I keep hoping mankind will give up on fairy tales...little chance of that!

TUL,
You deserve a standing ovation.
Whilst I don't begrudge anyone their right to believe in a "god", I don't need "saving" just because I'm an athiest.
You get my vote. I empathise with your frustration.
:)

Aww shucks, TUL
I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.
FR sent. :)

If God were truly nonexistant, we would only have humankind to rely on for the opinion of goodness. To be absolutey honest, thats a scarier thought than that of hell itself. Would you truly rely on another human beings notions of morality? Or would you rather everyone pursue their own notions of good, and hope that everyone plays nice? I'm a sheep, whether it be of God's flock or some ranting robed man's. At least I'm honest about it.

Considering the absolute morality of the Bible endorses slavery, gender inequality, and the execution of adulterers, homosexuals, and "witches" I'm quite thankful for progressive rational based human morality.

Whether they like to admit it or not all religious people utilize some form of selective morality. Unless you're one of the kooks who "hears" God talking to you, then you're analyzing the teachings of different religions and making a conscious choice whether you agree with that moral system or not.

we would only have humankind to rely on for the opinion of goodness

That is exactly where "morality" comes from. I consider anything that causes the suffering of another animal to be immoral. What gauge do you use??

Friendofdavid,
ummm........never mind.

Andrew, at no point do the scriptures implicitly state that the human male is inherantly superior to the human female. Gender roles are mentioned, but an overall inequality is only one of several implications. As for the endorsement of murder, i cant deny that there are indeed verses that do endorse such an act, but those verses are generally inconsistant with the overall theme in Christ's teaching (more specifically, his judgment in the case of the adulterous woman.) By definition, Christians prioritize the teachings of Christ in the bible over the earlier established laws. As for the fact that I am indeed selecting a particular morality, my point is that you are doing the same, and that calling my morality inferior is no less dogmatic than what I do.

kavique, Morality is only man-made under the pretense that there is no God, gathered up evidence that uses facts that were thought up in the faith of dead white european males. Sorry that everyones' thoughts on the nature fo the universe doesnt springboard of that. My personal morality is centered around what I believe to be the will of a being that I consider sovereign over all things. My morality considers the long-term fate of all people, which drives me to say the things I say, and do the things I do.

TryingUsingLogic, many wrongs have been done in the sake of religion, I'll agree with that, but science has no clean slate either. Not that long ago, science would have considered me a fundementally inferior subspecies. Science would brought a wealth of detriment to many a culture, just alongside religion. If science can be used for the better of mankind, so can religion. Both can be missaplied and misunderstood as well, and many people can suffer for it.

Abby, what is it?

friendofdavid,

"morality" as we call it is a system of behavior that evolved with social animals. Chimpanzees have a similar basic morality to humans. Complex interactions in a group make it necessary to establish a "proper" mode of behavior. It serves the group as a whole.

My personal morality is centered around what I believe to be the will of a being that I consider sovereign over all things.

"Sovereign"??? WTF?? Why do you people WANT a king?? What the hell is wrong with humans that, if they aren't being ruled over they will actually INVENT a king?? Pathetic. I am no one's "subject". If you feel the need to grovel before your "sky daddy" go right ahead. But I'm embarrassed that someone of my species would demean themselves in such a way. A chimpanzee has more respect for itself.

TryUsingLogic...

Im getting the implication from you that If God were to exist, that he would immediately respond and repair every human woe, most of which are self inflicted. Part of my faith as a Christian is understanding that that the world as it is now is a broken place. Humnankind can always strive to make things better (we are actively encouraged to do so), but things will only be fundementally 'good' when God establishes his kingdom.

So now your saying that no sort of enlightenment can happen in the world with religious people in it? So now your saying that if religious people exist, no science can continue, that the world must stay in some technological stasis? Since when was the entirety of scientific or medicinal research linked to the acceptence or nonacceptance of a singular theory? Why is your intolerance any better than the intolerance of religous folk?

There is a play by Euripides dealing our Apollonian and Dionysian natures. It is called The Baccante. A young man attempts to live with only reason/logic. When he meets his emotions, they tear him apart.

It is an old Greek ideal: Everything in moderation.