(November 27, 2013 at 2:40 pm)Godlesspanther Wrote: Drich is right, in that, the morality that has been established collectively in our more advanced (culturally and technologically) cultures throughout the world has not a damn thing to do with the lunacy that is described in sacred texts that he describes as "god's righteousness." The particular sacred text is irrelevant -- the basic concept that there is, or can be, a text that is so magical that it is always right, even when it is obviously wrong, it's right -- can be shit-canned because the very notion is insane, irrational, and just plain stupid. IOW -- just wrong.
In the US we have the Constitution, a document that was very progressive and enlightened for it's time. Basic human rights as described in the DOI as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" goes completely against everything that the Bible, Koran, The Vedas, etc. prescribe for the primitive, ignorant, barbaric, and immoral societies for which they are intended. It is also (probably) unattainable as Drich's claims for the higher righteousness of his favorite flavor of cosmic cupcake.
A country that strives for liberty and justice for all, E plurabus unum, is fundamentally incompatible with a dogmatic adherence to a magic story book. We are a country that strives for human rights, equality, and justice for all. The Bible (or any other magic story book) has no place in such a society.
Throughout US history we have seen that biblical literalists have always been on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of morality. Slavery was a huge one. We decided that and even went to war over, human rights verses biblical barbarism. Morality prevailed over lunacy. It happened again in 1920 -- we can't have an egalitarian society in which half the adult population is not able to vote. The troglodytes grunted meaningless bullshit and thumped their Buy-bulls. Human rights prevailed.
We can go on through the labor movements, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay rights movement -- and now the atheist movement.
And again -- fellow atheists -- we can be certain, and hold our heads up high, that we are on the right side of history and the right side of morality.
You guys really do not understand or simply do not know how to approach or argue what I am saying do you?
In the Righteousness God offers us through attonement, we are no longer bound by our works to define our 'morality.' Which make your whole arguement invalid.
Do you want to try again, or conceed that 'we' have the better deal?
