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.