I don't know. I said we should start a thread on it. This just proves my point that it is debatable based on a book that Christians follow. If I was an atheist, we would not be having this discussion. They were part of a hardened society, they were going to have hardened hearts, and God must have knew it.I have just as much trouble as you with it, I can't understand why babies were killed, but that is one possible explanation. I do not pretend to know God's ways of the OT.

Again, I say what is the difference? You are not arguing the point, and getting lost in a sidebar that has nothing to do with what you first accused me of. Something you always do. You seem to think by proving that lot's and everyone are different, that somehows proves your point, when it doesn't matter whether lots and everyone are the same or not, for purposes of this forum rule breaking sidebar.The point was that you decided to speak for a bunch of people, and attack the person not the arguement. I don't have debating tactics, I am here just discussing, maybe you are debating, that is why you resort to attacking people. Why doesn't an admin tell you that attacking the person is wrong? It must be a conspiracy. It has been noted already in these forums, that I am a catylist for people, and I always get attacked by several. I receive emails confirming this, and there are people who stick up for me when I make correct assertions.All this happens, most of the time, simply because I am Christian. Sometimes it happens when I make incorrect assertions, and the wise polite people will point it out, without insulting me. Then I gain a chance to grow. I do not gain a chance to grow when I am verbaly assaulted. That is the point of this sidebar we are having, not lots and everyone. Stick to the point, and maybe you'll start understanding me a little better, and explain why I am wrong in a rational non-insulting manor, and we can make progress.We have been talking together for how many years now?I'll tell ya, over two years, and you have always resorted to this attacking tactic. It is getting old.I would love to express myself more clearly, so that you could understand me, but I have little chance, as long as you keep resorting to this tactic.

quote:

---

Something you always do. You seem to think by proving that lot's and everyone are different, that somehows proves your point, when it doesn't matter whether lots and everyone are the same or not, for purposes of this forum rule breaking sidebar.

---

No, it is precisely that "many" and "everyone" are NOT equivalent words that is the point of this sidebar.You misrepresented me.You accused me of speaking for "everyone" when I most certainly did not.Now that I have called you on it and have you backed into a corner, you are rather astonishingly suggesting that it doesn't really matter.I am sorry that you feel so persecuted, but when you persistently do these things, and then pretend like you didn't, or that it doesn't really matter, then I am simply forced to press the matter.However, this time, you win. I give up."Many" and "all" really do mean the same thing, as you say.I fully expect to hear absolutely no objection from you, EVER, if I make a claim about all Christians holding a certain position, even if only "many" Christians actually hold it.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

What point does it prove? That Christians have a better moral center because they follow a book that can be, and is, subjectively interpreted in wildly varying ways to justify the moral CHOICES of those who claim to follow Christ?How is this any better than the subjective moral choices made by athiests based on the society that they grew up in and the parents that they had?The whole point of the discussion on murder was to show that there is no moral absolute that Christians can define in detail based only on the Bible. The most abhorant act that we can do to another human being, murder, is not even defined adequately enough to know what it is. There are even examples of what I would consider murder lauded as great deeds. God may as well have said "Thou shalt not mebecafix" for all the understanding that we can glean from His Word.
Even the "Do unto others...." is completely subjective, it depends on what you want not what the other person wants.As far as this relates to the "harm" that athiest beliefs do, I think it pretty much tosses out the idea that subjective morals are a harm to society. Everyone's morals seem to be subjective.

No need to make me aware of fundamentalist arguments. I pretty much know them all, being a surviver of fundamentalist indoctrination. Anyway, you might want to be more clear about when you are speaking for yourself and when you are citing fundamentalists.

No schraf, this is the point of the sidebar. This is the topic that started it.

quote:

---

I think you are using the "I've been misunderstood" thing as a ruse to not have to address our rebuttals, since you have been known to be as slippery as a greased weasle under a sprinkler.

---

As usual, you have drifted away from the topic, to somehow undermine what I am saying, and falsify my words, by making me appear wrong.This only backs up my original assertion that you have a comprehension problem, or maybe it is your attention span.So you have backed up my point, and haven't addressed any attempt of mine to put this BS to rest, and learn to get along. We both win, if we can get along.

So the whole point is that christians all have their own moral systems, but they like to justify them by refrencing a book.Atheists have their own moral systems too, but they just justify them without referencing a book.And this makes atheism dangerous?Its abundantly clear that the good book can support any moral stance, so for heathens like me its very hard to see why atheists should be singled out as dangerous?Anyway you actually can discuss ethics without using the bible, Muslim holy text or The tales of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.We do it all the time, discussing the consequences of actions, and claiming them to be wrong based on the particulars. If we disagree we can argue, until we reach the basic points we disagree on, and then either convince the other on our point of view or just agree to disagree.Nothing is added by referring to holy texts, or Gods, as can be seen by the simple fact that even among the same christian denomination, people disagree on the most basic moral tenets.

Atheism is extremely dangerous. Name one successful atheist civilization.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

China (ABE - unless you consider Confucianism a religion)ABE - and now JapanEdited by anglagard, : No reason given.

China?China?You call that successful?

Are you saying the largest population and 4th largest economy on Earth are unsuccessful?

Yeah, I was talking about the Soviet Union once, and somebody said that the Soviet Union was actually religious. Would you disagree?

If I am correctly reading the headline article in tomorrow's Chicago Tribune, maybe Ireland comes close. (The article suggests that they are abandoning catholicism in droves).

Well, we have to decide what is meant by an "atheist civilization."Sometimes I think the USA is one too. If they would only admit it.

Depends upon one's definition of religion. Is communism, or even Confucianism, a religion, or is it a political system. Is consumerism a religion? materialism? science? nihilism? Beatles? Grateful Dead? Star Trek? WalMart?If one calls every form of adulation a religion, then the term religion means just adulation, not worship of a supreme being.