Morality

[Agnostico]

No, we're not in agreement that the U.S. law was founded on Christian morals.  I simply noted that there was a relationship there, nothing more.  And no, I don't agree that religion was formed in order to create the social stability that moral codes and law provide, nor that it was necessary that it do so for us to have law and moral codes.  Even if religion did form for that purpose, it wouldn't follow that it was necessary for law and moral codes that it do so.  You seem to be engaged in nothing more than question begging.  A) The existence of a relationship between laws and morals was a result of religion forming to create the foundation for such; B) the evidence that religion was created for this purpose is that there is a relationship between it and laws and moral codes.  That's nothing but a circular argument.  You haven't provided any independent evidence that this is so, largely letting ignorance of the true causes of religion and civilization do all the work for you.  In addition, you've been provided with alternative theories for both the formation of civilization (Gae) and that of religion (myself).  Until you defeat those alternatives, it would be premature to embrace your theory, especially given that it seems to rest on nothing more than circular arguments, appeals to ignorance, and proof by assertion.

And finally, you've moved off of specific religions to a general claim that religions, whatever their form, contribute to the foundation of stable societies.  The Rohingya in Myanmar would beg to differ, as well as any accomplisheed student of comparative religion and social history.  Confucianism, which is what you were quoting there, was explicitly brought up because it was a largely secular philosophy, not a religious one.  Next thing you know, you'll be lowering the bar so far that any human behavior or philosophy will be considered "religion" and thus validation of your argument.  That's nothing more than equivocation and undermines your entire argument.

It's true that religion has functioned to encourage social cohesion and cooperation, but this has likely been the case both before and after the formation of civilized societies.  There's little evidence that societies developed on account of this function, nor that religion itself formed primarily to serve that function.  Both of those undermine your argument.

Excuse me Mr all knowing Fallaciousness. Whose whole argument lies on multiple fallacies which i cbf going through cos theres just too many.
U hold ur "need for a sky daddy" theory so high u think its fact. Hehehe   
And uv supplied nothing

Iv said these are just theories not fact. I can't be begging the question when i myself admit not to know. Wat an uneducated statement.
I can tell uv only just learnt about logical fallacies. Well at least I taught u kids something positive. Improve ur dogmatic arguments now
Iv supplied several references. U just refuse to look at them as u said urself...
U defeated ur own argument by ignoring the facts supplied.

Anywayz. One man entered and shook the cage of about 30 atheists. LoL. Ruffled everyones feathers.
I exposed differing views among each other, definitions, fallacies, inconsistencies the hollow moral position, contadictions, the negative approach, the dogma, the church and all the things that religion has.

I said that there are American atheists that are hostile, loud, obnoxious and active anti theists.
And there are Euro atheists that are MYOB, tolerant, kind and have no issue with theism.
The difference is that Americans have no history. No culture. They feel like they have no connection to Britain and European history.
And their anger is about as deep as the history of white America.

I think iv learnt all there is to learn about the atheist community.
Shallow and Dogmatic. All hail...

Cheerio 

[Angrboda]

No, we're not in agreement that the U.S. law was founded on Christian morals.  I simply noted that there was a relationship there, nothing more.  And no, I don't agree that religion was formed in order to create the social stability that moral codes and law provide, nor that it was necessary that it do so for us to have law and moral codes.  Even if religion did form for that purpose, it wouldn't follow that it was necessary for law and moral codes that it do so.  You seem to be engaged in nothing more than question begging.  A) The existence of a relationship between laws and morals was a result of religion forming to create the foundation for such; B) the evidence that religion was created for this purpose is that there is a relationship between it and laws and moral codes.  That's nothing but a circular argument.  You haven't provided any independent evidence that this is so, largely letting ignorance of the true causes of religion and civilization do all the work for you.  In addition, you've been provided with alternative theories for both the formation of civilization (Gae) and that of religion (myself).  Until you defeat those alternatives, it would be premature to embrace your theory, especially given that it seems to rest on nothing more than circular arguments, appeals to ignorance, and proof by assertion.

And finally, you've moved off of specific religions to a general claim that religions, whatever their form, contribute to the foundation of stable societies.  The Rohingya in Myanmar would beg to differ, as well as any accomplisheed student of comparative religion and social history.  Confucianism, which is what you were quoting there, was explicitly brought up because it was a largely secular philosophy, not a religious one.  Next thing you know, you'll be lowering the bar so far that any human behavior or philosophy will be considered "religion" and thus validation of your argument.  That's nothing more than equivocation and undermines your entire argument.

It's true that religion has functioned to encourage social cohesion and cooperation, but this has likely been the case both before and after the formation of civilized societies.  There's little evidence that societies developed on account of this function, nor that religion itself formed primarily to serve that function.  Both of those undermine your argument.

Excuse me Mr all knowing Fallaciousness. Whose whole argument lies on multiple fallacies which i cbf going through cos theres just too many.

Oh, by all means, please do. I could use a good laugh.

[GrandizerII]

Agnostico = Rik?

Probably not, but that last post of his (or hers) reminded me of him.

[The Grand Nudger]

The difference is that Americans have no history. No culture. They feel like they have no connection to Britain and European history.

You can only be speaking for yourself..nutbar.

[Amarok]

The difference is that Americans have no history. No culture. They feel like they have no connection to Britain and European history

America having no history I think all the Professors of American History would disagree as for culture do I need to start listing all the cultural phenomenon that originated in America 

His statement about single parents is dumb a huge numbers of famous and successful people have come from single homes and those studies have been challenged . But wanna know what really bad for children ? Growing up in a home with parents who hate each other and fight all the time .

His statement about Confucianism is also false . While there is no single needed deity their are deities believed nd followed by Confucianism

[brewer]

He's just another christian that can here to play. Never expected much substance out of him.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The difference is that Americans have no history. No culture. They feel like they have no connection to Britain and European history.

I don't think that's true at all. From what I can gather, USians are pretty fond of putting European qualifiers to their names - Irish-American, German-American, Italian-American, and so on.  And, based on news reports, quite a lot of USians seem to have what amounts to a pretty unhealthy obsession with the British royal family, Swiss chocolate, French poodles, and pizza.

Boru

edit:  Why should adultery carry a legal penalty?

[Amarok]

The difference is that Americans have no history. No culture. They feel like they have no connection to Britain and European history.

I don't think that's true at all. From what I can gather, USians are pretty fond of putting European qualifiers to their names - Irish-American, German-American, Italian-American, and so on.  And, based on news reports, quite a lot of USians seem to have what amounts to a pretty unhealthy obsession with the British royal family, Swiss chocolate, French poodles, and pizza.

Boru

edit:  Why should adultery carry a legal penalty?

America has been in love with France forever 


And if adultery should carry a penalty because it hurts children should poor parenting carry one too ?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't think that's true at all. From what I can gather, USians are pretty fond of putting European qualifiers to their names - Irish-American, German-American, Italian-American, and so on.  And, based on news reports, quite a lot of USians seem to have what amounts to a pretty unhealthy obsession with the British royal family, Swiss chocolate, French poodles, and pizza.

Boru

edit:  Why should adultery carry a legal penalty?

America has been in love with France forever 


And if adultery should carry a penalty because it hurts children should poor parenting carry one too ?

Well, poor parenting does carry legal penalties, if it rises to the level of abuse or neglect, but abuse and neglect (other than physical) are pretty hard to quantify.

But what I'm trying to pin Agnostico down on is why the act of adultery should be penalized by law. Again, I don't hold out much hope. 

Boru

[Amarok]

America has been in love with France forever 


And if adultery should carry a penalty because it hurts children should poor parenting carry one too ?

Well, poor parenting does carry legal penalties, if it rises to the level of abuse or neglect, but abuse and neglect (other than physical) are pretty hard to quantify.

But what I'm trying to pin Agnostico down on is why the act of adultery should be penalized by law. Again, I don't hold out much hope. 

Boru

My definition is a bit more broad as I consider parents who push their kids on other people to raise because they don't want to deal with them . Or parents who use the TV  as a parent are bad parents .