Theists who want to show that a lessening of theistic belief leads to moral decay often use history as an example. Many of the theists I've talked to about this are my age or older and many of them wax nostalgic about "good ole days", when youngsters respected elders, adult magazines weren't seen on newsstands and alcohol sales were prohibited on Sunday. They argue that in the "good ole days" when most people went to church on Sundays, there was an "air" of respect and thus there was less crime and general badness.

How many here, really think this is accurate? Were the good ole days, really that good? Let's try to look at this objectively. First off, I think their examples of history make up too short of a perid to judge. Most only go back 50 to 100 years, some refer to certain decades affectionately such as the "Fabulous 50's", my mom believed that all of the world's problems started with the 60's and those "horrible hippies".

If you go back further in history and look at human civilization as a whole, comparing the Sumerians with the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans, you would see that moral trends often operate like a pendulum swing. External factors such as catastrophic weather changes, famine ,war and social/political change are what affects morality.

Here is an interesting article on the new field of science, quantum biology and science's attempts at explaining consciousness and the soul. Interesting stuff, doesn't really explain away religion per se, but offers some mechanics behind the mythos.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak..._b_675107.html

Why do so many theists find such things as this offensive?     

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL

Many of you hold that it is irrational to believe in God because there is no evidence. The premise clearly underlying that position is that it is irrational to take a position that is unsupported by evidence. The popular atheist books abound with this precise claim: there is no evidence; we shouldn’t believe it.

Here is a proposition: “God exists”.

Here is a position on that proposition: “The proposition ‘God exists’ is false”.

God is almost omnipotent. He has many limits.

Omnipotent is defined in part as having power or authority without limits IOW, almighty.

Seems to me that God has a few limits.

He cannot reproduce true.
He cannot enjoy sex.
He cannot reproduce without bestiality or cross species breeding.
He can only reproduce half breed chimeras like Jesus.
He could not create a heaven without Satan.
He could not create Eden without evil in it.
He cannot control wayward demons or devils.
He cannot sin, although scripture says he does.
He cannot live without needs like adoration, honour, obedience, love.
He cannot accept a soul into heaven without us accepting Jesus and human sacrifice.
He could not forgive sin without having Jesus sacrificed.
Feel free to add to this list.

How then can Christians say that God omnipotent, all-powerful and without limits when he clearly has many?

Regards
DL

I have heard it seems all my life this moronic, twisted statement from theists: atheism is a religion.  Atheists believe there is no god and that is a belief system.  A belief system is a religion. 

So I call myself a non-believer.  Then of course I get "oh, you're an atheist blah blah blah".

You guys must have heard this claptrap as well.

Does anyone have a really good answer to this nonsense aside from fainting or running screaming into the night?

I've been lurking around this and other atheist sites for awhile.  I like this one best.  I'm sure I'm not as clever, certainly not as well educated as you all.  I'm now 70 and have been a non-believer since I was a teenager.  I just found the whole god thing to be ridiculous.  It seems to me a bizarre concept and my life has been just fine without leaning on something that isn't there.  When I die I will be dead.  Seems reasonable to me.  Any animal that dies is just dead.  Us included.

I will argue that belief in God is not irrational. 

To show that belief in God is not irrational, I must show that there are reasons to believe in God. 

(I would like to suggest, before moving on, that I am not required to definitively prove the existence of God. I need only show that belief is not irrational—that is, not without plausible reason.)

I will now present what will amount to a Cosmological Argument. I know you've all heard it, but bear with me.

             Until recent cosmology suggested a beginning to time and space in the Big Bang, many people held that the universe was simply infinitely old. Suppose the state of the universe today is called S5. S5 could be explained in terms of the state of the universe yesterday, S4, and the laws of nature that acted on it. In turn, S4 could be explained by a previous state, S3, and so on. In an infinitely old universe there would be no first cause, so to speak, and so the very existence of the universe would be unexplained, as every cause is also an effect and there is no cause outside the set of effects. It's existence and the existence of the apparent laws of nature (physical laws) could be taken as a "brute fact". 

Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

Scriptures, and other myth’s, say that God determined that men should rule over women. This gives form, --- in a demographic sense, ---- to our common and society, and says that our demographic pyramid should have a hierarchical shape and or form. This initiates tension and has God demonizing woman, as well as any notion of female equality with man.

His motive must be for the good of women. Somehow!
After all, sanctity of the family is one of the main points of morality.

God was arguably right for his time. Think in the barbaric way. Below the belt. Thank God that time is almost past. Women in our modern world do not need man’s dubious ape like help. I hope you agree. Be honest now with yourself be you male or female.

Men have dominated women long enough I think. To give them equality would be justice.

What do you think?
What would real men do?
What would real women demand?
Do men and women have what it takes to be free?

Justice under law should be gender and age neutral, with limits, but with a good spirit of assuring equality. We do not administer that justice. We only give it lip service. Men are not walking their talk. Neither are women.

In Gods timocracy, a place of government in which love of honor is the ruling principle. All honors go to the Queen and her children. A king’s first responsibility is to insure the veneration of his queen. Honor demands it. He accepts this burden and pleasure wisely. The Queen, as the Beta archetype is the life of the kingdom.

 There seems to be some disagreement as to whether I'm a theist or an atheist. At least by implication I have been called both. I use neither term to describe myself, preferring to call myself simply a free-thinker.

Where the issue has come up is in reaction to a book I've written called How to Be Free by Joe Blow. Joe Blow is my pseudonym. I showed this book to an atheist friend of mine and he expressed disgust that I had fallen to "theism". More recently the book has angered a couple of Christians who commented (on U.S. I-Tunes - where the book currently has received 61 five star ratings) :

"Disgusting--somebody told me it was the most amazing book-ebooked it--now I'm trashing it--then taking a shower...screwball Go find the Real God."

O.K., I suppose that one doesn't say that I'm an atheist, necessarily, but certainly that I'm not a believer in the same God as the reviewer.

"If you are a Christian, do not waste your time! I'm a Christian woman and this book says that God is not real! He is very much real! I am writing this review so that other Christians will be warned of this upfront so they will not have to waste their time by downloading and find out for themselves! As soon as I submit this review I am deleting this book!"