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

[Ace Otana]

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.

Really? Don't think so some how. Fear is a terrible motivational method. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to rebellion, ect ect.

Now, I don't believe hell is at all needed to deter bad actions. Understanding and care for your fellow man and holding the common accepted standards of ethics is all that is needed.
God must be a terrible leader to need a hell to keep people in line.
I've been an atheist all my life, and never have I harmed another person. Never stole, never killed and never beaten anyone.
It's because morality does not come from religion.

Besides, you have yet to give reasons to fear any kind of hell. Evidence as well. No point fearing something that isn't real. Plus there is faulty logic in the whole hell thing anyway.

[downbeatplumb]

I would argue that a good atheist is a better person than than a good theist.
The theist can be seen to be good only because of the fear of hell or currying favour wih their imaginary friend.
But the good atheist is good because they are a good person full stop.

Also you have forgotten the evil nature of many religions, the aztecs cut out the beating hearts of captives in the name of religon, the inquisition persecuted women and non-conformist christians, (like the cathers), the celts sacrificed people in holy glades the list goes on and on and on and on and .......

I am reminded of the oft used quote "without religion, good people would do good things and bad people would do bad things, for a good person to do bad things takes religion"

[reverendjeremiah]

I dont think morals has anything to do with wether you areligious or not..and vice versa.

As far as mankind finding a universe code of ethics and morals that apply to all humans, I dont ever see it happening. Hence Absurdity.

...but...

I feel that certain social systems can have ethical properties in them. You cant usually have a huge poplation of humans living close together being alowed to rob, rape, and ravage their fellow citizens. The social cohesion would break apart. This is far from an inherent "universal" moral code.

Then again, look at some of the Muslim countries, where honor rapes and stoning is alowed without trial..and some would say that they too have a social structure.

[Jaysyn]

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.

You could have just typed "I'm an idiot" & saved us all a lot of trouble.

[fr0d0]

BTW atheistforums.com is down everyone

[Angrboda]

"What an eccentric performance." -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

I try to resist, but it is difficult.....

Since it hasn't been mentioned, I'll just quickly offer it. Man's innate moral sense trumps his religious revelations. Throughout history the most popular brand of faith has been "Cafeteria Faith" wherein the religious man picks and chooses what is agreeable to himself and discards the rest.

The bible condemns the wearing of cotton/polyester blends, yet how many Christians live in mortal fear of hellfire for wearing Fruit Of The Loom undies? How many Christians spend their days worrying if they've stoned enough witches? Did the pope reverse his position on Galileo because God or the bible changed, or because of the changes in men? How many Christians are ready to drink poison as a testament to their faith -- it would be a lot more convincing demonstration of the truth of Christ than a thousand preachy sermons.

People look to their own moral sense to determine which religious imperatives to accept, which to consign to "a different age" when that moral precept was necessary, and those that they simply ignore because they're "obviously wrong" (or simply inconvenient; Catholics continue to get abortions, hellfire or no). The Sharia law practiced today is a world of difference from that practiced 1,000 years ago, ditto for Christianity. When Christians find difficulties in the bible, what do they do? They use their own judgment of what is best to resolve the difficulty. How many people actually believe that Irenaeus decided on the four canonical gospels on the basis of their being four winds and four "zones" of the world, rather than that their content was agreeable to him, and their authorship believed? The history of the development of the biblical canon is littered with examples where books were accepted or expunged, not on any epistemological basis, but rather on whether the contents were agreeable to those deciding their acceptance.

Even if I bought the idea that hellfire is a great motivator -- I don't, people always believe it's "the other guy" who is acting improperly -- since religious laws are conformed to the image of man and not the reverse, religious compulsion ends up being a rubber stamp on whatever way the religious want to live. That's not even touching the fact that having a moral code does not lead to moral behavior unless the individual is moral to begin with.

When it comes to immoral behavior done in the name of self interest, Christians wrote the book on it; it's called The Bible.

[Minimalist]

He is better because he is potentially less dangerous.

Uh-huh.

In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He commanded: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Nearly 20,000 were slaughtered -- many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.

Yep...nothing dangerous about religious assholes.

[rumbuggerylash]

Well, some of you atheists proved my point. A man with religion, in a situation similar to this, may have refrained from namecalling and using vulgarities because his religion forbids that sort of thing. It seems that your morals were not enough to stop you. Whether the use of vulgarities was justified, is besides the point.

[Minimalist]

Well, some of you atheists proved my point. A man with religion, in a situation similar to this, may have refrained from namecalling and using vulgarities because his religion forbids that sort of thing. It seems that your morals were not enough to stop you. Whether the use of vulgarities was justified, is besides the point.

Go fuck yourself.

How's that? And take fucking jesus with you.

[Gawdzilla]

Well, some of you atheists proved my point. A man with religion, in a situation similar to this, may have refrained from namecalling and using vulgarities because his religion forbids that sort of thing. It seems that your morals were not enough to stop you. Whether the use of vulgarities was justified, is besides the point.

[attachment=491]