[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

If you reread my last post carefully you will see that I did not say you had a religion. I said " atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet". And I repeat that you are expressing your beliefs in this system quite plainly. The proof is in the constant dogmatic statements you make about it.

And no I do not need a hint. The bright orange letters in your sig are more than obvious.

Yes, certain people may have a problem with that line. That'S why I set it up.

But despite his faith. Please. How can you make such a bold assumption about anyone else? Or me for that matter. Do you have special powers?

My only spoecial power I am aware of is my brain, and I intend to insist on the freedom to use it. I prefer to look at moral people being kind and ethical becasue that is a self-purpose, and imo even comes quite natrually all by itself if people are left unattacked by relgious domgas and fundamentalists. If they are moralistic only due to being afraid of god'S punishement or hellfire, then I am tempted to bet one penny on their morality. And the holy scriptures surely do not propaose an ideal exmaple of how a moral person or how ethical behaviour should look like. Quran, old and new testament alike are dripping of blood and stories on attack, war, calls for submission and obeidence,k racism, hate on women and their supression. The only few sane parts are in the preachings by Jesuus - but even there you find hints on that Jesus was anything but a actiividst onm behalf of women's rights. Then there are the many people, especially Paul, who distorted the words of Jesus, and oretty much added oil to the fire of corrupting relgion to benefit from that by winning more authority themselves. Is the semron on the mount reasonable? Of course it is, but there you have it: it is a quite naturally reasonable list of thoughts that not just the son of a god but any person with s sane mind could show up with - and as a matter of fact has shown up with time and again. Why this fixiation on this single man back then of whom we even cannot say for sure that he even ever existed, not to mention that the reprtts about him are highly subjective, selective, lack at least twice as many other gospels beside the four or five that had been chosen(!) to base on, the many contradictions between the four existing gospels, and the many people who since then and already in their creaiton have messed around with these gospels, amnipulatd, changed and distorted them! I respect some of what Jesus said - and for toher what he said I think he deserve a kick in the lower bottom and I am absolutely not sure that I would share a glass of beer with him, if he would finally fall down from heaven again. A couple of reasonable worlds alone don't make you already a saint, if you forgive the wordplay.

Oh wait I think the police just kicked in the door.

I challenge you to search any of the posted links, organizations etc a find any kind of opposing viewpoints. If you can I retract my statement. If not they are obviously biased.

I think since it is your claim they are biased it is your job and duty to give evidence for your claims. Your elgious people play thius part of the bgame always very clever, always demanding more unbiased info, and when it nis given, youj ignore it and claim just more. Of course you have never to show up with substantial material that could be analysed and examined yourself, since it is belief and faith you are about, and this just needs to be believed, it must not been proven, and it should not be analysed at all, since it would not stand the tests of reasonabilty.

That'S what makes relgious piety such an annoyance, I assume.

Anyway, there are some experimental studies (there are also more), and some books I referred to. Yopu want to disagree with them but ask ME to deliver you arguments for that position - and if I do not help ypou to think and form a stand by yourself, then I or these authors are "biased" ? Well, that is modern political correctness in action, if you give one argment, you also have to give the counterargument by yourslef, else your original argument is biased.

Not with me. I fear you have to explain your disagreeing with that material by yourself. I play for the other team, if you haven'T noticed.

This is a play on words. I did not call atheists believers.

Belief - believers, what is so difficult to see the link there...

Apparently that's offensive. Atheists have a system of belief, a doctrine, that is well documented.

Oh, is it? And there was me, always failing to see any such "well-documented" atheistic system of belief. Okay, I take the bait: show me the evidence that you've got, what is atheistic doctrine, what is the atheistic belief system?

I say atheism is nothing more than the absence of any theistic belief system and the rejection of any such doctrine.

Oh, wait, I have one "doctrine" indeed. That is Kant's Golden Rule. And my tolerance ends where my behaviour basing on it is not answered with according reciprocity - thats why I am hostile to the three desert religions and their institutions, priests, cults, temples.

So, and now I start to get tired of it all. Next time you quote me, quote me correctly - that would save me plenty of time.