You're hilarious @bobknight33...and a hypocrite. You claim that I'm not worth answering to, yet you still @ my name so you know I would see it...thus..answering me. I see you still haven't backed up your claim, coward

@newtboy Don't let him change the subject. He claims biblical morality is superior to secular morality. Then he changes the subject to evolution, which has nothing to do with his claim. Once again, a creationist is trying to shift the burden of proof. He somehow doesn't have to back up his claims, but we have to somehow disprove god...which science doesn't care about. Science only cares about claims you can back up, which the coward bob will never do.

Bob's got the five D's of Dodgeball down pat.

For balance, most of the towns where drone strikes have been made already were completely controlled by people who hated America and harbored or cooperated with those actively working on killing Americans. Take a tour of the hundreds of drone strike targets in tribal Pakistan and you are surveying a region accepting the rule of militants so extreme that the Pakistani government is a secular heresy worthy of death to them. Pakistani law including the death sentence for blasphemy. Those regions being under such strong control of the militants that the Pakistani military can't go there for the casualties they would take trying to do so. The welcome for Americans(long before drone strikes were made) would have been even more vicious.

It is important to state that for as much legitimate reason to 'hate' American foreign policy as there is, there exist huge numbers of people who hate America for their own petty, vile and psychotic reasons. The Islamic fundamentalists that see Pakistan as too secular are plainly one such example, and saying they only hate America because they are justified is making excuses for monsters.

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

@VoodooV
i dont understand you sometimes man.

how has ching hi-jacked this thread..in particular?
i will concede that he has in the past but how does that translate to this thread?
because it appears to me ching just poked his nose into you berating @bobknight33 as a bigot and a racist.

is bob a racist?
i dont know if i would call his comments here racist.maybe insensitive,even callous in regards to americas past history of slavery.

now i would see this as an opportunity to converse and communicate.
maybe learn from each other.
or at the very least UNDERSTAND why bob feels/thinks the way he does.

but you dont do that.
you ridicule and belittle him.

and then when ching chimes in pointing out that we are ALL slaves.
you cry foul and that bob is just a racist and ching is a troll.
musing dreamily of an internet community that could be rid of such parasites.
basically your own little fiefdom where everybody thinks like you.you know,the RIGHT way of thinking.

or are you not aware of the hypocrisy at work here?

i could go on but i fear you will inject intention into my commentary and perceive me as some sort of enemy.
which i am not.

i am not attacking you brother.
i am just trying to point out that our community is diverse,and bob has just as much a right to speak as you do.
as does ching.
but to cry foul after consecutively bashing bob and bemoan your suffering for having to endure those you disagree and how they besmirch your community...is..well...weak.

i disagree with bob often.
ok,almost always.
but i have to give that boy props for engaging on a secular left site when he is obviously a christian rightwinger.

that takes balls.
so kudos to you @bobknight33

love your commentary voodoo
hate your high horse.

(disclaimer: atheist)

The whole video makes me sad:
- That CNN did this drive-by-outing, putting this woman's life in more turmoil than literally (correct use for once) a tornado ever could. Yeah, she says she is happy it happened but still.
- That she speaks of coming outing as atheist without seemingly any irony.
- Also: That despite her involvement with these secular organizations and doug stanhope's tip, her descriptions show that when it comes to helping other people religious groups have got it together and us non-believers are mostly just talk :-(

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

@A10anis
while i do truly appreciate your change of tone,you fail to address that your original comment was smug and condescending.
which is what i was addressing.

and the word "ALL" is most certainly a blanket statement.

there are 4500 known religions (many defunct at present).
so maybe you can understand why i criticized your commentary as being overly generalized.

and i would also like to clarify a few things.
1.i find you to be an intelligent and insightful sifter.which is why i called you out.NOT to be an ass or to be confrontational but rather because i think you are a person who is better than your original comment.there are many i wouldnt have wasted my time on.

2.i am not a huge fan of organized religion.i have some serious issues with those highly influential institutions.

3.i actually agree with your basic premise:religion is control by use of fear.
so my issue with your original comment was not your basic premise but in its delivery.

4.dont be too quick to judge ALL religions solely based on doctrine and dogma.at its core religions are just human kind trying to make sense of reality and their place in it.religion is the beginnings of philosophy,and while it can be steeped in superstition and magic thinking,it has also offered some incredibly profound insights and understandings.
socrates,aristotle,plato..these were the beginnings of secular philosophy but before that? it was religion that tackled the big questions.

5.you really should watch the video.the book of enoch is...well..a bizarre apocryphal book.

anyways.i always enjoy your commentary and i hope you take my response with the humanity it was intended.

"I don't know" is not a belief.

it's all part of the murky definition of atheism that seems to be in flux.

at one point Atheism used to be defined as a definitive claim that no gods existed. This was the primary reason I considered myself to not be an atheist. Because you can't know (presently) There could be a creator, just that a creator probably isn't an petty ass from the stone ages which is how most religions portray a creator.

However I would identify with with how the Atheist Experience defines Atheism: to be the rejection of theistic claims. They specifically say numerous times that they do not claim that no god exists, just that they call bullshit on the claims of all current man-made religions because of lack of evidence.

Which is a viewpoint I can agree with.

It's something I've kinda kept track of for a while, over the years I google the definition of Atheism and many times in the past, it's been defined implying the positive belief that there are no creator(s) which I can't agree with..again, because you can't prove a negative in this situation.

it does seem to be slowly changing though, more and more definitions have changed to match the Atheist Experience's definition.

David Silverman, (while I agree with him on a lot of things) is a douchebag IMO. I'm sorry, you're just not going to win people over with douchey billboards antagonizing theists.

I support freedom of religion, I agree with our founders though that gov't has to be secular. You can vote based on your religious beliefs. but a person elected into public office has to compartmentalize themselves from their religious beliefs and be secular. You govern everyone, not just the followers of your religion. Kick religion out of gov't, but as long as religion doesn't infringe on other peoples' rights, then they can do whatever they want.

I would say diplomacy as a solution to Islamic jihadism is as naive as was diplomacy with the nazis. Pakistan's current rule of law is the death penalty for blaspheming the name of the prophet, and not only is that too secular for the taliban jihadists, it is so intolerably so that they are waging a war against civilians over it. The proudly claim credit for shooting children on school buses, and proudly note their intent to finish Malala off if given the chance. What kind of diplomacy do you expect to see followed exactly?

Should Pakistan's military and police really refuse to meet the countless taliban attacks on civilian targets with no use of force? Should they really just proceed to try and talk to the criminals prosecuting these crimes every single week? I think it's a strategy doomed to horrific failure, and one that invariably leads to far more death and suffering.

History doesn't exactly bare out that ignoring dictators and extremists leads to them just giving up and playing nice. Brutality was terribly successful and effective for the Pharoahs. Same for the Caesars. Same for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il and on and on and on. There comes a point when failure to face evil with force just emboldens and strengthens it.

But if you fail to meet them with force you also run the risk of ending up like Poland, and well, most of the rest of Europe in WW2.

Or like Afghanistan.

Like it or not, the Taliban are openly waging war on moderate and secular society within Pakistan and have been doing so for a long time. Malala's not the first to be shot by them, she's not the most recent. As I pointed out earlier as well and you seem to think isn't relevant.

Yes, it does. The members of the Taliban aren't born into it. They sign on, they join up, they make a choice to follow the Taliban leadership. Every day they continue to identify themselves as Taliban is a reaffirmation of that. We don't have to kill every last one of them to eliminate them. If they all renounced the group and ideology it'd be gone just like that. You need to understand, the regions the Taliban are thriving in are filled with people readily joining them NOT to get back at the west, but the whole package. Men are superior to women, the true believers are superior to the infidels, killing those that disagree and taking from them by force is not only acceptable, but noble. Those core 'values' hold very large appeal to the tribal youth in those areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It's ugly, it's brutal and trying to call it something else is ignoring the real depth and heart of the problem.

The Taliban are a minor irritation for us outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is the moderate muslims and secular populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan that are the real victims of the Taliban thugs. Failing to call them thugs and to condemn them is doing nobody any favors.

It's not revelational, it's powerful.

That said, I think I'm too much of a realist and still believe leaders like her require people protecting them with the force required to stop people like the Taliban. Benazir Bhutto was in many ways a grown version of many of Malala's own ideals, and she is now dead at the hands of the same militant fanatics that tried to kill Malala. Female politicians in Pakistan have a regrettably short life expectancy, much like any male politicians who support them or anything remotely secular. For example the two politicians assassinated in the last year and a bit for asking to lift the death penalty for the crime of blasphemy.

Pakistan is in the middle of a very bloody war between the people like Malala and the people who tried to kill her. The trouble is the side we relate with is being decimated by assassinations which are either killing the moderates outright, or forcing them from the country to safety but more limited impact within Pakistan. Bhutto was similarly in exile for a long while for the same concerns, which proved out to be all to well founded.

hey man.
so the whole spirituality deal on that comment thread?
yeah.....
dont bother bro.
these folks dig their science.
if there aint no conclusive evidence or irrefutable proof,they aint interested.

this site is mainly secular but most atheists here are a good bunch.others may be a tad..militant.
science is their religion and they debate in the very same tone as a fundamentalist would.they just change the vernacular.

and when one of them has drawn blood they come out like a school of lamprey in dark waters.
looking to feed.

wish i could have helped ya but you did put forth a premise that was more anecdotal than anything.i mean you could take the time and try to explain how you perceive your reality in regards to spirituality but it would just fall on deaf ears.

unless you have that peer reviewed paper in your hands,you aint ever gonna get them to change their minds.
so dont even bother.

hard to watch that thread..pretty brutal on ya fer sure.

I'd be in favor of religious people having no special rights or restrictions when it comes to dress code. With masks, either individuals have a right to wear masks or they don't depending on local laws. There are obvious reasons for this, it makes people hard to identify if the commit crimes, and getting away with illegal stuff is very often the reason to wear a mask in first place. That's why the klan do it after all, they're just Christians. Determining if adult mask wearing should be legal is a hard question, but not for religious reasons.

Wearing a hat or a scarf is a completely different matter. Absolutely no one that I have ever heard of objects to secular scarf wearing. It's completely appropriate granny wear. It would be bigoted to start objecting only if it's a religious symbol. Such people would have to object to all religious dress and jewelry to be intellectually consistent.

The only good objection I've ever heard is that maybe you shouldn't obscure your peripheral vision while driving. There, public safety might outweigh the right to dress how you want. It all depends on how big the effect is.

Ha, "coolest" billboard!

I always love to see when engineers build simple systems that can help millions of people get basic things like shelter, potable water, medicine, etc. Also nice to see a secular organization doing it.