Those that approve of a book where one of the main heroes kills 3000 innocent people (Moses), are no more moral than those who approve of someone else who kills 3000 innocent people (Osama Bin Laden). Innocent children were slaughtered by both Moses and Osama Bin Laden. Both are supported by fanatics/extremists. By comparison, modern Secular Humanism is more (but not completely) followed by MODERATES, than by fanatics/extremists, as people who slaughter 3000 innocents are obviously condemned in that belief system. (See Exodus 32.)
The funny thing is that the folks Moses slaughtered had been spared by the angel of death when they were in Egypt. And then they make it out into the desert and Moses goes whacko on them. It's like a scene from a Final Destination movie. You can run but you can't hide from death.
Which modern Secular Humanist's writings does he follow? Dawkins, Harris, Dennett???? They are too modern for him to have followed, of course. He's not of my belief system, as he's not a modern Secular Humanist. But David in the Bible slaughtered 20,000 innocent people (if I recall correctly), because like Moses, he heard voices in his head. Insane. Religion makes people insane. Jesus is actually the worst of all, as his attitude towards, say, the world's 1.5 billion Muslims is, I'm paraphrasing, "I don't care about anybody who doesn't think I'm the best, let them burn for all I care, as I'm so immoral that I spend my time helping Tim Tebow beat the other team but I won't even BOTHER to come down and show those Muslims that they are going to burn forever....I just don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about most people, obviously." SpaceCricket, your hero COULD do the good work of simply showing himself to the, say, 1.5 billion Muslims of the world, and then he could eventually enjoy their company in "heaven" (since they'd be more convinced that he actually exists - as a Christian say), but he's too much of a prick to do so, isn't he? I bet if you had a 9 year old female relative with Downs Syndrome that even she would be smart enough to realize that it would be the smart and moral thing to do to simply reveal herself to the Muslims today if she was in Jesus' shoes. Right? So Jesus is less intelligent/caring than that, even. He's therefore not worthy of your worship/prayers. But there is a more moral alternative... By the way, if she's 9 years old, beware that a certain belief system of 1.5 billion people thinks it's perfectly ok to, you know, "get busy" with her, because their "prophet" did so. Incredibly, they DEFEND his pedophilia (I kid you not....it's a disgrace to humanity)! Do you see now how religion warps the mind? But there is a more rational alternative...
SpacedoutCricket79, as a moral modern Secular Humanist, I condemn Stalin for his murders of innocents (he's not a role model), of course. Can you, here and now, condemn Moses and David for killing innocents? (You seem very moral, by the way.) If not, then, SpacecaseCricket79, you'll obviously want to check into a belief system that makes more sense. Please let us know.
This must be what secular humanism is all about, eh? Randominly ignoring context, because war and terrorism are the same thing? Just so you can (*)(*)(*)(*) on three major religions by making a deliberately fallacious comparison to OBL and AQ? Well, I am sure like everything else this particular poster posts, the intent is obviously civil discussion rather than just the continuing antics of atheists blindly following their nihilistic propoganda. BTW - Stalin killed millions, so perhaps you should change your thread liner to include atheists? Or will you make some mewling excuse that separates violence from atheists from ... AQ, but no one elses? Yep, what the forum really need is yet another blindly propogandistic atheist, With paranoid conviction that he is surrounded by ... terrorists this time (it was slavers earlier in the week, and rapists before that). Yeah atheism!!! And people wonder why atheism is the least respected of all faith choices? Mihght have something to do in being the religion of deliberate, unducated, prejudical flame bait? Perhaps?
Nope, because ancient warfare was a bloody and terrible thing. I will not condemn leaders for doing what is necessary to shepard their people and keep them alive when sandwiched in between two massive, hyper aggressive Empires, who were seeking their utter and coplete destruction - one of whom openly whorshipped one of Satan's disciples - Baal. Now, to a committed secular humanist, self defense is not the same thing as terrorism? Right. You will forgive me for being better eductaed then the average secular humanist, and discerning enough to recognize deliberate flame bait when I see it. Sorry.
So you are arguing Neutral that Moses was at war with the innocent children of Egypt? Al Qaeda believes that they are at war with America so how is it any different?
Modern Secular Humanism is more EVIDENCE-based than any RELIGION (which are usually never evidence-based) in history has ever been.
In the sick, twisted world of superstition-based belief systems it's ok to kill innocent gays (Bible/Quran, etc.), treat women as one half (yep, one-half!) of a man, approve of slavery (Jesus, not once, not twice, but THREE times in one book alone approved of it....just to show us his was not kidding the first two times), defend pedophilia (Muslims on this very forum do that, incredibly!), that's what world. Fortunately, Neutral's children's generation will likely move to a more compassionate belief system....all they have to do is really really read the Bible/Qur'an, and that should do it.
The Abrahamic God HATES children, as he wiped out virtually every one (the "flood" - which is a lie anyway) because he himself made a mistake, the Bible says. Incredible. I'd love to see a religious person DEFEND what god did (killing every single child on the face of the planet, except Noah's gang.) But if they can defend pedophilia (do a search for "Aisha" on this very forum), then they can likely try to defend anything. Secular Humanism will set them free from this form of mental slavery, however. Charles Manson.....would he kill every child in the world if he had the chance, or is Charles Manson more compassionate than the "god" worshipped by more religionists than any other in world history? It's fairly obvious that Chuck would probably NOT, so therefore Charles Manson is more compassionate than the Christian God or Allah.
The difference between a MSH (modern Secular Humanist) and a Christian/Muslim/Jew is that MSH's don't defend Stalin's murders at all, but C/M/J certainly do defend Moses/David/God/Jesus when they approve of mass murder. That's because one is more moral than the other.
Is it? Because you have a historical record going back thousands of years? Wait ... you don't. You have a philosphy and an arrogant delcaration about something being evidence based .... with no presentation of evidence. Get that a lot from atheists ...
We don't defend Stalin's murders either, but neither do we turn self defense into terrorism just so we can (*)(*)(*)(*) on secular humanism. Are you a pacifist? Because that is not a claim that secular humanism makes. Perhaps you should spend some time explaining what your religion actually believes, rather than just pissing on other people's faith with hyperbolye and deliberately offensive antics?
The ancient world, were concepts of vengence and tribalism allowed children to grow up and start a war fresh and kill many thousands of people in a war that could have been ended on the spot by simply killing a few innocents. Its war, and war is not pretty. And, remember, the choice to not do what you find abhorrent, is that in ten years, a fresh Army comes along and attacks you again. Your own familiy is at risk of slavery, rape, murder, and thousands of your friends will die in a battle that ancient/tribal concepts of vengence means is inevitable. Know anything about Pashtunwali? Tell me, why for thousands of years when one kngdom conqured another, was the first thing that happened the immediate annhilation of the royal family and seinor members of the nobility and their family? Yeah, its just the Jews who apparently understood the necessity of doing this, and thus deserve condemnation for having to make a choice - kill the children there, or allow your own family to be raped tortured and killed. That is te reality of ancient warfare. And remember, your atheist pals, less than a century ago, decided mass murder, including the killing of children, (what happens to the Tzar's children?) was a good way to do business. But I don;t see you condemning that? I don;t see you implying that this speaks to all atheism? Why?
For one thing, there is clearly more evidence for evolution than for Christianity/Islamically-approved creationism. If creationism is false, then the Bible/Qur'an are false (or at least are not divinely inspired.) Going back thousands of years isn't necessarily a VIRTUE. I'd rather look to the future than dwell in the past.
Wow, they sound beyond barbaric. If there was only a MODERN belief system that I could adopt, instead of an ancient incredibly barbaric one... Think about it, THE BEST stories their belief system can come up with in thousands of years (it's still their #1 holy book to this day after all, and they are too intellectually-cowardly to improve on it) involve torture, endless slavery, endless war, horrific cruelty, world-class barbarity (Hitler would be envious), death to gays (Hitler is REALLY envious now!), death death and more death. Neutral, I bet you could come up with a BETTER belief system, am I right? One that has no particular stories about war, slavery, cruelty, slaughter of children, etc. I believe in you.
Yep, I hanged a couple of gay (*)(*)(*)(*) yesterday in my basement! Now, I am going to kidnap you and Wolverine, drag you to Alabama and sodomize you until you convert!!!! (Insert evil laughter here)? On what planet is this paranois treated as anything other than paranoia? Or simple rudeness? And people wonder why I dismiss the excessive antics of atheism and athtarded. Yep, disagreeing with homosexuality automatically means you think it is OK to kill someone based on their sexuality? Wanna know the best rebuttal to that silliness? San Fransisco. A city crawling with gay people that is not exactly surrounded by a Crusader Army is it? Hmm .. atheism, or is it secular humanism, is unaware that there are cities in California? What a silly faith.
You mean like the New Testament? Oh wait, like all atheists you simply ignore that. So, we are up to secular humanists not knowing that there are cities in California and that there are two sections of the Bible!!! But this mythical faith is a direct result of ... evidence. Atheism. SIlly isn't it? No worries, I suspect you will get an invite soon from one of the flame baiters asking you to join their efforts to have me banned. Because your logic is ... er, perfect, and really, I am the one being mean to you. But seriously ... there are cities in California. Just so you know ... its not a myth.
I love how non-thinking atheists build the strawman of thinking that anyone who is part of a faith tradition takes their holy writings as factual accounts of things and not the allegorical writings that the vast majority of all the faiths attacked do. But angry atheists really appear to be trying to convince themselves they are right.
