In general, a man with religion is better than an atheist.

[rumbuggerylash]

but there is nothing to stop an atheist.

Self control? Self discipline?
I take it you're one of those sorts who think atheists have no morals right?
Well, you're dead wrong. So please, move along.

They have morals but I feel morals are not enough. I feel that a fire whose fuel is men and stones is better at keeping people in line. You can do something that goes against your morals, and a little whiskey and wimmins should take care of the ill effects, but no amount of whiskey and wimmins is going to make you forget that you might be fuel for the fire.

He is better because he is potentially less dangerous. A man with religion has his rules, and he does follow them form time to time, but an atheist has no rules. An atheist is only kept in check by what he can get away with and his imagination. For example, if an atheist were to have absolute power, then he could kill anyone that displeases him, but a man with religion, with absolute power, can kill only the heathens. If you are not a heathen, then a man with religion can't simply kill you because you displease him, but an atheist could. Also, if you are a heathen, then you could easily pretend to be a man with religion, and the man with religion, with absolute power, can't touch you. In addition, faking being a man with religion is pretty easy, but faking being an atheist is not so easy.

So, I take it, that governments no longer have laws in this scenario? And, by the way, religious men do kill people who displease them. As a matter of fact, some Muslims killed 3,000 people who displeased them about ten years ago in New York.

Yes, but those people were thought of as heathens by the hijackers. Now if those people had the exact same religious views as Al Qaeda members, then I suspect they may have been spared. You don't hear of Al Qaeda members killing Wahabis.

Most people of the world throughout history were religious...

How did that less dangerous thing turn out?

Remember that Abraham, the man of faith, is admired by the religious for attempting to murder his son because an immaterial being told him to.

Yes but I feel that right now atheists are limited by their numbers, and so have to be on their best behavior. Once they have the numbers or get the upper hand, then I am affraid people will be clamoring for the return of Amir Timur.

Also, it was just a test. Plus, had Abraham not been stopped, then the Almighty would have made it up to Abraham's son. He has limitless everything. ;0

He is better because he is potentially less dangerous.

Oh please, I'm not even going to waste time discussing how hopelessly incorrect you are, pondering upon the actual harm religion has done, or address the nonsensical presumption that belief in fictional entities makes a person more moral. If you consider "buggery" as a religious view I suppose most, if not, all of us are 'potentially dangerous' within your interesting little subjective mindset you've developed.

Have fun with that.

It is true that religion has done some harm, but my point of contention is that no religion will do more harm, thus making religion the better option.

---

He is better because he is potentially less dangerous. A man with religion has his rules, and he does follow them form time to time, but an atheist has no rules. An atheist is only kept in check by what he can get away with and his imagination. For example, if an atheist were to have absolute power, then he could kill anyone that displeases him, but a man with religion, with absolute power, can kill only the heathens. If you are not a heathen, then a man with religion can't simply kill you because you displease him, but an atheist could. Also, if you are a heathen, then you could easily pretend to be a man with religion, and the man with religion, with absolute power, can't touch you. In addition, faking being a man with religion is pretty easy, but faking being an atheist is not so easy.

Welcome to the forums.

Firstly, are you kidding me?

Secondly, Atheists do have rules, we have the social constraints in which we can act without reciprocating a response from others. We do not believe there are cosmic laws so we take no notice of them when deciding to act.

Thirdly, The quality of the 'laws' by which you live, or at least claim live by (but we both know that's bullshit and you ignore most of the laws), are those from an ancient, barely literate, uneducated, superstitious society thousands of years ago.

Fourthly, Without evidence of the existence of a god religious texts are the products of men, and as such the rules contained within them as a whole are, to put it nicely, outdated. We have thousands of years of society, a much better idea of and much more thorough exposure to these social constraints, more understanding of the nature of reality, more understanding of the nature of the mind and what motivates our action and thousands of years of religious terror to look back on and say "fuck that".

As for this "Ultimate power" scenario.

You managed, quite conveniently it seems, to leave out that the person in your Atheist scenario killing everyone that displeases him is quite clearly psychotic. If you had any integrity you would have framed it in a manner such as "For example, if a psychotic atheist were to have absolute power", in which case I'll simply respond; Do you think a psychotic religious man with absolute power would do any different?

And you also seem to think that religious belief alone means someone with power will not act against his 'religious law', I take it from that inference that you are completely ignorant of history and how many deluded, violent and hypocritical religious leaders there have been over the last few thousand years. You also said that at the start they follow religious laws "from time to time", and now that ceases to be true the more power they have? I don't think you could possibly have it any more backwards.

I know atheists have rules, but rules can be broken, and in such way so as to not receive any earthly punishment, in whatever form.

I feel that one could dispatch all that displease him/her without being psychotic. You can be of sound mind and still dispatch a lot of displeasians, although we have punishments, in different forms, to deter people from doing away with the displeasians, and this is sufficient to save them, but when you have absolute power, there are no earthly deterents.

[Zen Badger]

What an odd person

[Faith No More]

So religious people are better because they would only kill the non-religious while an atheist would kill everyone? I thought your pathetic ancient book said that killing was wrong regardless of relgious beliefs. Also, your scenario of hell keeping people in check has a loophole. The theist can kill all the people he wants and then just tell God he's sorry and off to the pearly gates he goes.

Sometimes I wonder if the religious could get any more out of touch with reality, and then people like you come along.

[theVOID]

I know atheists have rules, but rules can be broken, and in such way so as to not receive any earthly punishment, in whatever form.

I feel that one could dispatch all that displease him/her without being psychotic.. You can be of sound mind and still dispatch a lot of displeasians, although we have punishments, in different forms, to deter people from doing away with the displeasians, and this is sufficient to save them, but when you have absolute power, there are no earthly deterents.

I don't know how I can avoid sounding condescending, but you seem to lack any understanding of intentional action, value, desires as a normative force, how beliefs effect our desires and strategies about how to fulfill them, the benefits of society in forming and fulfilling desires, empathy, our evolved deontological moral judgements, our ability to deliberate, our emotional responses, evolutionary psychology or anything else important on the subject, you're head is full of bullshit religious assumptions that taints your thinking.

If you seriously think the only thing that shapes our behavior is what will happen to us after we die, and that if we had absolute power we would have no deterrents thus our only response would be to exterminate people who "displeased us" then you are hugely mistaken. Is that what you think you would do, if you became omnipotent and found out that god did not exist? That makes you a bit of a sociopath, doesn't it? I bet most of us would use our omnipotence to create a better possible world for everyone to inhabit, rather than what you seem to think we would do.

I think you're a bit mental.

[Gawdzilla]

From his username, I suspect our OP is a RN man/woman.

[Autumnlicious]

I think you're a bit mental.

FTFY Void.

[Captain Scarlet]

Even if your argument was true (which it is not), from it you can only argue that religion is useful. The ONLY important question with regards to religion is whether it is true or not, so what do you acheive by taking this approach to theism?

To your argument, you are wrong. Bad men do bad things, good men do good things. Give a man religion whether good or bad he can content himself on doing gods work whatever carnage there maybe. And no the religious don't just kill 'heathens'; muslims kill muslims for not being islamic enough, christians kill christians for being the wrong type of christian and of course they all kill each other. The problem for the theist is that there is an intellectual path from religion to a death cult (to satisfy the scarifices called for by the blood thirsty diety; just read the texts!); there is no such intellectual path for atheism, despite the horrors of the 20th century, regimes have not killed people becuase they atheism motivated them to do so, the same is not true of theism. The truth is people who want to do bad things use an excuse be it religion, or something else like eugenics; but give them religion and they can be proud of their actions in doing gods work.

[Girlysprite]

Let's get a bit deeper into this.

The danger of a religious person in a powerful position is that many religions have a call for action against others of a wrong religion or denomination. That is the reasons why extremists take it upon themselves to commit violent actions of those who are not of their faith, or those who 'break the rules'. Like the muslims who flew themselves into a building.

A religious person with much power might feel the need to force his rules down upon the other people, and put up horrible punishments against those who break the rules. When you look at certain countries you see how it works. Saudi Arabia is a good example, where the smallest break of rule warrants horrible physical punishments like chopping off hands and many strikes with a leash...and even stoning people.

Another example: In one town the police went on a strike for a day. That day many crimes were commited, mostly thievery. The population were Christians...appareantly, the thought of hell didn't stop them, but the thought of an earthly commanding force (police) did.

Does the thought of hell really stop people? No, sadly, no. The point is that the bible is very unclear on a great deal of rules. So what happens is that a lot of people 'pick and choose'. Killing is not allowed in the bible, but yet a lot of commands for killing are given by god himself. We shall live our neighboor, but at the same time the bible calls for hatred for children who disobey, people who cheat, or people who love someone from their own gender. People tend to be confirmisist; they will look for whatever confirms their ideas and believes and continue acting upon those. They will do the most horrible things while truly believing that they are doing the right thing and won't go to hell.

So in reality, religious man is no better then atheists...And it could even be argued they are worse, because their moral base is a BAD one.

[Skipper]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz


Childish, simplistic, over done, bullshit argument. NEXT!

[Gawdzilla]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz


Childish, simplistic, over done, bullshit argument. NEXT!

*elbow* Roll over, damn it!