User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Experience
can killing become moral?

i'll admit, i'm a rookie at this. on the subject of moral absolutes, and the moral absolute that killing is wrong regardless of subjective beliefs, i would like to suggest a scenario where killing people could become a 'moral absolute', much in the way sacrifices or slavery were thought of as morally acceptable. let's say that in the future, we find the earth overpopulated to the point where we realize that killing the sick, malformed or otherwise diminished newborns, and the elderly and terminally ill is more beneficial to the planet as a whole. the care, medicine, food, money and resources spent on these people could be better used to ensure a stronger overall poulation. this may lead to a shift in culture, where death is no longer feared, but becomes a necessary part of survival, and where those dying are revered like the ancient japanese legends for their bravery and honour. it is too hard to imagine the benefits, or even to speculate on the conditions that could produce such a society, and the specifics of the society are not what i want to focus on. if that society could arise, is it possible that they could see killing not as absolutely immoral, but absolutely moral? and, when they look back on our belief that killing is immoral, would they argue that we were morally inferior because we couldn't see the benefits to society and to mankind, and we were merely acting on what the moral attitudes towards life were in our 'primitive' culture? or would they say, "killing is right, and has always been right, no matter what they did in the 21st century"?

From Realityman,

Mark said, "i'll admit, i'm a rookie at this. on the subject of moral absolutes, and the moral absolute that killing is wrong regardless of subjective beliefs, i would like to suggest a scenario where killing people could become a 'moral absolute', much in the way sacrifices or slavery were thought of as morally acceptable."

That was only when biblical teaching were the law.

Mark said, "let's say that in the future, we find the earth overpopulated to the point where we realize that killing the sick, malformed or otherwise diminished newborns, and the elderly and terminally ill is more beneficial to the planet as a whole. the care, medicine, food, money and resources spent on these people could be better used to ensure a stronger overall poulation. this may lead to a shift in culture, where death is no longer feared, but becomes a necessary part of survival, and where those dying are revered like the ancient japanese legends for their bravery and honour. it is too hard to imagine the benefits, or even to speculate on the conditions that could produce such a society, and the specifics of the society are not what i want to focus on. if that society could arise, is it possible that they could see killing not as absolutely immoral, but absolutely moral?"

The Greeks did exactly that and they wrote a lot of the crap in the bible. They did throw people off the cliffs that had any defects. They had a society of the extremely poor who were not educated and a few filthy rich tyrants.

Mark said, "and, when they look back on our belief that killing is immoral, would they argue that we were morally inferior because we couldn't see the benefits to society and to mankind, and we were merely acting on what the moral attitudes towards life were in our 'primitive' culture? or would they say, "killing is right, and has always been right, no matter what they did in the 21st century"?

Well, there are people doing that right now who defend the bible as moral, though, your post expresses a futuristic time when the people will think it is absolutely moral to kill and do other evil things, I think those things have already been done. They were perpetrated by the fanatics who followed biblical teaching, and it is not too far-fetched to think that they would do it all again. I have seen this same kind of topic before on another thread"Struggling Unbeliever" who only expressed theist ranting and ravings, and talked about how bad everything would be without a belief in god. There is no such thing as absolute morality, even though there are people who do try to force their belief in God's word as the only thing that is absolute morality on our society. Man's law is far superior, it isn't perfect, but it is far better than the god-approved murder, rape and genocide of the bible. If people thought the bible was better they wouldn't have written the Constitution, which is the law of the land. There have been amendments to the Constitution to try and make it more just, but the Fundamentalist Christians want the Constitution amended to make it possible to discriminate according to their biblical beliefs. The Fundamentalist Christians insist that the bible is absolute morality

"If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong," Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was an atheist as everyone who knew him personally wrote after his death including his relatives; it is well documented. That's not in the school history books you have to go to the library to read about that.

We will only have a more just society when there are no more superstitious fundamentalist involved in our government processes which was the intentions of those who wrote the Constitution and included "Separation of Church and State." Actually when there are no more superstitious idiots and stupid beliefs as well. No fool'n! You sound like a real space cadet.

Paine attacked the Bible as blatantly untruthful. Paine was one of the Founders of America, his book, Common Sense (1776), denouncing the connection to Britain. Paine's anti-Bible book was entitled The Age of Reason (1794).

If you are going to use that name you need to use an initial after it, there is another Mark.

thank you for the reply. i don't know if your exposition on religion was aimed at me, but i'm an atheist. my question was to matt d. and those who think that there are moral absolutes. i don't feel that way, and i was hoping someone could show me how morals can be absolute.

Since this crap was up from the 25th until August the 1st it means that nobody is answering it. In that case you got an answer. A mark posted some crap at about the same time that got real upset with the debunking of the authenticity of the bible?

Most atheists do not think that "absolute moral" exists. Atheists do not think that the world is moral because of any religious doctrine, theists do. Absolute good, absolute moral and absolute omnipotence is a Christian worldview. It is a theist ideology. Even though the bible is full of the most horrific immoral crap I have ever read.

We will only have a more ethical society when the superstitious mentally ill delusional idiots can no longer even say that their religion is anything but fake superstitious immoral nonsense. I think that the only way we would ever have a society where killing people would be justified would be if these idiots were trying to force their beliefs on people at the point of a gun. The only thing stopping it right now is the Constitution, and that's not too far fetched. I am an atheist and I agreed with everything Realityman posted.

It's pretty funny that these rotten vicious people are waiting on Jesus to come back so they can have a perfect world, when the world would be much better without them.

crap? i thought it was at least well written. anyway, as i stated, matt d., as in matt dilahunty from 'the atheist experience', is an obvious atheist, yet he believes in absolute morality. so i think your point is invalid. as i also stated, i am an atheist. if killing is absolutely wrong, doesn't that mean there is at least one moral absolute? but, if there are no moral absolutes, then killing isn't absolutely wrong. again, the question was for people who believe that there are moral absolutes, people like matt dilahunty. if you don't agree there are moral absolutes, then we agree, and your post is irrelevant and unnecessary.

MARK W.,

If you post something on a message board you do not control what happens after that. Anyone can answer it. You have no say so in how they answer or who can answers. If Matt had wanted to answer you he had every chance and he didn't. If you only wanted him to answer your question send him an e-mail. If you put it up on the message board it is free game for anyone to answer any way they want to. You do not control any message board, and if you don't like that you should stop posting.

Frankly, I agree with the assessment of the previous posts. There is no 'absolute morality' that never changes except for religious dogma. The claims that religious dogma is moral is not supported by the bible. God telling people to kill or god killing people can be found throughout the bible babble. I have heard Matt discuss that kind of senseless killing being wrong, but I have never heard him say anything about believing there is an absolute morality. I think this is an attempt to make an issue out of the usual cheesecloth. You've done these kinds of distortion along with trying to control who can write answers, and what they can say. You've done all of this because you are trying to control the message board. You need to move on because what you are writing is not remotely akin to anything that any atheist would be interested in. It sounds argumentative because it is.

Jacqueline

wow. let me get this clear....matt dilahunty from the atheist experience claimed to believe that there are moral absolutes. i am asking anyone who also believes this to show me how morals can be absolute. if that is not you, you do not need to reply. i already agree that there are no moral absolutes. as for trying to control the board...i don't even know what that means. anyone is perfectly welcome to contribute their ideas and comments. but, if you're just using your reply to show how smart you are about there not being any moral absolutes, i don't need it. thanks and peace.

What are you guys talking about? Have you ever heard of "survival of the fittest? There are no morals....morals come from God. Killing is awesome and fun and you know what Athiests support killing becasue they belive in evolution. And survival of the fittest is a staple in evolution. Athiests don't have a standard to set their "morals" apon. So killing can become killing nothing else...i mean your only doing what you evolved to do.

The Scripture teaches creation as a completed event. In 2001 the Human Genome was Mapped (ge·nome - one haploid set of chromosomes with the genes they contain; the full DNA sequence of an organism.) The human genome mapping provides indisputable proof that Darwin was right. Mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive ancestors. The origin and development of the Universe and all of its complex systems living and non-living organisms can be explained on the basis of continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy.

The economist Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" in 1864, and it was not used to describe evolution, that is not accurate. A species ability to survive actually depends on many factors and it isn't always the fittest that survive. Being the "fittest" is not all that helped man survive intelligence is a bigger factor. Man was smarter than any other animal. The animals were stronger, faster and had bigger teeth and claws than man, but the very reason man's intelligence developed more was the fact that man was not the strongest animal. Traits that help an organism to survive develop and are passed on. Natural selection on the other hand refers more to inherited traits which make an individual more or less likely to be able to survive and mate, passing on its traits to another generation. For example having a particular gene mutation in order so survive a deadly virus could become the factor in determining both the "fittest" along with those naturally selected.

Man being smarter than the other animals learned how to make weapons and tools. Our species will continue to get smarter. Also in the true sense of the process of evolution, it is not only the strongest or fittest that survive.

The theory of Evolution is stronger today than it was when it was first presented because of DNA. If evolution was an erroneous theory DNA would have falsified it, but instead DNA is confirming evolution. Evolution operates by 'natural selection' traits that help an organism survive to reproductive age, and that help it to produce offspring that do the same, will be in evidence in those succeeding generations. Traits that did not do this will disappear with the organisms that died before they could pass them on.

Creationist (Intelligent Design) have not shown that they have a theory that can account for any of the data evolution accounts for, and they have not provided any reason for believing that their theory (intelligent designer) even has the potential to produce anything useful to science.

The foundation of modern biology stems from Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution. There are all sorts of findings and experiments that could have falsified evolution. In the century-and-a-half since Darwin published his theory, not one has.

Not really. Creation scientists accept the concept of natural selection because it's an observable process. What they, and I, cannot accept is the molecules-to-man evolution.

We believe that animals DO change. Dogs change into dogs, cats change into cats, elephants change into elephants; "according to their kind" just like the Bible says.

Natural selection involves "selecting" the genetic information that already exist. Darwin's molecules-to-man evolution requires creation of new genetic information. Thus, his theory is not confirmed by natural selection.

From that, I can consider that DNA is more of an evidence to disregard evolution.

I am terribly sorry, but this is a bad message from all athiests, if in fact you are representing the athiest party. I got that you are basically saying that killing is 100% moral in an athiests point of view because athiests have no morals because they as humans are just following the path of evolution.

Yes, I purposely make my name ironic!

mark w. said: "matt dilahunty from the atheist experience claimed to believe that there are moral absolutes."

Really? Where and when? I ask because I had dinner with him last night, and he didn't mention he had changed his stance on this issue.

It takes a real man to think of someone as lower than him/herself when they themselves have nothing to say but idiotic parotted useless meaningless things that only the most stubborn idiots could think of. :) I have a few catholic friends and a baptist one and at least their life has a purpose while yours obviously doesnt. If it did u would not be wasting your time trying to find faults in others. It would be very thoughtful of you to give back the wasted space you are taking up on our planet and have fun in your nonexistent afterlife. After all, its only the cycle of life! From one atheist to another you could really use some anger management, just btw

Is it really in your place to judge whether what others believe is "funny" or not? Trust me, I haver studied the Bible and it is not the perfect world they want. It is to be taken into a perfect world. One that you will most likely not be a oart of. In reality, what you said about the world being "much better without them" is not a correct statement beacuse they are not all the majority of the people that make the world how it is today. I am not claiming that they are perfect, because in fact, no one is. But you have got to understand that even athiests, muslims, buddhists, sikhs, and hindis make the world the way it is now! Every religion, race, age, and gender takes part in this hell we live in and I would not be surprised that YOU took part to make our world one more level to the crap that it is! Thank you! AND Have a nice day!

I think it might be possible to define a moral absolute, but that such a task might be beyond my ability. I'll give it some kind of pitiful attempt.

I'll start with trying to define good. I believe good decisions to be those which people find pleasurable, useful, increase freedom, increase knowledge, and increase potential. If I help someone across the street at their request, if I teach someone to read, if I cure someone of their disease, or help a fallen elderly lady up off the ground, I have made a good decision. Evil decisions then would be the infliction of pain, imprisonment, ignorance, waste, and the loss of potential. If I maim or kill someone, spread falsehoods as truth, or prevent gays from enjoying equal rights as straights, I have made an evil decision. Between the two, I posit that there exists an ethically neutral position. The ethically neutral decision must have the same outcome as non-presence. If nothing in a situation is capable of making a moral decision, the action can be neither ethical nor unethical. Lions that kill zebras to eat are not making a moral decision, so the suffering of the zebra and pleasure of the lion are both irrelevant, and natural phenomenon are not evil. The hurricane that strikes New Orleans is not evil. I also claim that if I don't help the starving children in Africa, or rush to the aid of a woman who falls in a parking lot, that is ethically neutral. Preventing them from getting their food and tripping the woman would be evil, but the problems they acquire from non-me sources do not present an onus that I am responsible for.

Beyond that, we come to some rather tricky situations. Humans kill animals for meat, and we are capable of moral choice in a way lions are not. Most of the animals we eat though only exist in the first place as a result of us raising them to eat. They would not have had that life except for that purpose. They do not contribute to the body of knowledge or have the kind of potential for life we attribute to humans. By raising them kindly and killing them humanely (painlessly), we grant them a pleasurable life, utility, and don't inflict suffering. They can feed many, and that is good. Provided of course the animals are treated humanely, because to cause them suffering is evil. What then of criminals? They do some evil to someone and... must be punished? That doesn't morally follow. Our concern is that they not do evil again, and if we simply enforce that physically we do the evil of taking their freedom or inflicting harm. It does not in any way undo the harm that has been done. Good and evil do not cancel out when both are applied. For lack of any alternative currently available, we accept this evil onto ourselves. We rationalize it as saying we do good by improving the freedom of the law-abiding who are safe from the criminal, but that good does not cancel the evil we do by locking up the criminal. We may feel our hand is forced. A truly good solution would be some way to ensure by the criminal's own will not to do evil again, so that there is no need for punishment and no further risk to society. Engineering such a solution is surely beyond my ability. Perhaps there will one day arise a form of logic and philosophy and psychology that can simply explain things to people in a way that they choose to no longer do evil, and take care to offer just recompense for any evils they commit through human failure.

In my viewpoint, killing can both be morally good and morally evil, and it can be both at the same time. If you kill because it is the only way you can imagine to save the life of someone else, then it is good that you have saved someone's life and evil that you have taken someone's life. The two cannot simply be combined for a net gain. Both happened. How you console yourself with the evil portion of what you've done is on you.

We must weigh our choices very carefully and with all the knowledge we can apply to the situation, because regardless of our intentions the effect we have will be absolute. We may deem some evils "necessary" out of lack of a better solution, but we should never lose sight that it IS an evil in addition to what good may come of it, and keep an eye out for a fully good solution.

----- Sorry if that's a bit idealistic or doesn't address what you want. I'm new at this.

Morals are obviously whatever society deems acceptable at the time. They are just a human idea and as such can never be absolute. So sure I believe killing could become morally acceptable. How would you decide who would die? Impossible.

Nick wrote: "Morals are obviously whatever society deems acceptable at the time. They are just a human idea and as such can never be absolute. So sure I believe killing could become morally acceptable."

The absolute exists for persons aware of being deprived of life without their consent. .

cbr125r said, "The absolute exists for persons aware of being deprived of life without their consent. ."

So, isn't that just exactly the problem? Moral is in the eye of the beholder. Someone that has a weapon may kill a person who is armed and trying to kill them. There is always more than one side to a story, which is why there is no absolute truths or morals. No matter what the person that was killed thought society does not consider self-defense immoral.

The Christian worldview is based on God's absolute moral and absolute good. Some Christians believe that what is immoral in the eyes of man (that God has done or ordered man to do) it's our inability to understand it that makes it immoral to us. Like slavery and genocide.

"There is always more than one side to a story, which is why there is no absolute truths or morals."

Although I agree that there is always more than one side to a story, isn't the conclusion "There is no absolute truth" self-contradicting?

Concerning the Christian worldview and what is immoral on man's sight. If you're talking about God ordering people to kill, I believe that God was only executing judgment using the same people who deserve the same punishment. He is holy and hates sin. Man has been practically one with sin. In God's standards, all people deserve to suffer His wrath because of sin. I acknowledge that no Christian can ever meet God's moral absolutes, which involves being unblemished by sin, in their own feeble strength.

There are no moral absolutes. What humans consider moral behavior is born from our need to live together as social animals. The better those morals are at meeting the needs of the greatest number of people, the more likely those standards will continue.

The original post asked us to imagine a future in which culling a human population due to overpopulation (and a strain on resources)could become considered moral behavior.

I would suggest the writer check a history book. Variations of this idea have been in practice throughout human history, continuing into the present day. While the victims may not be "revered", certainly the acceptance of genocide, infanticide etc, has been considered moral by many societies.

The good news is, the better morals are at meeting the needs of the greatest number of people, the more likely they will continue to be the standard. Since killing off vast numbers of people never passes that test for very long, I do not fear it becoming a planetary norm.

I tend to agree that there are no moral absolutes but I think perhaps there may be at least one. That is that selfishness is wrong. Any act done for personal gain or benefiting only the few at great expense to others is immoral in any circumstance. All ten commandments and the code of Hammurabi can be rewritten as "Don't be selfish." I'm not saying that it is absolute in that it exists outside the moral construct of humanity but that within that construct it cannot be justified as the moral choice.

There are no absolute morals or absolute truths because it always depends on qualifying factors. Things that are subject to change cannot be absolute. Unselfishness (the greatest good) is subject to circumstances, because in a famine it might be unselfish to share your food with as many people as possible, but that might mean that you wouldn't have enough food to prevent the starvation of your own family. So, what's "moral" or ethical in one set of circumstances may not be in another; there is no "written in stone" morality. During a famine someone might break into your house to steal your food so that they wouldn't starve, and you might have to kill them to prevent them from taking your food. All that involves stealing, killing and (being selfish) in order to keep your food for your own family. Something that is immoral (unethical) in one set of circumstance may not be immoral or unethical in another; it all depends on the circumstances.

The world is not perfect and a perfect creator did not create it. From natural processes the Universe and life in the Universe evolved. All life is subject to the laws of nature in their environment. The Universe is not dependent on our existence we are dependent on its existence, and animals and humans respond to the existing conditions in order to survive. I don't think that it is rational to believe that animals live in fear of predators, and many of them die violent deaths, because it's a perfect world. It's the laws of nature and this has never been a perfect world. Stories like the "Garden of Eden" came out of man's need to make sense of all the suffering in a world that was created by a perfect being, and stories like that were attempting to explain all of the suffering and injustice in that world. If a perfect and benevolent god created the world it was necessary to explain how it was so flawed. The Ten Commandments are a list of established religious and moral rules. The moral commandments originated with the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" and the more legal philosophy of the "tooth for a tooth" come from the Hammurabi Code. The Ten Commandments originated from the ancient Egyptian religion, and the Jews borrowed the concept after their Exodus from Egypt. Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead (the Papyrus of Ani) includes a list of things to which a man must swear in order to enter the afterlife. Both the "Hammurabi Code" and "The Ten Commandments" have punishments for minor crimes or breaking religious codes (many being death) that make these codes inappropriate for any civilized society today.

The first five of The Ten Commandments are mostly about man honoring the "new" one god. They would only be considered moralistic if you did in fact believe in that god. The commandments reveal an incredible selfishness of the "new" one god. The first commandment states that they were lead out of bondage in Egypt, which is a false statement. Egyptian archaeologists say no evidence has ever surfaced to confirm the Exodus story. There is no evidence of the Jews wandering in the desert for 40 years in search of the Promised Land.

Archaeologists have never found any evidence that supports the Biblical story, and most scholars believe that the Jews, who had imposed themselves on the Canaanites, were asked to leave. They did and took one of the Canaanites gods (a son of El) with them. The first four commandments are forbidding the practice and worshiping of the other (Canaanites religions) gods. 1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

The rest of the commandments are legalistic and comparable to most civilizations: 6. Thou shalt not kill. 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8. Thou shalt not steal. 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

But these laws do not tell the whole story, because in many instances the punishments are not reasonable. Justice is not all about deciding what is wrong; it is about how you decide what is wrong, guilt or innocence, and what a proper punishment should be. If you have read the Bible you know that often times what is determined to be a crime wouldn't be a crime today, the punishments do not fit the crimes, and the way they determined guilt was nonsense. Unless stoning someone is the right punishment for adultery, and if you think women who are raped have committed adultery. There are countless numbers of people who have been stoned to death for adultery, in the name of Islamic penal law today.

The Code of Hammurabi is no better than the Ten Commandments it was a very flawed justice system. Example: 1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death. 2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser. What drivel!

James Madison, the primary architect of the Constitution, "Memorial and Remonstrance" 1785 wrote, "What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people"

American law under the Constitution is not based on biblical law; it is based on the common law. There is no article or clause in the Constitution that addresses anything contained in the archaic Ten Commandments or The Code of Hammurabi.

I think you're confusing necessity with morality. Just because something is deemed necessary does not make it morally correct.

You also assume that it is morally correct for humans to survive but why is humanity surviving morally superior to humans becoming extinct?

You are justifying the means with the ends but you haven't even demonstrated that the ends is moral itself.

Mitur Binesderti,

mark original topic "can killing become moral"

mark said, i would like to suggest a scenario where killing people could become a 'moral absolute', much in the way sacrifices or slavery were thought of as morally acceptable."

Realityman said, "That was only when biblical teaching were the law."

Realityman pointed out to mark that much of what mark was saying might happen in the future had already happened in the past.

I think mark was confusing moral absolutes and what is morally acceptable also - they are not the same things, and there are no moral absolutes. Actually in war time killing is consider morally acceptable, but many people believe that war is immoral. I'm one of them, but the Bible condones war. In the Bible God often orders killing and genocide.

In reality there is no absolute morality because circumstances affect what is in fact moral, and survival can be a factor in that scenario. I realize that fanatics think survival is a dirty word. However, the Bible's morality is far dirtier, and I pointed out that the examples of ancient codes do not demonstrate morality or even justice. Try reading it again.

The Biblical Jesus lived in a time when slavery flourished. The alleged Jesus never spoke or fought against it. Most plain old people (not even savior gods) today consider slavery one of the worst crimes against humanity. The Bible does not condemn slavery. The early Church fathers, Saints, Popes, Protestant Reformers all condoned slavery.

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." Luke 12:47

Most religions are nothing more than manipulations, under the guise of morality. All religion seeks to reap personal gain by lowering the self-esteem of the community. The Church Fathers used so-called moral issues, guilt trips and a distortion of reality in order to gain control of the masses and deliver a sheep dipped flock to the Roman Empire. Christianity was not moral it was something that was used to manipulate other human beings. The Church Fathers labeled any other religion evil to justify murdering them so that their religion would dominate.

The human survival instinct is the primary and most powerful human emotion, and the protection of members the family. There is nothing immoral about that. It is mans natural instincts. Religion is a false sense of what is right and wrong according to a God that was never moral what so ever.

"This said the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." II Samuel 12:11

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Psalms 137:9.

There is a very good reason the "Dark Ages" was when religion ruled the world.

Christianity is the epitome of evil. The Inquisition is irrefutable proof of the wickedness of Christianity. The purpose of the Inquisition was terrorism. It was meant to intimidate people into abandoning their own religion for Christianity. The terrorist methods used were threats, torture, imprisonment and impoverishment, with burning alive the ultimate punishment. They had to use terrorism to get any sane person to doggedly follow that disgusting immoral religion. They also used reward and punishment because no one with an ounce of self-respect or intelligence would have followed it otherwise.

Why does anyone give to a church instead of giving directly to those in need? They have been brainwashed into believing that they will be blessed and praised. If someone gives to someone in need it should be simply because they want to help that person and eliminate the suffering. They don't need church in order to help anyone. When people give money to church fewer people are helped. And in some instances the money has been used to enrich some selfish, self-centered, Holier than thou hypocrite fat ass preacher. To say nothing of the fact that it is PR to show everyone how compassionate, generous and kind they are, and they highly advertise their charitable works to promote more giving. Without an audience most of them wouldn't give a damn.

Their mentality inspires self serving and stingy small-mindedness because some of them promote prosperity giving. That means the more you give the more you will get rewarded.

I don't know why you can proclaim Christianity as an epitome of evil while believing that there are not moral absolutes. How can you know what is truly evil?

No. Killing is never moral. Self defense can be. But is all self defense moral? No. Morality is a line that is always bouncing around. Be careful.

God specifically ordered killing several times in the Bible. Even today, some Christians have killed Doctors, some Muslims have killed infidels. Which is to say religion makes killing moral.

Not all or even most Christians but many Christians have claimed that they will do whatever God commands because God is their moral authority. This includes if God commanded them to kill.

So killing can, has and does become moral by divine mandate. Often because their faith has taught them to devalue human life.(For example: All humans are born with sin)

1: Evolution is a process involving reproduction and variation(Not killing). 2: Natural Selection is not the same thing as Evolution. 3: Natural Selection explains how beneficial traits are selected by nature(Not killing). 4: Killing the sick, malformed etc.. is Artificial Selection.

Often people argue that Religion is the source of our Morality. To them I ask if they really think people thought it was okay to kill before Religion?

1: You cannot have religion without some sort of social group. 2: In order to have a social group there has to be some agreement that killing eachother is not okay.

Religion did not invent "Thou shalt not kill." Societies did and societies still do, religions reflect that morality and enforce it by divine mandate. Which is the worst thing that we could do as a species. It makes morality unquestionable and unchanging.

Which is why religions had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

From the officers:

The audio and video from Steve Bratteng's July 13th lecture are now available.