Originally posted by Seitse
Your fanaticism is pathetic.

The zeal with which Onfray, Hitchens, Dawkins and the like act mimics the arrogant
moral high-ground of an enlightened holy man furiously defending his new-found
religion, while pontificating from their secular thrones what we all should believe.

Hypocrites.

Let me ask you this: What is the basis for your morality?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Let me ask you this

no.

Originally posted by Seitse
no.

So atheists and atheism are open for discussion and criticism but not your own personal beliefs, right?

Originally posted by Palynka
Not really.

Surely you can think of quite a few more important errors committed by the guilt-laden religious zealots. Besides, they will adjust their beliefs based on what's observed, while faith is at best belief without observation and at worse belief that requires the denial of observation.

You make it sound as if we are all a fallen error ridden race of beings.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
They're so absolutely right that they commit the same offensive errors as the guilt-laden religious zealots? Sounds a bit off, don't you think?

The outspoken get the media attention. This is true regardless of what they are outspoken about.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Let me ask you this: What is the basis for your morality?

What is the basis for yours? Yourself?

Excuse me if I don't hold your self-based morality in as high esteem as you do.

Hint: Laws are not based on what each individual thinks is just. Could you imagine the sheer chaos if such was the case? I'm not too keen on letting my neighbor off scott-free for killing his entire family just because he might happen to think it's the "right thing to do".

Originally posted by Seitse
Your fanaticism is pathetic.

The zeal with which Onfray, Hitchens, Dawkins and the like act mimics the arrogant
moral high-ground of an enlightened holy man furiously defending his new-found
religion, while pontificating from their secular thrones what we all should believe.

Hypocrites.

We're in the 21st century; humans have put man on the moon, probed deep into the building blocks of the universe through physics, connected the world through the internet, discovered our origins through the theory of evolution, and much much more...

Yet still...

We still haven't rid ourselves of the stain of fundamentalist dogma. Nor have we healed the batchit crazy mentality of talking-snake believers like yourself who, given half a chance, would happily retard the education system back into the bronze age; and to purge the world of unbelieving scum like us, would nuke the whole fecking planet in the name of Jesus™. You folks will of course get raptured into the great Disneyland in the sky first, whilst any survivors of the carnage here on earth would then have to contend with...wait for it...the antichrist!?! 😵

We need more of us atheists to get on the case and marginalise the twisted, backwards, malignant, and and sense-sapping garbage crazies like you are peddling all the way to the edge of the flat earth you and your zealot chums still believe in.


Have a nice day 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
the stain of fundamentalist dogma

like atheism

Originally posted by sonhouse
So atheists and atheism are open for discussion and criticism but not your own personal beliefs, right?

I, hereby, ban you from criticizing my beliefs.

I also declare that I do not believe in your existence.

*poof*

You don't exist anymore.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Hint: Laws are not based on what each individual thinks is just. Could you imagine the sheer chaos if such was the case? I'm not too keen on letting my neighbor off scott-free for killing his entire family just because he might happen to think it's the "right thing to do".

That's where laws differ from morals. Laws are made by a whole society and are enforced for that society. Morals are individual and although you may try to enforce your morals on others, it is more typical to put them into laws.

A similar situation arises when two countries have different sets of laws and try to enforce them on each other. Again there is need for international laws.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Let me ask you this: What is the basis for your morality?

The non-theistic basis of morality is the benefit of living in groups. Living in groups necessitates the establishment of rules. Groups enshrine their moral rules in their religion for reasons that should be obvious. Certain rules concerning the most important matters are also enforced by government. In some instances the institutions overlap.

The above position does not imply that the basic claims of religion are false.

Originally posted by Seitse
I, hereby, ban you from criticizing my beliefs.

I also declare that I do not believe in your existence.

*poof*

You don't exist anymore.

Thus justifying my claim you are a hypocrite. Look who is calling the kettle black.

Originally posted by JS357
The non-theistic basis of morality is the benefit of living in groups. Living in groups necessitates the establishment of rules. Groups enshrine their moral rules in their religion for reasons that should be obvious. Certain rules concerning the most important matters are also enforced by government. In some instances the institutions overlap.

The above position does not imply that the basic claims of religion are false.

So the implication is some tenants of religion are correct. Can you enlighten us as to which of these tenants are in fact correct?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So the implication is some tenants of religion are correct. Can you enlighten us as to which of these tenants are in fact correct?

sure, ill start you off,

Love is long suffering and kind, does not become provoked and does not seek its own interests.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sure, ill start you off,

Love is long suffering and kind, does not become provoked and does not seek its own interests.

An atheist can love and be kind and altruistic without religion and many do just that; just like many theists. So religion is not a necessary part of that.