Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Almost every thread regarding the "inequality of wealth" contains a mention about rich people not having "morals".
You want "morals" in a nation which you want to have no religion.
How is this possible?
There are a LOT of atheists in the world who are considerably more moral than a lot of self-proclaimed "christians". Morality has nothing to do with religion.
And yet, it was Christianity that promoted slavery in the United States, because "Christians" had been taught that blacks were less than human.
Do you see the problem with "religious" standards of morality?
It was also Christians who led the abolitionist movement, Christians who spearheaded the women's suffrage movement, and Christians who were at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement.
Are those facts too inconvenient for your religion bashing agenda?
It was also Christians who led the abolitionist movement, Christians who spearheaded the women's suffrage movement, and Christians who were at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement.
Are those facts to inconvenient for your religion bashing agenda?
Not at all, since I don't have a religion-bashing agenda.
They are, however, highly inconvenient to your "only religious people should set moral standards" agenda.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
It was also Christians who led the abolitionist movement, Christians who spearheaded the women's suffrage movement, and Christians who were at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement.
Are those facts to inconvenient for your religion bashing agenda?
Apparently things like slavery are too inconvenient for you to discuss as they're contrary to your implication that religious standards aren't and have never been flexible. History says you're incorrect.
People who have never heard of religion have morals. NOBODY, I repeat, NOBODY is "getting their morals" from the bible or god. Most people haven't read the bible anyway so it's pretty easy to dispute that claim. Memorizing cute verses doesn't count. You give people too little credit.
I'm not saying everyone lives by a good moral standard, obviously not. People can be horrible whether they praise god daily in public or not.
A right is not a right if it is subject to the whims of any human ruler or political entity.
A right is only a right if it is unalienable, which means that it cannot be granted or taken away by human beings, only secured through government, which is the reason why government exists, at least in the United States.
If rights do not come from men/women, then they must come some outside source.
Call it God or nature, but it can't be from people, otherwise rights are no longer inalienable.
Apparently things like slavery are too inconvenient for you to discuss as they're contrary to your implication that religious standards aren't and have never been flexible. History says you're incorrect.
We aren't discussing slavery.
You attempted to smear all Christians and Harrier soundly rebutted you.
Christians not only supported, but were the facilitators of abolition, women's suffrage, and civil rights.
Not at all, since I don't have a religion-bashing agenda.
They are, however, highly inconvenient to your "only religious people should set moral standards" agenda.
How can those facts be inconvenient to Harrier when he cited them and attributed those positive actions to people of faith, something of which you did not even attempt to refute?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
We aren't discussing slavery.
You attempted to smear all Christians and Harrier soundly rebutted you.
Christians not only supported, but were the facilitators of abolition, women's suffrage, and civil rights.
Deal with that.
You rebutted NOTHING.
As I've said, slavery and the support of it by Christians is apparently too inconvenient for you to discuss as it highlights just how flexible so called religious morals can be despite your claims to the contrary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
