Maybe because it's true?

Maybe calling a bird a bird has nothing to do with emotion, but simple logical and physical fact?

Good for you. You're going about it the wrong way.

Why are you seeing anger in simple statements of fact? Can you not accept reality as it is? Must you project that emotion on to everyone who tells you the way things actually are?

There is a difference between making something up and watching something happen. That is the basic fundamental difference between us.

You often don't use factual evidence to base your conclusions on in the first place.

As long as you're willing to go around preaching about your invisible friend, I actually feel everyone else would be better off if you were an atheist. Maybe you would too, maybe not.

Why should we believe in something that is contrary to everything that we can percieve? How could that possibly contribute anything? It's nonsensical. That kind of attitude would lead to a return of the dark ages. We might as well throw science in the trash can. Reinvent fire every generation(or 2 if the odd one doesn't figure it out on their own).

We aren't generally discussing opinions when talking to you. We're discussing facts, that you tend to discard/ignore/deflect/dodge/etc. This is a strawman fallacy. And projection.

Preaching to the choir amusingly enough. It's the theists driving the wedge. That's what started atheists speaking up in the first place. Go tell them that. If they don't make a problem, then there's no problem. But they constantly make problems. So there's a huge problem.

For now. Maybe when we get the necessary technology we should abandon all the theists on Earth and move out into space, taking the science theists discard with us. Let them destroy each other. That's of course only if theism doesn't die on it's own, which is something I consider likely to happen within the next hundred and fifty years.

Erradication is not the goal, or the RRS would be arming and moving out. But theism will die, mark my words.

It's looking like it. I don't like giving up on people who chain their minds however. It can cause too much collateral damage.

You've proved yourself incapable of doing so.

Any time you want to show your belief isn't stupid, baseless, or juvenile, you're welcome to do so. You haven't yet. Not by a long shot.

Difference is that you are delusional, and you're lying when you call us delusional.

I don't need to be in your brain.

I can and will. Much like I'd call a 40 year old who said he saw a flying meatball with noodles on new years last year delusional. Believing in invisible friends is delusional.

I do not mind having friendly discussions with theists, however in my experience, it tends to go nowhere.  I like to be open minded, but not so much my brain falls out of my head.  Some theists I know have their brain dragging behind them on the floor. 

Where a lot of theists go wrong is that they try fight facts with fiction.  The whole point of faith is that it can NOT be proven.  Sure, they can state as many personal experiences as they want, but that means NOTHING.  Sure, I've had a lot of weird experiences in my day that I could have contributed to god, or some other unseen force.  However, I won't lie to myself for something I can not prove.  

Here is my two cents (and you are getting what you pay for):

You feel that you are being personally attacked and have accused several of us of being mean.  Give us and yourself some credit!  No one has accused you of trolling, which means your posts are being read and considered.  What we are doing is challenging you.  We are challenging your ideas and your beliefs in an effort to force you to substantiate them.  So far you have failed to do that other than to offer personal "feel-good" accounts of your beliefs.  Yes, we will continue to push and probe until you produce an answer that satisfies logic and reason.   

Your statements come across as prideful, self-righteous and insulting because you see yourself as belonging to the "right" group and us as belonging to the "wrong" group.  You have stated that you see the world/science/life through a different lens than us implying that your view is somehow better and you do not need to accept facts to clarify it.  Personally, I feel you are doing yourself an injustice by continuing this practice.  Your willful unacceptance of facts is unacceptable to us. 

I've named it, "The Johnnie Cochran" argument. Quick explanation--after the OJ trial, Dana Carvey had a comedy special on Comedy Central that ran every day for about 2 years. In his comments on the trial, he joked about how impressed he was by the fact that although there was a mountain of evidence on file that pointed to OJ as the killer, Johnnie Cochran's attitude in court was, "Why are we even having a trial?--" This is my problem with your christian viewpoint. How it applies here, is that your "christian points" are often things that have been soundly debunked by science over the years, yet you refuse to acknowledge any of them. If it's not proven 100% beyond any doubt, your attitude is, "well, it's only 95% certain, so my belief that god did it is just as valid." No, it's not. Not here at least, so dont expect your "christian points" to be respected in these cases.

Stop right there. Do you agree with the pope's recent statement that christians need to start making more babies?

I dont it's anger, really. I think it's frustration because in all honesty, your arguments are often ridiculous.

Oh yes you are. We allow the facts and the evidence form the viewpoints we have, you pull a Johnnie Cochran because it makes you feel better. All those "decades" you've spent were a waste of time, because you're not searching for anything that would take that long to find. Warm fuzzy feelings can be found in almost any religion, you just picked the one that made the most sense to someone raised in the American lifestyle.

A) We dont have "beliefs." We have a lack of belief, and you wonder why people snap at you. B) You please explain to me how my life would be richer if I spent even one second trying to convince a homosexual that his/her actions are sinful?

You've found meanness where there wasnt any numerous times(my post where I used the line, What the hell.. comes to mind). When there has been meanness and putdowns, it almost surely comes after one of your condescending, "pity the poor atheist" posts. And when it does, you deserve it.

Hey! We agree on something!

Well, until christianity and islam fade into the annals of mythology alongside osiris and jupiter, I agree again!

In our lifetime, no, but eventually I'm sure of it.

No, because that's stupid.(sorry, couldnt resist)

You have nothing to offer us that we would have any desire to listen to. You can listen to what we're saying all you want, but no atheist I know wants to listen to you praising jesus and prostletyzing(sp?). If you expect us to listen to any of this, expect to be disappointed.

Well, no, actually, you cant. Go look up what delusional means. There is NOTHING in the definition of delusional that you could attribute to an atheist.

Oh yes we can. See above.

I am not a moderater, but I do not think you are anywhere near that point.

You called me a "man". "Scary Princess" I could understand, but "man"! Really! In retrospect, I can see that you may have been paying me a compliment so - thank you. You have, in the past used untruthful statements based on emotion instead of facts. Liar is the only term that fits. You will find in life that some people are kinder about their challenges than others, but that does not remove the burden of honesty from your shoulders.

Again, you imply a sense of "special-ness" with these words. I do not doubt that you have been told that you are special because you have a relationship with god. But why do you feel you are entitled to be treated with respect? Because you are human? Because you are female? Several times you have made very disrespectful statements regarding atheists. These statements were made out of ignorant beliefs. If you make false statements you will be called on it here. If you get offended that is your problem not ours. Try another argument.

No one expects perfection, however, your arguments and statements have not improved in validity or substance. You have posted this whiny diatribe in order to convince people to feel sorry for you. I don't. I will continue to encourage you to ask yourself why you believe and when you can produce a valid, verfiable answer I would love to hear it.

Hello.  I am here because I am honestly deeply troubled by the inability for the secular and religious community to communicate.  All you have to do is look at American politicians and see it has become a serious problem.  They are so divided that they cannot get anything done, and they are more interested in pushing their side of the cause than in seeing any real problem get solved.  I think this is the great debate of our time, actually, and I think, if we do not learn to talk to each other, the consequences could be dire for both sides.  That's why I'm here.  I think it is important, no matter how difficult it may be sometimes.  Those of us in the trenches, common citizens, need to rise up and stop this insanity that is threatening to tear our world apart. 

The nice thing about science is, as we learn more about the world in 10, 15 years, if something we think is true today is found to be incorrect, then the viewpoint will change. Most things found in a 2000 year old science book have been found to be untrue today, whereas you want your 2000 year old book to remain irrefutable for no good reason whatsoever. Nobody I know uses science as a moral guide, this is one of your ridiculous arguments that I mentioned earlier. I'll put my morality up against 99% of the theists alive today, and I would be found to have as high a moral standard if not higher than any of you. And I will not get lost without your god, because I dont need the fear of hell to keep me acting as a decent human being should. If you're so sure we need your "magnetic north," then explain to me how I, and surely many people on this site act as moral human beings, everyday.

Not if they truly believe in saving the planet, as you claim to be concerned with. That was why I asked the question.

No, I certainly dont hold the key to all the universe's secrets, but I will support efforts to find as many of them as we can, will you?

Nope, I just read your posts. If I knew you before you became a christian, and knew what I know about you now, I'd have no problem betting my house and every dollar I have in the bank that you'd become one. Every post you've made on these boards supports it.

You dont? How would you vote on a gay marriage/civil union bill where you live?

Only using our interaction as an example, I have no idea how starting a sentence with "What the hell," is any kind of judgement of your character.

It's not hateful, it's an opinion. If you were to say, atheism is a fad and will go away shortly, I wouldnt call it hateful.

Sorry you feel that way, but that's your problem.

You mean, a different group that claims everything about their religion as you do about yours? I see the enemy alright, but it's not one you and I have in common.

You could go back a few hundred years and find plenty of people saying the same thing about "extremist christian government." You want peace? Ditch your dogma, and encourage others to do the same.

Do you realize how hurtful that is? I am so offended that you would laugh at my beliefs.

I will reiterate what I just said on the other string.  None of us, not me, not you, not anyone here is exempt from being on the giving or receiving end of that which occured in the holocaust.  

It seems, based on my observations over the past weeks, that those with theist under their name are treated quite differently here (So watch out.  But your BF is here so you'll be treated better, I'm sure).  What starts off as a decent conversation becomes ugly and the theist starts getting bashed.  The theists character gets bashed, the theist gets judged harshly and unnecessarily.  Comments disrespectful to all religions fall off people's tongues like it is nothing, they do not even flinch or feel they are wrong in totally trashing someones honored belief system.  When the theist tries to explain their point, from the THEIST point of view, or tried to reiterate or discuss their own beliefs, they get called names like bigot and liar.  Is this normal and healthy to you?  Is this how people should talk to each other?  I have never once said atheists are ignorant/liars/mentally ill/etc., that the world would be better without atheism.  I have never called anyone's "ridiculous" or a waste of time...  Nor have I used any cuss words when addressing folks.  That is just not how I talk to people.  I have learned that it is wrong to talk to people that way.

 The negative energy towards theism, Christianity in particular, is dangerous.  Plain and simple.  It opens oneself up to hate, and once hate enters the heart...any number of things can happen...in the 1940's it led to the holocaust.

I think it is perfectlly acceptable for me to bring up the holocaust, to remind people that those Jews were slaughtered because people thought they were stupid, liars, because people did not agree with their lifestyle, their religion, anything about them.

We all have in our hearts the potential to do tremendous good, or tremendous harm.  I for one, do not ever wish to forget that, and I feel it is good for us to remind each other of that fact as well.  (Yes, I used the word fact this time, on purpose.) 

We don't need a book full of bullshit to tell us how to behave morally. We judge how our actions affect others. You might want to notice how few atheists are in prison compared to Christians and Moslems.

Jeez I'd hate to see her reaction if she really pissed me off and I, as Iceberg Slim put it "Blasted her with masterworks of pimp profanity!" People here have been pretty nice - no actual attacks, just attacking irrational beliefs. I posted this in another thread - don't know who said it but it's true "People who don't like to have their beliefs ridiculed shouldn't have ridiculous beliefs."

It's really very simple, and I am surprised you haven't seen it mentioned multiple times on these boards. I base my life choices on whether the action will harm someone, or if I would want said action done to me. Yes, also known as the golden rule. And yes, it's in the bible, but it also appears in most cultures' ancient texts as well.

I dont mean to be rude, but the frustration reaches epic proportions when you go completely off-topic and claim, for example, that atheists use science as a moral guide. This has been addressed a thousand times, and was also completely irrelevant to what we were talking about. It makes it sound, as others have mentioned, that you dont listen to anything anyone says to you here.

See above response. Its(the golden rule, not my response, LOL) brilliance is in its simplicity and its universality.

My point was that, from the decimation of rain forests to global warming, the earth is being battered silly. Much of this is due to overpopulation. Anyone concerned with helping the planet would take issue with the pope's plea for christians to breed at will.

OK, then what will you do when science finds enough evidence to announce that homosexuality is purely a result of genetics?

Youve professed a love for jesus many times, so would that not make you a christian? This spiritual realm business runs contrary to your past position.

If a civil union bill then is up for a vote in your state, granting gay unions all benefits and recognitions enjoyed by straight couples, how would you vote?

I agree that vulgarity is overused in regular conversation, but I wouldn't consider the word 'hell' to be vulgar. It's no different to me than saying "What the shangri-la?"

Yes, I am sensitive to other people's feelings, but as an atheist, I obviously disagree with you on this issue. You probably know that I think religion will become obsolete one day, so why is it so offensive for me to type it out?

All religions think theirs is the one true religion. At one time or another, all of them produced leaders that decided that anyone not under their control(using the religion as a hammer) would have to die. It's more about their ego and their need to control people than the religion itself. It is a handy weapon however.

Their propaganda war is hardly successful, IMHO, for one. For two, propaganda wars dont win in the long run. I would also argue that it's not propaganda that makes their message successful, it's the ability to restrict any other information from reaching their subjects. Read up on the madrassas in arab countries.

While they certainly are dangerous, I believe their ability to kill us all and conquer the world has been vastly overstated. They'll soon be economically isolated, and the money will eventually run out. And that's just one way they'll screw up sooner rather than later.

It's always ok to poke fun at people, and to point their hypocrisy where appropriate. Myself first and foremost. Overly sensitive people are rarely any fun, and are usually found behind a push towards political correctness ad nauseam.

Yes, atheists are very discriminted against! Didn't you see that atheists are less likely to be voted for even if qualified and the person agrees with their position than moslems, homosexuals, women, jews, african-americans or almost anything? And yeah, the Bible is shit! What would you say if there was a book out that said Superman was real, the earth was a cube, 2 + 2 = 7, and anyone who wears blue should be tortured to death? The claims of the babble are no less irrational than these.

Hmmm. One of the reasons I've been alternately concerned about and furious with sugarfree is I can see in her a kindred spirit. According to the work of Dr. Elaine Aron, being what some people call "overly sensitive" is a natural and genetic condition for about 20% of any given population. That includes animals. Apparently, natural selection favors sensitivity in populations.  The "sensitive" are more in tune with what is happening.

I've been "overly sensitive" from birth. Noises, smells, fabrics and emotions affect me more than they seem to affect other people. I was so tuned in to the world that at times it has overwhelmed me. Part of this led to the development of some wonderful creativity and talent; part of it led to my being easily hurt.

When fundamentalist religion was added to the condition of simply being Iruka Naminori, it created a lot of problems. On the one hand I ended up being too curious and intelligent to accept the hogwash that was foisted upon me; on the other, I sort of "needed" it to help me through the day. So, in ways I really understand where sugarfree is coming from.

Part of the problem is sensitivity converts readily to anger. Ewps. I think that's a problem for me and anyone else who is unlucky enough to be born sensitive in the current American culture. We fare much better in cultures like Sweden and China, where sensitivity is more valued.

I've tried to work through some of my reactions to inner turmoil, but the sensitivity itself will not go away because I'm wired that way. When I read Dr. Aron's book, I got pissed off that sensitive people were labeled "priests." I hope that doesn't mean that we sensitive people are mostly destined to be gullible.

Dr. Aron seems to think so. She says sensitive people tend to be more "spiritual." Ugh. I hope not, for the sake of the world. While we can be great healers, we can also get our panties in a bundle rather easily.

I only believe in "spirituality" as a function of the brain. At least in Eastern cultures, those who are sensitive and spiritual don't necessarily have to believe in a holy book and some sky daddy. I wonder what place there is for me here in America: a sensitive person who also tries to be logical?

Anyway, that's my story.

Oh and Glamourkat: I have actually read and enjoyed some V.C. Andrews: the Flowers in the Attic series. By the end, I didn't want to read more V.C. Andrews, thank-you-very-much. It's interesting that when people rag on my taste (or lack thereof), it sometimes really hurts. I don't care much about V.C. Andrews, but there are some things I really do care about that fall into the "fandom" category. When people diss these things, I probably feel a little bit like sugarfree when we diss her religion.

Seriously, I think we should applaud her for listening to alternative views at all. A lot of Christians would have headed for the hills. Yeah, she bitched and moaned about doing just that, but here she is, back for more.

Yeah, I agree that she is demanding the wrong things from our community, but she's here. I pissed and moaned and yelled and screamed when my beliefs were being questioned. I yelled louder than sugarfree, but I think my tone was similar. Eventually, some of it got through. Think about that.

Why? How? You need to respect something to consider it human?

This is good. I applaud your efforts. But that doesn't mean I should respect your beliefs. Respect is earned. I realize this could seem insulting but it must be said. You do know what respect actually means right?

the condition of being honored (esteemed or respected or well regarded); "it is held in esteem"; "a man who has earned high regard"

By definition, your faith cannot be respected. It has not earned high regard, just popular regard. It does not deserve honour. It has not shown itself to be factual, or even more useful than useless. Delivering it respect would be akin to respecting a rock.

Should you be so lucky. Ha ha.

It's about time you start getting the difference. I am not presupposing anything. I am just asking for evidence. As you have demonstrated, you presuppose that every other god out there doesn't exist, except the one you're batting eyelids at.

You still (STILL!) seem unable to comprehend that every other religion can claim "non-material proof" for its god. A good exercise for you would be this: For any future arguments you wish to bring in defense of your faith, first consider whether it can be applied to any other religion. If so, perhaps you shouldn't present the argument to us; and you certainly shouldn't get indignant if the argument gets blown out of the water and crucified to the wall.

Um, sugarpie, you are repeatedly reminding us of our anger, hate, and other such glowing attributes. You object to anyone pissing on your religion, but you are content to disparage the other religions ("bald men at the airport", "islamic fascism&quot.

Go back to your first thread and observe how I initially thanked you for listening and maintaining an open mind. After a couple of civil exchanges, you accused me of using my knowledge to "try to tear down, and to impress others". You made this cynical and unprovoked accusation rather than continuing the debate. (For the record, I was not showing off, nor have I ever been angry, despite your insistence that I am.) The topic we were discussing was the historical proof for jesus. You essentially never resumed the topic, despite several overtures on my part. So sugar, my initially polite attitude --in appreciation of your "listening" and "open mind"-- changed to meet yours, as it became clear you were not listening. I remember some folk tale which dealt with this hypocrisy very well. Someing about "cast the first stone". Can't quite remember where I read it...

The title of your thread is "What moves atheists to tears". You relate the emotions you felt when hearing the Coltrane version of "Were you there?", then conclude with the sentence "And this Truth is so magnificent that everything you throw at me pales in comparison".

Precisely what was your technique and motive here? I had to wonder if your thread title implied that atheists were not as well moved to tears as you were. I'm sorry, but if you're unwilling to discuss the lack of historical evidence for jesus, you honestly can't expect this "technique" of yours to be of any purpose. Without something to demonstrate that there was actually a jesus to cry over, I can't help but see this as a bout of tears over a fictional character.

Oh?  So this is an experiment on your part to see if you can get us to change how we post in the Atheist vs Theist thread?

The way you are playing victim (and, yes, you ARE playing victim), it would be the same thing if you went into a strip club and requested that the ladies quit stripping because it offended you.

Again, if you want to be assured of civility, please restrict yourself to the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread.  If you're going to continue to post in this thread, quit whining.

Oftentimes I have simply reiterated a Christian point, and then, to my surprise several people attack what I have said, called me a liar, arrogant, rude, prideful, etc.

Though I personally tend to shy away from ad hominid and dislike it when people do this, I have observed (something I have said before) that you really do not make arguments. You just dont. You showed us poor argumentative skills in that disasterous first thread you started. People are going to get mad at you because your position is hypocritical.

 And I’m left wondering, what on earth did I say that incited so much anger?

You make people annoyed not angry.

 Truth is, I am a caring person who wants to improve and make a positive impact on the world.  I love animals, I respect the earth, I think we need to take better care of it.  If I’ve harmed someone, I want to make amends, etc.  So, I honestly do not understand where your anger comes from.  Is it simply because I don't agree with you?

I'm not angry, I just think you are wrong and have a highly irrational style of arguing. If you want common ground, you should start a thread explaning why you believe in God, and we can all find something to argue about rationally from there.

 Taking my Christianity out of the equation, I am a person, I have opinions, I feel strongly about my opinions because they have been formed from decades of searching, thinking, turning things over in my mind.

What does that have to do with anything? This is an argument from emotion. The atheist v theist thread is about argument. Defense of a position or critique of an opponent's position comes from argumentative logic. Because you lack this ability, you criticize us for having honed this skill. There is hypocritical projectionism attached to this way of thinking,

 I am no different than you, in that respect.  It just so happens that you came to different conclusions than me.  But, I can tell, you feel equally strongly about your beliefs and feel I would be better off if I were atheist.  You know that I feel you would have a richer experience in this life if you believed in God, not necessarily even the Christian God.  So, tho our opinions are different, the way we are approach each other is really not so different.

 The way we approach each other is not different? It's a gaping chasm. We approach things in a highly objective way. Every belief system is subject to ruthless critique. Your's is highly subjective, and grounded in emotion.

 n light of that, what I do not understand is why we cannot converse like adults, hear each other’s view points, accept that we are both attempting to influence the other side with those view points, and let go of all the meanness and personal put downs?

Because I've never seen you actually contribute to an argument about these issues. All you do is make arguments from emotions. This is very annoying. This is exactly what you are doing know.

I am never going to get everyone to see the need to worship God.  Most likely, you are not going to deconvert me, nor am I going to convert you.  So, can we, instead start listening, and refrain from judging others ideas as stupid, baseless, juvenile?

Show me the need to worship God. Seriously. Even if physcologists and neurologists proved that humans have a need to worship God, this would not have the slightest bearing on the truth value of the proposition. Please do not make such naive argumentum ad consequentiam. 

Listening is a two-way street. I listen to you, but never find anything of value because you dont make arguments or listen to us. you want respect? Then defend your God! Get into arguments about ontology and epistemology. Show us the rational coherency of your beliefs! Then we will take you seriously! Don't just whine and whine and whine. We will not take you seriously until you give us a reason to do so. You are very good at putting emotional spin on everything to cover up the fact that your belief system is held together by spit and prayers. If you want us to believe otherwise, you better give us a coherent reason.

 Also, I do not feel the “delusional” label you have placed on theists is going to get us anywhere positive.

 I dont think you are delusional because you believe in God. I just think you are wrong. I think you are delusional because you waste everyone's time by pulling off stunts like this when this time could be much better spent showing us why your belief system is rational. You claim to have thought about it for years! Excellent! THEN SHOW US! Seriously, I'd be happy to critique it. I'd be happy to have sane discourse with you. But annoying the whole forum then whining because you do not understand why the forum is annoyed is a vicious circle.

  I can just as easily call you delusional.

You would have to defend that proposition by pointing out the flaws in our belief system. But the horror! This would require some rational thought.

 The fact is, you are not in my brain, I am not in yours.  You have not had my experiences, I have not had yours.  So, you can no more honestly judge me delusional than I can judge you.

My problem with your viewpoint is that you put so much weight in science.

Of course. I get paid to do that.

You base everything you believe about this world on what you know to be true today.

What about 10 years from now, 15 years from now? What about some of the things you "know" now based on science, that science itself will debunk in the coming years? I think science is a valuable tool for understanding this world,

but I contend that science is not capable of guiding you in terms of morality because it is a perpetually changing and unfinished "work". If want to have a moral compass, you need the magnetic north, which is God, otherwise you will get lost.

This is an absurd non sequiter. Even basic philosophical axiology would tell you this is nonsense. The false dichotomy employed is here is to a mind-numbing degree. Science is morally neutral. However, the false dichotomy comes from God as being the inherent alternative. Like I said before, even if physcologists could axiomatically demonstrate the need for such a being, it has no reflection on the truth value of the entity.

you are essentially telling me that you need God to fill a phsycological void. Personally, anyone who argues with this absurd appeal to emotion is invoking abdication of human responsibility. We have a responsibility for ourselves to decide what is right and wrong. Religious people are so terrified of this notion of an axiologt different from their own that they use a physcoanalytical projectionist technique to arrogantly invoke the notion that God is an inherent requisite for morality. This has never been logically demonstrated, ever.

Well, obedience and morality are two different things. I am highly amused by how you refer to the religous texts as moral guides.

You have used science to debunk a great percentage of this world's moral guides, i.e., religious texts.So then, what do you use instead? What is your magnetic north? i.e., that which keeps you on the straight and narrow path of morality and goodness?

Again, an absurd non sequiter. Religious texts are not moral guides. Again, the theist preaches abdication of moral responsibility, reducing human reason to nothing, as if we are incapable of our own axiology! Religious texts preach obedience not morality. Huge stretches of text in the holy books are barbaric stories and evil anecdotes.

Put it another way, if your looking for slavish obedience or a good, rocking tale about lions eating Christians and people nailing each other to two-by-fours, pick up a religious text. But if you want to live a good, moral life using it, well....you've got a better chance of finding a virgin in an all-boys Catholic orphanage.

And my morality is grounded in humanist philosophy, compassion based on reason and respect for humanity.

It is because of their contradictory nature that religious guides cannot be moral guides ergo your argument collapses.

If someone cherry-picks their scripture, choosing the pieces they like and ignoring the parts they find unpalatable, what right do they have to criticize atheists for lack of absolutist morality? Indeed, it begs another question. They (theists) must have another source of morality which guides them to select only scripture which does not command them to bludgeon their children with heavy stones. What this means is that religion is merely a litmus test for someone’s morality. If you are immoral and believe it is right to kill people by flying a plane into a building, well, your Holy Book can certainly iterate that for you, as evidenced by the nineteen men who did just that. If you are moral and believe in love and compassion, then if you scour enough, you can find that too. So, that means that there must be an external source of morality that guides someone to decide which passages are right, and which are not.

This in itself completely defeats the notion of morality from scripture. When society is violent, the interpretation of scripture is violent. When society is complacent, people fall for sappy Romantic-era insistence of theologians that the Bible doesn’t really warrant you to kill people, when in fact it does. Now matter how someone tries to construe it, absolutist morality from a Holy Book is a logical contradiction. Everyone’s interpretation is different. Don’t think so? Check how many distinct denominations of Christianity exist today. Those lunatics holding up signs saying Thank God for AIDS are just as much Christians as the run-of-the-mill peaceful churchgoer.

Ironically, any theist who says a violent Inquisition preist is not a true Christian is merely defeating his own argument by admitting that religion is subject to the forces of social and moral change which of course, is caused by secularism. The passages that people follow and interpret would merely reflect a litmus test of society as a whole. Since it is so open to interpretation because it doesn't really have any absolute message, the theists adovocation of absolutist morality from the Bible collapses on itself.

This brings me back to the issue of theists cherry-picking their scripture. Social progress has rendered certain codes of the ancient texts obsolete, thus they are ignored save by a few rather frightful fringe elements of religion. After all, any logical person will recognize that we have certainly become more humane and ethical as a society since the time of Christ. This, to me, is why it is so amusing for someone to claim they get their morality from a book which was written at a time when (ironically, as evidenced by this same text), crucifixion was considered an acceptable punishment for blasphemy.

It is secular influence, like the Enlightenment era and non-religious judiciary, that is responsible for much of what we consider to be “social progress” in the West. Conservative taboos are broken down by revolutionaries, not revisionists and certainly not religion. Religion has been forced to be extremely malleable when it comes social progress, because it is not an institution that changes very well. This may explain what we see in Islamic countries, and also why an alarming number of the faithful seem to be attempting to reverse the Zeitgeist.

Humans do not need a book to be moral, unless they are insane, childish, deluded or just stupid. The complete and utter failure to appreciate the highly complex nature of our morality (morality is mostly nueroplastic/synaptogenic), not to mention the utter failure to dictate that Origin belief has no bearing on morality because everyone acknowledges that by the creation of society, humans have fully departed from their evolutionary origins. Religious arguments in the context are naive, silly, and show a lack of appreciation for history and sociology. 

The day the atheists rise up and mark my body with my symbol of faith and ostracize me from my friends and family is the day I will compare them to Nazis.  They don't hate you.  They don't want to kill you.  They don't feel that you are dirtying up the population with you Christian disease and weakening the race of good strong humans.  They disagree with you.

And if you really want, I'm sure I can go on adnauseum about how they are all going to hell and how they are all wrong and evil and piss them off like a lot of theists.  If they dont spend countless threads cussing me out and making from of me, then it is because I have enough respect for them to say, "hey we don't agree.  That's cool.  Oh you feel that homosexuality is okay, and a gay couple should be allowed to marry?  That's cool.  I agree with you."

or possibly, "hey, you think killing people in the name of church is bad.  So do I.  How about that!"

or even, "You don't believe in God.  That's interesting.  I do believe in God.  Let us share our differences and not try to kill one another.. because that is bad."

They will treat me with respect as long as I treat them with respect.  And if they don't, then oh  well.  I came to them to discuss life.  Not the other way around.  If I don't like it I will leave.  My bf won't be "protecting" me from the mean old atheists.  I can take care of myself thanks.  Don't single me out as getting special treatment because I am dating an atheist.  Trust me, they disagree with my views too.  Even the bf disagrees with me 99% of the time.