Leto is too cool for either side. He's an eletoist.

I am sitting on the fence and pissing on both sides!

Ass AND vagina? :D

You guys all fail at defending atheism. Innate morality isn't to do with your own or anyone else's happiness; it's about not causing harm to others. To put it another way, the fundamental tenant of atheistic ethics is "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".

I don't steal from anyone because that would hurt them and I don't like harming others. I don't murder, rape or pillage because I wouldn't want that done to myself.

I don't know what article you read, but the one I posts had nothing to do with that. He didn't talk about sinful pleasures at all. The closest mention I can see to anything that could possibly interpret as being sinful is the one mention of 'sex', and seeing as he's happily married I don't see how that can be sinful.

He's ultimately saying that religious people do 'good' only because their religion tells them to, whilst atheists do 'good' because they've considered the options, debated ethics and decided on the right thing to do. This means that they have to engage fully with the world and can never blame anyone but themselves for their own failings.

Actually I think that explaining it with happiness is a good thing. If people are happy, society functions better IMO.

I mean... I think morality is about not standing in others way, as long as they aren't harming anyone. Anyone who harms anyone must be stopped because that causes pain and tumult around them... or something.... blah.

No Nate you don't that stuff because you'll get caught by the police forces, if say, there was no police due to some cataclysmic event dunno, err, radiation blast killed most of the population, nothing would stop you from fucking every lass you saw and fighting with your locals, read Lord of the Flies

In arguments or debates it's generally considered a good show to actually present evidence or otherwise back up your argument.

And fictional stories don't help your case one bit.

Shut up, he has the conch.

You can't really say what an atheist’s morals are because there are no official morals of atheism. That's kind of the point. I'm sure there are many atheist murderers; they obviously didn't follow said morals.

Anyway I don't quite agree with your morals. Say I saw an extremely attractive person walking down the street. I can't really justify raping her (not that I ever would) on the basis that I wouldn't mind if she fucked me.

I much prefer the "the Wiccan Rede"(please don't, OANST) which states; "An it harm none, do what thou wilt.", the catch is harming none includes yourself, with which I disagree. People should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with themselves for all I care; it's their life, their choice.

You do know how bullshit that comparison is right?

It's not rape if you don't mind it.

Ugh you disgust me!

@MoxCo - You didn't actually say anything about many people only being kind because they have to - law and all that!

A kind action with a conceited intent is not a kind action, there are kind people out there and they don't need the law to keep them in tow.

True atheists wouldn't rape or kill!

True women would keep their trap shut and out of guy arguments!

True Joe would never be that mean :(

Thats a great way of describing Islam.

Maybe one of the better ideas Islam brought about XD bahaaaaa I keed. Or do I?

Perhaps you're like that. Clearly I'm on a higher level than you are.

But he makes up for it by being solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

Opening up a sacred text to metaphorical interpretation rips the heart out of any religion. Fundamentalists are right to fear and oppose such interpretations because it makes the central dogmas of faith untenable and painfully ridiculous.

No sacred text in any religion is truly interpretted literally. It's simply impossible. I can't speak for other religions, but in Judaism there is the concept of Oral Law and Written Law. Written Law is the five books of Moses. Tradition holds that God taught the Oral Law to Moses on Mount Sinai as a commentary to - and embellishment of - the Written Law.

This Oral Law was passed down orally from generation to generation (until about 400AD, long story), always framed in the current language and using familiar examples. This kept it dynamic and flexible.

The two Laws complement each other; neither can be fully understood without the other. For example, the bible says that for an animal to be kosher, it must be killed "In the way that I have showed you" (paraphrase). It's only in the Oral Law where those details are explained.

Another example is the phrase "An eye for an eye"; literally that sounds like a horrible form of punishment. However, in the Oral Law it is explained that this meant that personal injuries must be compensated in an adequate way; for instance if you injure someone and they lose an eye, you must pay them the financial value of an eye, however that is calculated.

So oral law is the moral zeitgeist?

I suppose, if you want to put it like that.

It's a bit more complicated now given that the Oral Law is, well, written down. But the concept is the same.

But doesn't oral law change over the years? I mean, 'in the way that I showed you' is very open to interpetation if you don't actually know the oral law part. Doesn't that just cause confusion?

taliban are terrorists and they are not muslims.
and there are some religions which we are ordered to fight, which are the religions which seek to destroy ours.

Any religion that encourages proselytising seeks to destroy all other religions.

Lucky that one of the core precepts of Islam is about respect for other cultures and religions then.

No it isn't.

What's this now?