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

[SleepingDemon]

[quote='rumbuggerylash' pid='134756' dateline='1304723898']
but there is nothing to stop an atheist.

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.

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.


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


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.


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.

Aside from what your "feelings" tell you, do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that atheists are less obligated to follow a moral code than theists are to follow a religious moral code?

The problem with claims such as this is that there is never any measurable evidence supporting them. If you had atheist cults across the globe torturing, raping and killing believers en masse then your argument would have some credibility. You don't, however, and it is all based on what your "feelings" tell you. This doesn't set well with me. I live a moral life, not out of fear of eternal punishment, but because it is the right thing to do. Be good for the sake of being good, otherwise it's simple dishonesty, or you will find a way to cheat the punishment, like repenting. If I murdered someone today in cold blood, I would be haunted all of my life for it. No amount of apologies would remove the disgust I felt towards myself. Yet we see theists do this all of the time, throughout history they eradicated millions by allowing a few leaders to determine what constituted "heathens."

Where in history do you find atheists, despite their small numbers, commit any acts of violence towards anyone beyond the normal ranges of human conflict? You won't find it. An interesting way to debunk this nonsense you've spewed is to look at the statistics of people in prison, compared to global populations. 85% of the world's population believes in god in one form or another, the same applies for the united states, however nonbelievers make up a much smaller number in prisons. Cities with higher populations per square mile have more violent crime, but check the percentage of that population that claims no religion.

The basis for your argument is very presumptuous, you have to make several foundational assumptions to even make the argument. You'll find no evidence of atheists being less moral, no evidence of the religious being less inclined to violence, rape, incest, torture or murder. And the largest hammerstrike to this argument is the fact that throughout history, many atrocities have been committed on every continent by every culture in the name of faith and was justified by one god or another. But never in history has any population of atheists or agnostics committed such atrocities, on any scale, under the banner of nonbelief or otherwise. Your argument is bunk.