Theist vs. Atheist Moral Accountability

Atheism: Decide morals that benefit the collective and the individual are worthwhile through logic and evidence

Theism: Stone women to death for not being virgins to please an angry, petty god, even at the expense of logic and evidence

Is this what theists find so appealing?

Originally posted by vivify
Atheism: Decide morals that benefit the collective and the individual are worthwhile through logic and evidence

Theism: Stone women to death for not being virgins to please an angry, petty god, even at the expense of logic and evidence

Is this what theists find so appealing?

You forgot to add "Go to the Nascar race track after stoning."

Your reserch on thiests is lacking a little there. Check Wiki.

Originally posted by sonship
You forgot to add "Go to the Nascar race track after stoning."

Your reserch on thiests is lacking a little there. Check Wiki.

I just hate threads like the other made by fetchmyjunk. All crap and no substance. As is human nature, theists won't realize this until it's their side being attacked with terrible logic.

Originally posted by vivify
Atheism: Decide morals that benefit the collective and the individual are worthwhile through logic and evidence

Theism: Stone women to death for not being virgins to please an angry, petty god, even at the expense of logic and evidence

Is this what theists find so appealing?

Why didn't you say that Atheism had millions of people killed because they didn't like X?
Why start off with Theism having women being stoned to death?
I'd say you start off showing one side good the other bad, was this an attempt to be fair?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why didn't you say that Atheism had millions of people killed because they didn't like X?
Why start off with Theism having women being stoned to death?
I'd say you start off showing one side good the other bad, was this an attempt to be fair?

Wasn't the stoning of women part of the Law you uphold as a being a manifestation of "moral absolutes"?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why didn't you say that Atheism had millions of people killed because they didn't like X?

Because that would be a lie.

Originally posted by FMF
Wasn't the stoning of women part of the Law you uphold as a being a manifestation of "moral absolutes"?

Atheism or theism. .. wars... so what? There's no recourse to "wars" you can make regarding "stoning women" without going the No True Scotsman route.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why didn't you say that Atheism had millions of people killed because they didn't like X?
Why start off with Theism having women being stoned to death?
I'd say you start off showing one side good the other bad, was this an attempt to be fair?

Read the post RIGHT ABOVE yours.

Originally posted by vivify
Atheism: Decide morals that benefit the collective and the individual are worthwhile through logic and evidence

Theism: Stone women to death for not being virgins to please an angry, petty god, even at the expense of logic and evidence

Is this what theists find so appealing?

For the most part, neither atheists nor theists "decide" what their moral structures will be. They are born into pre-existing moral structures that they are acculturated into. And the way they each go about modifying those moral structures has almost nothing to do with logic or evidence, even though they like to pretend otherwise.

Originally posted by rwingett
For the most part, neither atheists nor theists "decide" what their moral structures will be. They are born into pre-existing moral structures that they are acculturated into. And the way they each go about modifying those moral structures has almost nothing to do with logic or evidence, even though they like to pretend otherwise.

well said.