Since Roloffe never shuts up about what he thinks, I figured I'd share what I believe. One thing though: my opinion is way better than Roloffe's. So, atheists, whaddaya think? Could you live in a society with religious/spiritual people is they believed the following?

From "Pato's Opinion" by Pato Banton

I do not hold no prejudice for any other nation
as far as I'm concerned we're all a part of God's creation.
Like dog a dog and cat a cat a human is a human
so there should be no prejudice because of one's complexion.
There should be no prejudice because of one's religion
for every man has got the right to make his own decision.
I don't just talk to every man but also to every woman
understanding gives you knowledge but the fear of God is wisdom.
Wisdom is the compass that will show you the direction
towards the light of Jah! and away from all illusion.

Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth - Important to you? Truth as in honesty and moral rectitude.

Religious Freedom

Abortion is immoral. If I kill a pregnant woman who wants a baby, I'll be charged with double murder. If she doesn't want the baby, she can terminate the pregnancy. Why? A life in potentia is life nonetheless. If a human doesn't kill the fetus, odds are that it will be born live. Now, what are the ethical implications of destroying the building blocks of a sentient being that have already begun to form the organism? While there may be a gray area in the minds of some, anyone with any sense whatsoever knows that a partial birth abortion is murder. A fully mature fetus (baby) is completely alive and sentient. You can argue for argument's sake, but you'd be wrong. Ethically and logically. A human is a shitty computer. That's why we have instinct, intellect, and morals.

lol, morals. even more lols if 'morals' are being talked about by atheists.

heres a quote for you: "religion is just what keeps the poor from killing the rich"-napoleon and what the hell do you think "morals" do? the same thing. exactly where do you get these morals? what tells you the rules? it seems like it's just adopted from religion, so it seems your version of atheism isn't much different (as far as how useless it makes you) than religion.

there is nothing moral about a lion killing a zebra, and nothing moral about how in some parts of the world you can get your throat cut for change. that is instinct, and yes, we are all born with that. im not an atheist at all, but obviously, since nature is a creation of god, any religion that tells you to go against it (pretty much every one) is the only thing that is evil.

lol, morals. even more lols if 'morals' are being talked about by atheists.

heres a quote for you: "religion is just what keeps the poor from killing the rich"-napoleon and what the hell do you think "morals" do? the same thing. exactly where do you get these morals? what tells you the rules? it seems like it's just adopted from religion, so it seems your version of atheism isn't much different (as far as how useless it makes you) than religion.

there is nothing moral about a lion killing a zebra, and nothing moral about how in some parts of the world you can get your throat cut for change. that is instinct, and yes, we are all born with that. im not an atheist at all, but obviously, since nature is a creation of god, any religion that tells you to go against it (pretty much every one) is the only thing that is evil.
You're kidding right? Religion was created from morals, not the other way around.

lol, morals. even more lols if 'morals' are being talked about by atheists.

You believe atheists lack morals?

heres a quote for you: "religion is just what keeps the poor from killing the rich"-napoleon and what the hell do you think "morals" do? the same thing. exactly where do you get these morals? what tells you the rules? it seems like it's just adopted from religion, so it seems your version of atheism isn't much different (as far as how useless it makes you) than religion.

No, it's not adopted from religion. It's called altruism.

there is nothing moral about a lion killing a zebra, and nothing moral about how in some parts of the world you can get your throat cut for change.

There is nothing immoral about a lion killing a zebra. In nature, hungry lions eat tasty zebras. Cold hard fact of survival, nothing to do with morality.

Getting your throat cut for change is not even analogous to the zebra/lion scenario.

that is instinct, and yes, we are all born with that.

The instinct for a lion to eat a zebra is not the same as what drives one human being to kill another. It may have the same origins, per se (survival) - but the man who cuts throats for change lives in an environment that punishes the members of it's "pride" for killing other members. He is exposed to cultural morality, something that man imposes on others of his kind.

If it was common behavior for the other lions in the pride to attempt to kill and/or ostracize the attacking lion that kills for meat, then lion behavior would have evolved differently, and there wouldn't be many lions who were out slaying zebras. In fact, there probably wouldn't be many lions at all, because they're natural carnivores and unless they could adapt to eating grass, then their plan to punish eaters-of-meat would have been the one adaptive trait that killed off their species.

"Since Roloffe never shuts up about what he thinks, I figured I'd share what I believe. One thing though: my opinion is way better than Roloffe's. So, atheists, whaddaya think? Could you live in a society with religious/spiritual people is they believed the following?"

You were doing great until you went down the same self-righteous path nearly every other religionist does when they start talking about this shit. Brotherly love and not being dicks to each other is great, fearing fictional characters and declaring something that has the potential to become alive as actually being alive is not.

I would love to live in a world where the religious kept to themselves and I could therefore keep to myself; however too often these best attempts of theirs at not dicking around still fall terribly far short of not being completely fucking stupid.

You believe atheists lack morals?



No, it's not adopted from religion. It's called altruism.



There is nothing immoral about a lion killing a zebra. In nature, hungry lions eat tasty zebras. Cold hard fact of survival, nothing to do with morality.

Getting your throat cut for change is not even analogous to the zebra/lion scenario.



The instinct for a lion to eat a zebra is not the same as what drives one human being to kill another. It may have the same origins, per se (survival) - but the man who cuts throats for change lives in an environment that punishes the members of it's "pride" for killing other members. He is exposed to cultural morality, something that man imposes on others of his kind.

If it was common behavior for the other lions in the pride to attempt to kill and/or ostracize the attacking lion that kills for meat, then lion behavior would have evolved differently, and there wouldn't be many lions who were out slaying zebras. In fact, there probably wouldn't be many lions at all, because they're natural carnivores and unless they could adapt to eating grass, then their plan to punish eaters-of-meat would have been the one adaptive trait that killed off their species.

lions will kill each other for many things, things the other one wants just like that man wants the change another man has, so he cuts his throat (that is, if he thinks he can get away with it), and if your survival actually depended on it, you would to, and if not, the law of nature, is the weak (that would be you and your "morals) would starve :) thats whats so beautiful, god, again, whoever that is, will not be disobeyed, the weak will die, the people who cant follow the rules will die out. every human is a part of a perfect machine created by a higher power, so they are not evil.

the lion wants food, so he rips the zebra apart, a man needs money, he thinks he can take it without being punished, so he does so. that is what you are born with, and somebody, with "morals" will get very hungry in that situation.

no, atheist are moral, whatever that means, in my mind, it means fearful of authority, because if you dont have rules for relgious reasons, that seems to be the only reason for rules. im saying you have a backwards way of thinking, and you might as well be religious, so you can say thats the reason you follow your rules, instead of the fact you fear authority.

no, atheist are moral, whatever that means, in my mind, it means fearful of authority, because if you dont have rules for relgious reasons, that seems to be the only reason for rules. im saying you have a backwards way of thinking, and you might as well be religious, so you can say thats the reason you follow your rules, instead of the fact you fear authority.

Wow. If the only reason you're moral is the fear of authority (from either God or man's authority), then you're moral for all the wrong reasons. There's a lot to be gained from being moral.

We're selfish animals, so we're going to do right by other people who live in our group/community in order to get the best position possible for ourselves within that community. Also, to get it in payback by having it done back to us. That's reciprocal altruism.

The individual who was known as a liar, thief or murderer in even the most simplest ancient community wouldn't receive much group benefit (such as the group's food, clothing and shelter) if they made themselves known as deceptors, thieves and murderers. "Playing nice" with those outside your immediate kin benefits everyone, most importantly yourself.

We're group animals. We do good by the group because it benefits us in the long run. The group that works in harmony, peace and unison with one another fares better than the one who is constant conflict, fighting and ripping each other off.

While there may be a gray area in the minds of some, anyone with any sense whatsoever knows that a partial birth abortion is murder.
Do you think you'd recognise a true scotsman if you saw him having breakfast?



A human is a shitty computer. That's why we have instinct, intellect, and morals.
If my instinct, intellect and morals don't agree with yours, who is to say which of us is right?

And bear in mind that if you say "me because I'm guided by some form of god" I'm just going to ask you how you know your god isn't a malfunction of your admittedly shitty computer. Or maybe I'll ask you how you know your god is right when other people's gods tell them something different.

But anyway, no doubt I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing, while you came here to give us the simple straight truth. According to you. And Og knows, your credentials are... umm... Well I'm sure they're just peachy.

"no, atheist are moral, whatever that means, in my mind, it means fearful of authority, because if you dont have rules for relgious reasons, that seems to be the only reason for rules."

Maybe it's because humans evolved as social creatures, and survival is tough if you're busy dicking people over. Did you think of that? No, of course not. Morality is an evolved survival trait in human society.

Religious people have morality for the same reason, however theirs has been twisted into fear of retribution and punishment, rather than a will simply to survive and flourish among others.

"im saying you have a backwards way of thinking,"

Except that your assertion has been debunked. BZZT, game over.

"and you might as well be religious, so you can say thats the reason you follow your rules, instead of the fact you fear authority."

Except that's not the reason why atheists (and the vast majority of humans, at least initially, regardless of association) have morality at all.

Can we get a graphic of Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor going "WRONG!" in here? Thanks.

I always thought religious people could not be moral. They do what they do out of fear of being punished whereas we non religious types do good for the sake of doing good. Wait...what were we talking about? Oh another zealot with a poorly worded religious diatribe...is it Monday already?

You can argue for argument's sake, but you'd be wrong. Ethically and logically.
Then I guess the conversation is over. If you just want a list of people that agree with whatever it is you are selling, go start a blog, edit out the responses you don't like, then go sit in a corner and read them to yourself.

A life in potentia is life nonetheless.

I doubt anyone would charge you with genocide for shooting me in the balls

Yeah, they're building blocks and you prevented me from potentially having a kid or two in time so you committed at least a double homicide by forceful castration by projectile. You murderer you, slayer of potential people

Could you live in a society with religious/spiritual people is they believed the following?
Well, what's my alternative ? Suicide ? Taking over and forcing everyone to convert to the Atheistic Church of Satanic Liberal Communism ?


From "Pato's Opinion" by Pato Banton

I do not hold no prejudice for any other nation
as far as I'm concerned we're all a part of God's creation.
The people and nations who don't believe in your God will likely consider that prejudiced right there, or at least obnoxious and arrogant.


There should be no prejudice because of one's religion
for every man has got the right to make his own decision.
So you have no problem with a religion that condones human sacrifice?

I don't just talk to every man but also to every woman
understanding gives you knowledge but the fear of God is wisdom.
The wise don't believe in God, and therefore don't fear him.


A life in potentia is life nonetheless.
Only in the sense that the same mass of bacteria is alive. It's alive, but not a person, and undeserving of rights.



Now, what are the ethical implications of destroying the building blocks of a sentient being that have already begun to form the organism?
None.


While there may be a gray area in the minds of some, anyone with any sense whatsoever knows that a partial birth abortion is murder.

"Partial birth abortion" is nothing but a propaganda phrase created by the "pro life" monsters. It's not a valid medical term. They want to force women with dead or nonviable fetuses to go through birth, in the hopes of hurting or killing as many women as they can, as well as traumatizing them emotionally. And you can't murder something that is brain dead or just plain dead.

Angry Femme...

I love you and I want to take your hand in marriage. :)

Well, what's my alternative ? Suicide ? Taking over and forcing everyone to convert to the Atheistic Church of Satanic Liberal Communism ?

Well, I don't mind atheists at all. If they're nice people, then I don't care if they choose to practice a religion. This is not to say I think atheists are inherently mean/evil. Character isn't determined by faith.



The people and nations who don't believe in your God will likely consider that prejudiced right there, or at least obnoxious and arrogant.

I doubt it. Think of it like this: someone worships a creator. When he meets an atheist, he doesn't criticize him for his personal decision because he respects his free will. He may believe volition to be God-given, but who cares? What he's saying is that he loves God, and that he couldn't truly love God unless he has compassion for all humans. This is called Humanism. In a favorite opera of mine, The Magic Flute, Sarastro(Zarathustra) is the just ruler and high priest of Isis and Osiris.

Sprecher: Er ist Prinz. [He's a Prince.]
Sarastro: Noch mehr - er ist Mensch! [He's human!]

Also:

In diesen heil'gen Hallen
Kennt man die Rache nicht,
und ist ein Mensch gefallen,
führt Liebe hin zur Pflicht.
Dann wandelt er an Freundes Hand
Vergnügt und froh ins beßre Land.

In diesen heil'gen Mauern,
Wo Mensch den Menschen liebt,
kann kein Verräter lauern,
Weil man dem Feind vergibt.
Wen solche Lehren nicht erfreun,
Verdienet nicht, ein Mensch zu sein.

In these hallowed halls,
One knows not revenge,
And should a person have fallen,
Love will lead him to duty.
Then wanders he on the hand of a friend,
Into a cheerful and better land.

In the hallowed walls,
Where a human loves a human,
No traitor can lurk,
Because one forgives the enemy.
Whomever these teachings do not please,
Deserves not to be a human being.





So you have no problem with a religion that condones human sacrifice

As long as they sacrifice members of their own religion, no.



The wise don't believe in God, and therefore don't fear him.

The wise know that they don't know. The wise would rather die now than live forever in dishonor.



Only in the sense that the same mass of bacteria is alive. It's alive, but not a person, and undeserving of rights.

What about animal rights, then?


"Partial birth abortion" is nothing but a propaganda phrase created by the "pro life" monsters. It's not a valid medical term. They want to force women with dead or nonviable fetuses to go through birth, in the hopes of hurting or killing as many women as they can, as well as traumatizing them emotionally. And you can't murder something that is brain dead or just plain dead.

Well, I guess you can't kill something that's dead.

A life in potentia is life nonetheless. If a human doesn't kill the fetus, odds are that it will be born live.
But a sperm and an egg are themselves "life in potentia". What's the difference? I imagine that your response will be that we need to do something for that egg and sperm to eventually create a baby, whilst we can just leave the fertilized egg or fetus and it will eventually become one. But I would argue that merely because the aid given is automatic (as with the pregnant woman) that doesn't make any difference.

The point, at least for me, is that if you have to say "it will be alive soon" or "it will be x soon" or whatever your opinion of abortions hangs on, you recognize that it is not that yet. And if it isn't that, that it may become that in time does not make it necessarily worth protecting yet (at least on the grounds that x is present).



A human is a shitty computer. That's why we have instinct, intellect, and morals.

Intellect isn't a part of that computer? I would argue that instinct and morals are too, but really, intellect isn't?

My morals and instincts are different from yours. I disagree that anyone "with any sense" is with you on your position on partial-birth abortion, and I suspect that you may not actually have read that which you're certain about.

As for your quote from Pato Benton; I honestly don't know. The problem is that one person's religious freedom can be very different from someone else's. One person's idea of prejudice can be very different from someone else's. Look at school prayer; people on both sides of that argument have cited religious freedom as being behind them.

Wow. If the only reason you're moral is the fear of authority (from either God or man's authority), then you're moral for all the wrong reasons. There's a lot to be gained from being moral.

We're selfish animals, so we're going to do right by other people who live in our group/community in order to get the best position possible for ourselves within that community. Also, to get it in payback by having it done back to us. That's reciprocal altruism.

The individual who was known as a liar, thief or murderer in even the most simplest ancient community wouldn't receive much group benefit (such as the group's food, clothing and shelter) if they made themselves known as deceptors, thieves and murderers. "Playing nice" with those outside your immediate kin benefits everyone, most importantly yourself.

We're group animals. We do good by the group because it benefits us in the long run. The group that works in harmony, peace and unison with one another fares better than the one who is constant conflict, fighting and ripping each other off.


exactly, group. Even though it was beaten out of you, through integrated schools, and this brotherly love crap like in this thread, you were born knowing that you only really sympathize with your own kind. Asians look the same to me (because I was never forced to be around them), black people now look different (because I was forced to be around them), when I was younger, not only did they all look the same, but they looked gross, all of them, so of course I couldn't show any sympathy to any of them. All kids are born like this, my mom told me the opposite, and really contributed to killing that instinct insided me more than school, so it wasn't taught to me. When I say survival of groups, what do you think I mean? "the human race"? :rolleyes: no, my own kind. Jews realize this, and they realized the power of religion long ago, to manipulate people, into eventually letting them be the only group left. It's their parasitic religion that has kept them alive through history while destroying all the cultures they came in contact with.

Is that wrong? Well, it is to me, just like it's wrong for that man getting his throat cut. But is it wrong for the Jews? No. Wrong is all in the eyes of the person taking it in the ass, it's wrong only to the zebra, not the lion who wont be going hungry.

It seems the point was completely lossed on you. The 'group' can be any sort of group. In our context, the group is the society you live in, or even your own group of friends or family, not just some social construct as a 'race'. Tit-for-tat and reciprocal altruism works for any group and is not constricted to any one race or ethnicity of people.

May I inject a little common sense here on the subject of abortion?

First, there are two general types--spontaneous abortions (commonly called miscarriages) and induced ones.

God does the spontaneous ones; doctors (one hopes) handle the induced ones.

And since the spontaneous ones out-number the induced ones by a huge margin, God is the biggest abortionist on the planet.

If I kill a pregnant woman who wants a baby, I'll be charged with double murder.
That, AFAIK, is factually incorrect.




As long as they sacrifice members of their own religion, no.

When fundamentalism and libertarianism collide!


Unbelieveable. Murder for religion is ok, but abortion is wrong. Why don't we just change the meaning of abortion to religious sacrifice then. Kinda like how Abraham was supposed to kill his son Issac.

So, you believe that abortion is murder, right? Does that mean that you would be in favor of imposing the death penalty on women who have abortions? If not, why not?

What if the members of the religion are children or just plain not too smart and are members of the religion because they were raised that way?




Now, what are the ethical implications of destroying the building blocks of a sentient being that have already begun to form the organism?
When those building blocks are merely a multicellular blob, the ethical implications are the same as destroying any other multicellular blob. Likewise when the developing fetus has the brain the size of a fish, the ethical implications are the same as killing a fish.

(which reminds me, whenever I see the bumper sticker that says "abortion stops a beating heart." I want to cross out "abortion" and replace it with "fishing.")

Our values come to us through our upbringing, our culture, an innate tendency to cooperate, and our ability to ponder our existence and our common circumstance. Churches then appropriate what is already there, adding some rules about church attendance and tithing.

Think of it like this: someone worships a creator. When he meets an atheist, he doesn't criticize him for his personal decision because he respects his free will. He may believe volition to be God-given, but who cares?
He does. The great majority of believers hate atheists.


What he's saying is that he loves God, and that he couldn't truly love God unless he has compassion for all humans.
Nonsense. Religion corrodes compassion, just as it corrodes everything else of value. It's easy to ignore other's suffering and death when you can say it's all God's Will, or that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

Love for God tends to amount to hatred or indifference towards everyone and everything else.




As long as they sacrifice members of their own religion, no.
Barbaric - and proof of what I just said about religion and it's effects on compassion, and goodness in general.



The wise know that they don't know. The wise would rather die now than live forever in dishonor.
Just like the folks who flew planes into the WTC, right ? The willingness to sacrifice one's life for God produces that sort of behavior.

And the wise know that there is no evidence for God, that what evidence there is militates against his existence, and that there's no reason to believe in him. You'd be better off believing in unicorns or goblins.



What about animal rights, then?
It depends of the mental sophistication of the animal. Slugs < Lizards < mice < dogs < apes, morally speaking.


But a sperm and an egg are themselves "life in potentia". What's the difference?
Nothing, really, as far as morality goes. Life began billions of years ago, not in anyone's womb, or testicles for that matter. And every cell in our body is just as alive as that tiny blob of a fetus; if killing ten cells is murder, then it's murder if I scratch myself.



That, AFAIK, is factually incorrect.
I think that it's true some places; I do know that the anti-abortionists push for it. Just another attempt to wedge the idea that killing a fetus is murder into the law. An attempt to kill abortion rights with the death of a thousand cuts.

While there may be a gray area in the minds of some, anyone with any sense whatsoever knows that a partial birth abortion is murder. A fully mature fetus (baby) is completely alive and sentient.
Looks like the OP has abandoned this thread, but I'll post anyway.

The procedure you're referring to, intact dilation and extraction (so-called "partial-birth" abortions) is rarely performed in the third trimester. I know there is a great great deal of ignorance about this, but the procedure is almost always performed in the 2nd trimester, not the third. Despite the pamphlets and the hysterical propaganda you've no doubt been exposed to, the notion that "partial-birth" abortions (or any abortions at all) are performed on healthy, full term babies is a complete canard. Only a tiny fraction of 1% of all abortions are performed in the third trimester and when it does happen, it's only for compelling medical reasons (often after the fetus is already dead). Purely elective 3rd trimester abortions are already illegal in most states.

Contrary to pro-life propaganda, "partial-birth" abortion is not synonymous with 3rd term abortion (although pro-lifers love to blur the distinction by using the medically meaningless phrase, "late-term abortion" to refer to both 2nd and trimester abortions as a deliberate tactic to create a perception that the procedure is commonly being used in the 3rd trimester). Not only that, but IDX is not even the only method of performing a 2nd term abortion. It's just the safest. Why do you think that one particular method of abortion (which is safer for the patient) is any more "immoral" than any other method of abortion?

Not bothering to read the entire thread, but still wanting to post WHY we have morals(as discussed in some the of first posts):

It's simple, really. We have morals, we feel hate, we feel guilt, we feel jealousy, we feel love for the same thing - survival.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

It's basic human instincts, not 'man-made'.