Atheists; what do you base your morals on?

[Ryantology]

I know how the system is setup. You are not making any argument defending the current system, you are making an argument from authority. It is wrong to force people to pay for an education system that goes against the values God has given to people, and in a country that is 80% Christian, people have every right to challenge the way that the system is setup.

The facts go against God's values.

You are defending tyranny. I am not saying people should be forced to pay for a Christian education, but they should not be forced to pay for a secular education.

Then, go make your own country, in which it is desirable to raise children to be superstitious, uneducated idiots hopelessly unequipped for the real world. I don't want that shit in mine.

I challenge you to prove to me, based on a trans-cultural perception of ethics, why I should accept the present system, which taxes my money which I worked for and uses it to pay for things that are against the most important thing to me, my faith. Why should my money go to be used to promote liberalism? Why should I ethically, be obligated to pay for research and education that comes from a naturalistic perspective?

Nobody is forcing you to live here. Go live in a cave.

If you cannot prove this and still advocate it, you are an irrationalist and a tyrant.

You should accept it because you enjoy the benefits of living in such a society. You have the right to refuse those benefits of that society. You don't have the right to insist that society make exceptions for your backwards, idiot beliefs.

Of course paying taxes give you a voice in how they are spent. Do you know what the concept of citizenship is? The atheist fails to demonstrate the existence of absolute morals and proceeds to try and disenfranchise people so he can demand adherence to his worldview by force, not grounded in any conception of authority but grounded in his own will.

Asking an atheist to demonstrate the existence of absolute morality is like asking a Christian to prove the existence of Vishnu.

Why do you think Christians are pissed off about this? What do you expect? We built America. We built the universities. We built the schools. Every single US president has been Christian. Atheists build a political bloc through giving people the freedom to do whatever they want, they don't care that they have no moral authority, they don't care that they are nihilists, even if they say that they aren't all they care about is power, which shows where your mind is when you cite the Blacks Law Dictionary to try and prove an ethical dispute.

There is nothing as enjoyable as the impotent rage of someone whose quaint superstitions aren't taken seriously anymore.

The classic move of liberalism: when you get to an ethical question, use political/legal tools to deal with it.

The classic move of Christianity: when you get to an ethical question, make up the answer which best suits your desires, and subjugate and murder anyone who disagrees.

[Simon Moon]

America is 80% Christian. There is nothing unreasonable about wanting the system to reflect the interests of the majority, or at least allow the majority an option of putting their tax dollars elsewhere.

You don't realize how authoritarian you are.

The Constitution is designed to prevent tyranny of the majority.

The rights of the majority are respected
if the rights of the minority are protected

The one right of the power denied the people is the power to oppress a minority.

You want to practice your faith, practice it but don't force it on others.

And no, teaching science in the science class does not constitute an alternate religion being forced on your kids.

It's all over except cleaning up jstrodel's remains off the floor.

[jstrodel]

You think that giving people freedom about where to spend their tax dollars is the tyranny of the majority? Can you put that in formal logic?

[Foxaèr]

You think that giving people freedom about where to spend their tax dollars is the tyranny of the majority? Can you put that in formal logic?

It has been explained to you. Just because you refuse to understand the logic does not mean that it has not been explained.

[jstrodel]

It has been explained to me and I think it is embarrassing. What is wrong with asking for a formal argument that giving people educational choice is the tyranny of the majority?

[Foxaèr]

I suppose the saying is true. We can explain it to you, but no one can understand it for you.

[jstrodel]

No one has explained anything. Giving people educational choice is not the tyranny of the majority.


Ryantology expressed the sentiment of atheists in politics best: "we have no absolute morals, we don't care about you, and if you don't like it, you can leave the country"

[Foxaèr]

No one has explained anything. Giving people educational choice is not the tyranny of the majority.

It has, in fact, been explained to you. Even one of the members decided to alter a meme to include your name in how you plug your ears against reason. Do not blame others for your inability to understand the truth.

[Creed of Heresy]

I'm starting to view being put on ignore by jstrodel as an honor. Are you an able critic? *click* "I don't like your attitude." /ignored

And I apparently got first honors on that. Woo! I won something for once!

[Ryantology]

Ryantology expressed the sentiment of atheists in politics best: "we have no absolute morals, we don't care about you, and if you don't like it, you can leave the country"

I did. I can express the sentiment of Christian politics just as well:

"We have morals we call absolute and you must live according to them. Religious freedom applies only to Christians. We don't care about you unless you believe exactly what we do. If you don't like it, we'll (attempt to) legislate your lifestyle out of legal existence."