god by definition is good... that might be extended to say that all good is god. Is it possible to "profit" believing good does not exist?
This is absolutely hilarious. Could pattersb2 possibly not see the irony in his response to the first quoted post??
I assure you, you wouldn't be able to understand it even if I explained it to you. The key is in the word 'assumptions'. Maybe you can get one of your friends on here to step you through it. Remember, start with the post you quoted. By the way... why do you radical Christians always re-register with new usernames? Did you get banned?
Its pretty funny - having somebody claim somone is a faith informed idiot because he is against the killing of human life inside or even on the way out of a human body. How can society care one iota about cruelty to animals and not care about cruelty to pre-born or being born human beings. it would be wrong to beat a dog, but it is ok to crush skulls, puncture brains and suck out humans with a vacuum? WTF. A person who has faith can't vote against this type of behavior because he might go to chruch or temple. It is also virtually insane to not realize that much of the foundation of law is deeply interwined with religious principles. That shall not murder, that shall not steal, false witness etc. Where do non religious principles begin and religious influence end. Where does you freedom begin? Where did inalienable right come from.. at least in part.
The fact is, you can't establish a claim for a truly sound moral standing when ultimate credibility is resting upon the authority of a non defined entity. It is hardly principled to put forward ethical standards of what is right and wrong based only on a three letter God word, which is itself doing nothing more than representing imaginary ideals of morality as they are channeled through a non existent, abstract, invisible, and therefore dubious authority. More ethical to stand on the viewpoint of what is accepted to be humane. The actual reality of humanistic values themselves, rather than putting moral standards forward second or third hand, having been usurped then fiddled with, contorted or debased, by faith based ideologies formed on religious superstitions. To be morally sound you can't set off standards that way and in doing so, say they are trustworthy standards. A moral standing is not made, just by saying you have religious faith, therefore your religious faith is the moral standing. A sense of what is right and wrong comes before secondary ideals of religious faith - which is fundamentally to do with mysticism and superstition. Morals are first constituted. Through practice and reasoning, before any ideal, a moral standard is ascertained. Religion nor faith were never prerequisite to moral values. The "golden rule" was around way before any formal religion took hold and eons before any Christian beliefs were first cooked up. Do not murder, do not steal etc, were in place over 2,000 years before any Christian Bible. Morality does not belong solely to faith or the religious. It is easy to see how with faith out of the way, an atheist would stand a closer chance of touching moral home base without needing to make all those extra runs in the opposite direction which faith sends a player through .
And here are a few of those wise words for you to live by: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html Oh, the glory of it all, eh?