Why argue for atheism? (Buddha, America, agnostics, Israel)

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

I gave the analogy of a man who beats his wife so you can understand that people often have their moral compasses misaligned by their upbringing.

You stated that your moral compass, was built-in, which implies it wasn't taught to you, but that it's rather innate. No?

I actually subscribe to the golden rule personally. Which means that I don't beat my wife, and she doesn't take me out with a hammer in my sleep. It's an unspoken pact between us. I sleep better that way.

Originally Posted by riggy_house

My analogy hopefully helps you to realize that your moral compass may not be innate as you may be thinking, but that it may be heavily aligned by what your society has taught you, and much of that would be based on religious directives and narratives.

My moral compass is actually pretty simple. If I wouldn't want it done to me, I don't do it to others. I really don't have to think about it all that hard.

Originally Posted by riggy_house

I'm sure that's correct. I'm pretty sure it happens in Atheist families to, DOESN'T IT!?

According to many believers, such things must necessarily be commonplace among atheists. Because atheists have no divinely bequeathed moral compass. Like believers do. Believers who are free to murder and take little girls for sex slaves if they first declare that God has decreed it righteous to do so. But you see, I have a higher standard to deal with. I have to live with myself. I never check with God or the ten commandments. If I wouldn't want a thing done to me and mine, I don't do that thing to others. This requires no instruction from on high.

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

Hey, if I didn't get hit with 20 questions at once, things may seem a little easier for you to process. I can't help everyone with every issue, sheesh...

Don't hide your light under a bushel basket.

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

I stand to be corrected. I just meant that what is obvious is just obvious. We can agree to disagree whether or not you were giving a strong impression that religion had little influence in your upbringing, and the shaping of your worldviews.

BTW, I can't help but find some irony in the standards you set so high for me, yet you yourself don't appear to be able to stand up to.

You tell me not to assume what others think, yet you are just absolutely sure of what people living in a distant land thousands of years ago understood about their world.

Now, this actually goes beyond ironic, and may even be considered a slight by other people of the nations in which you speak of.

I wouldn't go as far as to call this what it may be, which is potentially a sort of racial fallacy, but you must understand, for you to claim these people to be as ignorant, to the extent that you have, well, I'm not so sure others would agree, so maybe we should just keep it at that.

Umm, no offense, but what the hell are you talking about?

Here are the two quotes I made about people living 2000 years ago

Originally Posted by Cruithne

...none of the commandments are confusing. They were written as you say by men - as was the entire bible, by people who understood practically nothing about the natural world. The bible was simply a way for men and women to make sense of the world around them, as it was 2000 years ago.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

Yes, it's obvious that people should not kill as with some of the other obvious statements. The point I was making with the poster is that the 10 commandments are not a catch-all list of how to behave. Maybe they were 2000 years ago but they certainly are not now. And they do not mention anything about love at all, which I believe was my starting point and the point I was questioning with the poster.

1. I made NO mention AT ALL of any 'nations'.
2. What the hell has race got to do with it? This has got nothing whatsoever to do with race. It has to do to with the knowledge of people who lived 2000 years ago. That's not a slight on the people who lived 2000 years ago it's simply down to the fact that they hadn't discovered very much about the world yet.

You have this amazing knack to read into text, that which does not exist.

But all this really means is that you can't imagine these people which you know practically nothing about, had information as good as you think you have.

IOW, you are assuming what they thought they knew. Am I allowed to do that now?

I don't have to assume anything. I can go by what is in the bible!!

The collection of people who wrote the biblical texts had extremely scant knowledge of 'astronomy' for example and what they 'knew' leaves very little to be desired.
Apparently on the first day god creates 'light' and 'night and day'.
On the fourth day he creates the sun and the moon and the stars.
Hmm, see the disconnect there? There isn't even a connection made between the sun - and night and day. That's pretty fundamental.

And let's not even get into the discussion of how they thought that the earth was created in six days and that people were all descendants of Adam and Eve.

The best you can say about it is that they knew that the earth, the sun, the moon and the stars (and humans) existed. And that's not saying very much since it's right in front of your face.
It's clear that these people understood very little about how the natural word functions.

Almost all ancient cultures around this time believed that there were the '4 elements' of earth, air, fire, and water, or a close variation of that, again because this is what people could see with their own eyes. and this would remain so for many centuries until the advent of the scientific revolution.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well said. And this is why there is an ongoing effort to try to fhow that the Bible (and we are seeing just now, the Quran) has advanced knientific information that could not have been known to the people of the time. This not onl;y shows that these books (separately and exclusively! ) are input information from God, and this the god faith was justified then, and is, it follows, justified now.

Of course the claims for science in the Bible have been pretty much debunked, though they fight like mad, as we see with a billion dolloaer campaign to make the Noachian Flood work, and Eusebius did his imaginative best to try to explain the sun created after there was light (the cloud-cover apologetic). And of course, when it turned out that it was scuppered from the start, because Moses could only have written that if God had told him, and what God told him was wrong. It was not what science says happened, no matter how it may have looked to Moses if he's been there - which he wasn't.

Now, those who don't take the Bible literally sometimes twit us, (or worse ) for being literalists - just like the literalists. It is wrong (and they probably know it, but the idea is to win a point, not funderstand anything) for the same reason the 'You are arguing about the wrong God" argument is wrong - we are addressing whatever god -or Bible claims are made, and they don't reflect any mindset of ours at all. We don't so much argue with the believers who don't take the bible as literal, because they have already given up that ground - the Bible is noit reliable.

Of course if we say that, they are in there telling us it is, either because it reliable in itself, or because it is the word ...sorry the Inspired input...of God, apart from anything that is is ether metaphorical or just wrong, and you can please yourself which Jonah's story or Job's is.

The relevance is to show how Faith informs (i almost said Infects the whole Theist arguments right from every word is tru literalists to Hello Trees, hello flowers, Fluffy Bunny Theists. They all argue on Faith, and they are therefore irrational at the outset, even if they argue logically thereafter, which does happen sometimes.

Everyone enjoy the eclipse by the way? Earth not ended? Civilization not collapsed?

[riggy_house]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

I actually subscribe to the golden rule personally. Which means that I don't beat my wife, and she doesn't take me out with a hammer in my sleep. It's an unspoken pact between us. I sleep better that way.



My moral compass is actually pretty simple. If I wouldn't want it done to me, I don't do it to others. I really don't have to think about it all that hard.

I'm glad to see that you can admit that your own moral standard is based on a phrase that was developed and implemented by societies which by and large based their moral conduct according to their religious beliefs and directives.

Here's the next big test: Are you able to recognize those phrases were put into place by wise religious people, so that such simple concepts won't be forgotten by others like yourself?

And are you open to the concept that if those phrases weren't thoughtfully constructed into the moral fabric for all those societies, including our own, time and time again, then you yourself may not currently retain such a phrase at the top of your mental priorities?

When a mantra is repeated enough times, it undoubtedly takes hold in the mind and spirit, and after a time, it becomes so intertwined with who we are that we don't have to think about it that hard, just as you have said.

And can you also recognize that it's this dedication to repetition and memorization of important values, that is at the very heart of what it means to be religious?

Devout, devoted, commitment. A person bound by moral vows. This sounds like you

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

According to many believers, such things must necessarily be commonplace among atheists.


Because atheists have no divinely bequeathed moral compass. Like believers do. Believers who are free to murder and take little girls for sex slaves if they first declare that God has decreed it righteous to do so.

It's true that many believers will make such assertions. But isn't it also true that you make similar assertions when you accuse people of religion of raping and killing because of what their moral compass is telling them?

And where does this banter bring us? Personally, I think it would be easier if both parties were willing to admit the other party has some good points.

I'm curious too- you keep going back to the assertion that religious people can just rape and murder any time their God says it's ok, but who and where are these societies that practice such things?

And are you willing to admit that perhaps much of the individuals that currently engage in such activities as you repeatedly describe are in fact godless atheists themselves?

And that the reasoning they may use to commit such acts is: Since this is the only life we live, why stand in line with all the other sheep waiting to get into an imaginary heaven? Why not just go out and take things like so many others do in life?

I could see that becoming the moral standard for many now and in the future. If this mantra is repeated enough times, it will become ingrained into the fabric of individuals, and if enough people agree, it could become ingrained into the fabric of a society.

What better society, than an atheist society, would be capable of instilling such a moral standard into it's framework?

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

But you see, I have a higher standard to deal with. I have to live with myself. I never check with God or the ten commandments. If I wouldn't want a thing done to me and mine, I don't do that thing to others. This requires no instruction from on high.

Right. I don't check with the ten commandments either, unless in reference to conversations like this. I admit that they have been woven into my moral fabric by others who planned it that way.

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Everyone enjoy the eclipse by the way? Earth not ended? Civilization not collapsed?

I got completely overwhelmed by it and kept bursting into tears.
I only saw a partial eclipse this time, but I saw a total solar eclipse in France in 1999 and I remember what totality was like. It was the best experience I ever had.
At the point of totality, you can see the shadow rushing towards you at 2000 miles a hour. You are cast into darkness with a 360 degree glow right around the horizon line. Everything stops. All the birds stop singing and the streetlights come on. The temperature drops. You get to stand there and fully appreciate the scale of the solar system and your place within it. Then the glint of light appears again and the birds start singing again as though it is dawn. It's just absolutely phenomenal. You really appreciate your place on earth. It's totally overwhelming. Just watching the partial eclipse yesterday brought it all back.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

I'm glad to see that you can admit that your own moral standard is based on a phrase that was developed and implemented by societies which by and large based their moral conduct according to their religious beliefs and directives.

Here's the next big test: Are you able to recognize those phrases were put into place by wise religious people, so that such simple concepts won't be forgotten by others like yourself?

And are you open to the concept that if those phrases weren't thoughtfully constructed into the moral fabric for all those societies, including our own, time and time again, then you yourself may not currently retain such a phrase at the top of your mental priorities?

When a mantra is repeated enough times, it undoubtedly takes hold in the mind and spirit, and after a time, it becomes so intertwined with who we are that we don't have to think about it that hard, just as you have said.

And can you also recognize that it's this dedication to repetition and memorization of important values, that is at the very heart of what it means to be religious?

Devout, devoted, commitment. A person bound by moral vows. This sounds like you




It's true that many believers will make such assertions. But isn't it also true that you make similar assertions when you accuse people of religion of raping and killing because of what their moral compass is telling them?

And where does this banter bring us? Personally, I think it would be easier if both parties were willing to admit the other party has some good points.

I'm curious too- you keep going back to the assertion that religious people can just rape and murder any time their God says it's ok, but who and where are these societies that practice such things?

And are you willing to admit that perhaps much of the individuals that currently engage in such activities as you repeatedly describe are in fact godless atheists themselves?

And that the reasoning they may use to commit such acts is: Since this is the only life we live, why stand in line with all the other sheep waiting to get into an imaginary heaven? Why not just go out and take things like so many others do in life?

I could see that becoming the moral standard for many now and in the future. If this mantra is repeated enough times, it will become ingrained into the fabric of individuals, and if enough people agree, it could become ingrained into the fabric of a society.

What better society, than an atheist society, would be capable of instilling such a moral standard into it's framework?



Right. I don't check with the ten commandments either, unless in reference to conversations like this. I admit that they have been woven into my moral fabric by others who planned it that way.

I take your point about fifty people jumping on you at once. So, though I'm very tempted, I'll leve you to Cruithne.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

I got completely overwhelmed by it and kept bursting into tears.
I only saw a partial eclipse this time, but I saw a total solar eclipse in France in 1999 and I remember what totality was like. It was the best experience I ever had.
At the point of totality, you can see the shadow rushing towards you at 2000 miles a hour. You are cast into darkness with a 360 degree glow right around the horizon line. Everything stops. All the birds stop singing and the streetlights come on. The temperature drops. You get to stand there and fully appreciate the scale of the solar system and your place within it. Then the glint of light appears again and the birds start singing again as though it is dawn. It's just absolutely phenomenal. You really appreciate your place on earth. It's totally overwhelming. Just watching the partial eclipse yesterday brought it all back.

I was going to watch the partial in the UK, but someone had turned out the lights, so I saw it live streamed from the US, and everyone seemed to be there with viewing glasses, including a heavy metal band by the sound of it. However, they shut their row when totality approached, at which time the image of Sobek snarling "So, you have discovered who I who made everything!!" was cut by the Authorities who quickly replaced it with a library tape of a total eclipse.

[Hulsker 1856]

Originally Posted by Postal77

I find it funny that atheism is in the religion and spirituality section of this site.

I don't believe in leprechauns, so I'm not going to hang out on an Irish board to dismiss their beliefs.

First, unless you're under the bizarre impression that Irish people generally believe in the existence of leprechauns, your analogy is entirely nonsensical. Unlike leprechauns, deities are widely believed to exist. Aside from that, deity-believers routinely use their deity-belief to justify all manner of encroachment upon the acts of the rest of us. They do so to try and ban abortion. They did so to try and prevent consenting adults from marrying irrespective of gender. They readily cited the sacred texts around which their deity-belief centered to justify slavery. They've banned books and opposed birth control and demanded the right to discriminate because of their deity-belief. And that's all just the tip of the iceberg. Given that no one is trying to do any sort of the same based on leprechaun-belief, there is absolutely nothing even remotely analogous between not discussing a lack of belief in leprechauns and not discussing a lack of belief in deities.

Second, I suspect you have periodically been more than happy to discuss things which you do not believe. Here's an example:
COMMUNISM IS A TERRIFIC SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

Do you believe as much? No? Then why argue that is is not? Well, the obvious reason that many people do spend time arguing as much is that there are communists (and previously there were even more, before it fell out of relative fashion) and the implications of communism were/are significant to non-communists in much the same way that the implications of deity-belief are significant to non-theists.

So you not understand how disbelief in things is relevant? Disbelief in the idea that vaccines cause autism? Disbelief in climate change? Disbelief in chemtrails? Disbelief in evolution? Disbelief in white supremacy? Disbelief in witches? (that would have been rather relevant for you in 1692 in Salem if you were one of the ones being accused of witchcraft, no?) Regardless of which side you fall on each particular issue, the notion that because one does not believe something, one should have no cause to discuss it and/or debate with those who affirmatively believe as much, is utterly absurd.

Originally Posted by Postal77

An atheist cramming their religion down someone's throat is just as bad as fundamental Bible thumper.

Atheism is obviously not a religion. To use your analogy in this regard: is not believing in leprechauns a religion? Obviously not. And please dispense with the inane 'cramming down our throats' nonsense. A forum is, by definition, a place where people gather to discuss a topic. Why aren't you accusing Christians who reject the tenets of Islam - and you will surely find them in the Religion & Spirituality forum - of 'cramming their disbelief in Islam down the throats of Muslims'?

It sounds like you are in need of a safe space where you will not be exposed to any atheists with the temerity to express the viewpoint that the deity in which you believe does not exist.

[riggy_house]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

1. I made NO mention AT ALL of any 'nations'.

You didn't have to. Somethings just go hand in hand, whether you mention the terms or not.

For instance, if I found a book written by people from Niger, and after reading the book, I said that those people don't know the first thing about the natural world. Well, I'd be talking about people from Niger wouldn't I? I'd still be talking about the people of that nation, whether I said the term "Niger" or not.

I can also say that people from Niger who disagreed with me, may take some offense to such an absurd opinion that was stated factually, as you stated yours.

I hope you are capable of understanding that.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

2. What the hell has race got to do with it? This has got nothing whatsoever to do with race. It has to do to with the knowledge of people who lived 2000 years ago. That's not a slight on the people who lived 2000 years ago it's simply down to the fact that they hadn't discovered very much about the world yet.

I didn't say race had anything to do with it, but that the potential was there on your part, for using such a loose and uninformed opinion, regarding the knowledge of others. I was just curious as to whether or not you were chalking those people up to being as ignorant as you have painted them, due to their geographic origins, and bloodlines.

This is often the case when people mistakenly try to presume what they think others actually knew and understood about the world around them. Thank you for clarifying that you are using the bible solely as your one piece of evidence that you are using to determine how smart someone else is.

But let's just pretend for a moment, if you will, that I had found a book authored by your grandfather, written to your family for keepsake.

And in this book, your grandfather tells many of his own life stories, as well as the stories from others as he perceives them. Included in the book are occasional love letters back and forth to your grandmother, that are so heartwarming, and so thoughtful, that they were deemed worthy of placing in a safe and treasured book, so that your family can continue to know where its values are most cherished.

"To the ends of the earth and back, I'd go anywhere to have you in my arms" , reads one of the passages.

And let's say your grandfather failed to mention the production line of the FORD automotive plants. And let's say he didn't mention all the ins and outs of how refrigerators worked, and come to think of it, there wasn't even a single household appliance mentioned in the great volume of his and others writings.

And if I were to close the book, after skimming over the parts I thought were contraversial, and told someone that I thought your grandfather was certainly a poor dumb ignorant sap that didn't understand the first thing about how vehicles are made, or how refridgerators work.

And if I stated that he was a " silly flat earther" because if he said that he would "travel to the ends of the earth" to win your grandmothers love, well then he must therefore believe the planet is flat. For we all scientifically know there are no "ends" to speak of.

Would you find that the least bit offensive, or at least quite naive on my part?

Originally Posted by Cruithne

I don't have to assume anything. I can go by what is in the bible!!

The collection of people who wrote the biblical texts had extremely scant knowledge of 'astronomy' for example and what they 'knew' leaves very little to be desired.

Apparently on the first day god creates 'light' and 'night and day'.
On the fourth day he creates the sun and the moon and the stars.
Hmm, see the disconnect there? There isn't even a connection made between the sun - and night and day. That's pretty fundamental.

In case you haven't gotten it by now, after reading the analogy I gave to you about your grandfathers hypothetical book, then I'll try to put this in a different way, and hopefully you can start to see what I've been trying to show you.

People who write books about moral conduct, don't always feel the need to discuss scientific knowledge, other than perhaps to use as a basis for the bigger, more important stories.

You shouldn't expect a vending machine to treat you for kidney failure, yet you expect a book of poems to serve as an enyclopedic dictionary.

Can you see where you might be doing that?

But I want to point out something else to you as well.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

Apparently on the first day god creates 'light' and 'night and day'.
On the fourth day he creates the sun and the moon and the stars.
Hmm, see the disconnect there? There isn't even a connection made between the sun - and night and day. That's pretty fundamental.

You think that because the sun and moon came on the fourth day, then there shouldn't have been day and night on the first day. This is where your logical brain has you stumped.

But if you just stopped to think, that "day" actually meant daylight, and "night" actually meant twilight, or dim light, where perhaps stars and cloud nebula are visible, then both of these can easily occur before our sun and moon were formed.

You see? There can still be bright glowing light in two variations- one resembles what we view as day, or daylight, and the other resembles what we view as night, nightlight, or twilight. Therefor those were the names given to them.

I try to avoid giving links when possible, especially when there is a multitude of information available where modern day physicists discuss the glowing universe in it's primordial state. This glow could be what the author of Genesis was referring to.

Both you and I may refer to a sausage and and canine as a "weenie", but in reality they are two seperate things, just sharing a common name.

I hope that helps you not be so confused about what that passage may have meant.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

And let's not even get into the discussion of how they thought that the earth was created in six days and that people were all descendants of Adam and Eve.

Actually modern day genetics has been telling us for sometime now that, as far as science can tell, every person, each of us, all descended from just two people. So how do you know they weren't adam and eve?

Originally Posted by Cruithne

The best you can say about it is that they knew that the earth, the sun, the moon and the stars (and humans) existed. And that's not saying very much since it's right in front of your face.
It's clear that these people understood very little about how the natural word functions.

Again, you are expecting a book of moral guidelines, poems and narratives to be a book of astronomy.

I get the feeling this has been a major hangup for you, and I hope you won't let it continue to be if you wish to continue this discussion with me. I can only explain things so many ways, before I feel the need to give up and move on as well.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

Almost all ancient cultures around this time believed that there were the '4 elements' of earth, air, fire, and water, or a close variation of that, again because this is what people could see with their own eyes. and this would remain so for many centuries until the advent of the scientific revolution.

What you know about the past and present could easily hide behind the dot at the end of this sentence. What you don't know about the past and present couldn't fit onto this page. How's that for a summary of how grand I think your historical and scientific knowledge is?

[badlander]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

Part 1 of your question. Yes
Part 2. Maybe, but what has been the same since the beginning, doesn't always transfer to laws the way we'd hope. Laws may change, but this doesn't mean that God given morality would have to.



I'm not sure he did. But according to our records he never said Fire = bad, or Fire = good either.
Nor did he say that saturn had rings, nor did he say that anal rape was bad either.

Perhaps because you see the word slavery as bad only, then you think he should have condemned the fact that the trade should exist, or should have ever existed.

That's a fair question and one I think can be addressed, but likely not in a short amount of space.

But remember, Jesus surprised most people with his far reaching wisdom, which confused many back then, and still does many today. You might be surprised by what he had to teach about it.

Consider too that he was said to have done and said a great many other things which were never written down. Perhaps he did say something along those specific lines. And perhaps someday more authentic texts will be discovered. We may never know, especially if the extreme neo-Atheists have their way in destroying any and all aspects of religion and it's affiliated texts.

It seems a good many Atheists today would like to revisit our past days of propelling ignorance by burning books until we have nothing but their favorite literature on hand, which I imagine would be a shelf full of Richard Dawkins books.

My God, what a bore this place would be then, eh?



Your not shy with big loaded questions are you?

Most of our history teaches us that most societies everywhere in the past had some form of religion as their guidelines. No it wasn't always Christianity, or Judaism, but there was usually always some social ideal that a higher creator being was guiding/influencing us.

How many past Atheist societies have you ever heard of? I get the feeling they've always been more of a fringe of society. Now this doesn't mean that one or more of them didn't plant an idea in someone's ear to love and forgive others, but as we can see today, most people who claim to be atheists are against holding so fast to those ideas that it becomes their religion.

One Atheist says its okay to have incest, while another doesn't. Which is right? You may scream wrong all day, but you may not be able to escape the fact that incest played a big role in your own past family background, which means it may have played an important role in shaping exactly who you are.



Another fair question. Do I believe in the death penalty? I don't form this view. I would hope to never take another's life, but if I had near certain knowledge that someone is going to continue killing others without thought or remorse, as long as they were able, then I may be the first to end that person's life.

It's quite easy to say, thou shalt not kill, but sometimes obviously common sense tells people to do it anyway.

This is why not killing may be more of a law, rather than a true moral, and as I've said, laws are subject to change.



I think the totality, or at least the jest of the bible explains that people had morality before the books were written, but that many chose to ignore it- just as they chose to ignore God.



Again, i think because you carry the notion that all slavery is/was a bad thing, then you have it listed as one of your morals. Just as you may be thinking that all incest is/was a bad thing, despite the fact that it may have helped you come into existence.



One thing I know for certain is my lack of knowledge when it comes to history. There's far more history than I can ever know even if I'd read every book and webpage. And much of what we read is undoubtedly wrong as well. Who can argue that?

I also don't make any claim to thinking that the NT is the whole source for morality.
Was there someone else on here doing that?

I was thinking of Christians in general. If other people's got their morality without your religion and without your God is it not probable that those morality especially comes from the people and not the Gods. And no I can not see the morality of one person owning another person. If we go by what Jesus said and was not recorded then it could be almost anything.

Most of your claims about atheists and atheism is only your biased opinion. Killing and eating other humans may have been a part of the survival of my earliest ancestors but that is so long before an thing in the Bible that it does not even count nor would incest. The Bible is good at ignoring that though. I am not responsible for what happened a million years ago. You on the other hand should be accountable for what happens in the Bible if you are pushing it as something we should use for our morality. With Cain and Able and Noah's family you must accept incest as your very God set things up requiring incest to occur.

Another ploy is bringing up what individual atheists believe or accept as if any one individual gets to decide what is moral and what is not. This burning books idea is nonsense, banning of books has always been those who are authoritorium in nature such as dictators or church groups. It was the Muslims upon becoming fundamentalist that burnt the libraries, the Christians who would not accept the writings of non Christians until the time of the reawakening of Europe and it was Christians that burnt the writings of indegious people's in the New World. Don't know which atheist you are referring to that would be willing to burn all books or even most religious ones. Sounds like a ploy to make atheists appear to be terrible people. In fact I bet a lot of atheists actually have religious books in their own homes. We have books on Wicca, Norse, Roman and Greek gods and myths and the Bibke. Don't think we have it anymore but we once had the Book of Mormon as well. More religious books than some Christian fundamentalist seem to have read books about science. Yes I do have a copy of the God Delusion but also The Rock of Ages in which Gould argues that science and religion should get along by not overlapping into each others domain.

When religious people try to discredit science through dishonest means or to inflict their idea if morality into the public sphere I will post my arguments and to debunk their claims. When religious posters fight about religious dogma or interpretations I will read to learn but will stay out of those discussions. But when a religious person uses their beliefs as a weapon upon others rather than a tool to assist themselves I will attempt to resist.

Now who exactly is burning books?