tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post6670044896070979556..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: A Blasphemy Against HumanityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20511639526530130922009-08-27T08:02:48.772-05:002009-08-27T08:02:48.772-05:00In a nutshell, again, if god commands things that ...In a nutshell, again, if god commands things that you do not consider or accept as moral, what are the grounds for claiming god's morality is good?<br /><br />Do you think it is justified to commit genocide and infanticide when you're at war with another nation?<br /><br />Most people would say "no." Yet many of those people are Christians who say god is moral. What is their basis for claiming god is moral when god commands things that conflict with what they accept as moral? How are they coming to the conclusion "god is good"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37606983043545866172009-08-27T07:57:24.413-05:002009-08-27T07:57:24.413-05:00>Well the story in Samuel is against Amalek. I ...>Well the story in Samuel is against Amalek. I tribe that the only reason they were to exterminate them was because they were always waring with Israel.<br /><br />I know this is the theist response, but it's a dodge. The point is the theist is basically saying that "sometimes genocide and infanticide are OK."<br /><br />This is not only moral relativity, but moral relativity to an extreme degree. If murdering infants is sometimes OK--then anything is sometimes OK. And if anything is sometimes OK, then there is nothing BUT relative morality; which generally conflicts with most theists in Christianity, who claim god is unchanging and is the moral author.<br /><br />If their religion states that when god says slay infants--you get your sword out--then they're religion is dangerous because it bypasses their morality. That's part of the argument against Hitler--he was able to persuade a lot of people to do atrocious things. And religion just got you to say that wholesale infant slaughter is OK--if another group of people is always warring with you. Certainly the infants haven't caused problems for you? And the cattle--what did they do against you?<br /><br />There is no actual reason or justification. If they were carrying some horrid, incurable plague, I might even accept that--but their parents were our enemies? How in the world is that justified? That would be like executing a convicted murderers children for his murders. How is that morally correct? And if god is said to be a divine authority--and the author of morality--shouldn't this make us rethink that idea?<br /><br />If he commands atrocities, and we don't know why, we lose the right to say he's good. If he gives an explanation that makes no moral or justified sense (their parents were our enemies), then we lose the right to say he's good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48284349168304468102009-08-27T07:24:10.443-05:002009-08-27T07:24:10.443-05:00Thanks Guillame. I'm stunned at 74 comments. I...Thanks Guillame. I'm stunned at 74 comments. I hadn't stopped back here for awhile, and I'm just shocked. I'll have to read through these when I have time. I'm glad you got something out of it, and took the time to let me know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79429871647000143572009-08-08T06:52:22.763-05:002009-08-08T06:52:22.763-05:00Tracie, this is maybe the best post I ever read on...Tracie, this is maybe the best post I ever read on an atheist blog. My comment might be lost in all the debate that this post has stirred (I might take part on it later) but I wanted to say that it really made my day.Guillaumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376749604845793465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49540363457486321912009-08-05T15:35:22.615-05:002009-08-05T15:35:22.615-05:00Reading the discussion with HH has me thinking abo...Reading the discussion with HH has me thinking about evolving morality. I find myself agreeing with the parts about ethical thought being different in the olden days, although; I still think 1 Samuel 15 reeks of blood lust, even by ancient standards. Any tactician reading it would wonder why at least the livestock were not simply captured as spoils of war, or the women and infants to replace the casualties.<br /><br />This and other passages in the OT seem to indicate that "thou shall not murder" is intended to apply to followers of YVWH who have not earned the death penalty. In other words, a military invasion, execution, or a killing of another human in self-defense is not equivalent to a "murder". Neither does this commandment extend protection to pagans, heathens, criminals, or (I doubt this last one even occurred to them) non-human lifeforms.<br /><br />There is obviously modern disagreement among theists who honor this particular commandment (in whatever sacred text) about where the line is. The Janists, for example, take an extreme approach eating vegan and filtering their drinking water through cheese-cloth so as to rescue any tiny organisms. But even to these passive folk, vegetable life is not sacred nor lifeforms small enough to fit through the cheese-cloth.<br /><br />I have heard the commandment phrased as "thou shall not kill" and this has always irked me because it shows a complete failure to acknowledge animals and vegetables as even being alive. (They will say that non-human life is "soulless" so that makes it okay, but that seems very species-centric to me) If one were truly to live by the standard of "thou shall not destroy any form of life", one would certainly not survive the week - we omnivores are engines of destruction and will eventually be driven to it by molecules in our brains.<br /><br />I have heard vegans state the standard as "thou shall not cause pain" and justify vegetable death with their lack of a nervous system. At least they are talking about something concrete and tangible, and while I personally cannot give up the visceral pleasure of devouring animals (I am a creature of vice and try to avoid claiming moral high ground) I have to admit that this argument is a perfectly consistent reason for adopting a vegan lifestyle.<br /><br />This line of thought has me wondering what ethics will be like in the distant future (if our species has one). If you would indulge me in some story-telling... The following is just an exercise to try to imagine the difference between ancient ethics and the present because it's interesting to think about, it is NOT intended as an argument to justify the behavior of the god character in 1 Samuel 15.<br /><br />I imagine that if our species thrives, then so will our general ethical principles continue to expand to cover ethics in regards to animal and maybe even vegetable life. Imagine if we solved our appetite problem with solar cells, essentially cutting out the middle-men between photosynthesis and the chemical energy we run on. Eating might become seen as a distasteful carnal pleasure exercised only by those who have no respect for life. Agriculture in retrospect would be seen as vegetable-slavery, forcing plants into twisted shapes and butchering them without remorse.ChaosSonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210391390287355639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67277987114133987832009-08-05T08:50:34.525-05:002009-08-05T08:50:34.525-05:00"What you are basically asking me is why didn..."What you are basically asking me is why didn't God do according to what you perceive is right. Why didn't God go according to modern's man notion of morality NOW, vs what it was back then. Could it have gone in a different direction? I guess so. But really, asking "why" with "god" is always difficult. It's like asking me about theodicy."<br /><br />Don't mean to jump in again, but no, I don't see these as the central questions of atheism.<br /><br />I think the more important dilemma is the apparent lack of a cosmic moral standard period. What you'd expect is that god's morality should be detectable and accessible, and he/she/it should be able to enforce it such that it is uniform among people.<br /><br />What we see is actually the opposite: moral standards that vary between individuals and groups and over time.<br /><br />This is not in concert with the notion that there exists a god that's detectable and accessible (the central claim of theists).<br /><br />There shouldn't even be this conflict between the morals of man and god in the first place, and yet there is.<br /><br />I think you're absolutely right about the differences in human judgment about such things as rape, murder, slavery and etc. over time. But that condition is actually a counterargument to the claim of the existence of god and his cosmic world, not a supporting one.<br /><br />LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38638852743182575852009-08-05T08:33:28.333-05:002009-08-05T08:33:28.333-05:00"And this is the problem with atheists, as of..."And this is the problem with atheists, as of late. You can bring up how theists have all this bad stuff in their literature and how they take things literally (ie, that you "fear" you will get slaughtered). But when they DON'T do what the bible tells them happened back then, then you get mad that we don't take it literally."<br /><br />Er, I don't.... Be careful about painting us with too wide of a brush here, which is what we're typically accused of doing to theists ;).<br /><br />In fact, I see believers picking and choosing from their holy books as a very positive thing: it demonstrates the proper functioning of their morality. They can tell bad (slavery, murder, genocide, totalitarianism) from good (love, cooperation, helping one another, etc) and that's being reflected in their selectivity.<br /><br />Sure, they don't realize that that negates the truth value of what they believe, but it at least gives me some hope that they'll be able to shuffle off the nonsense in their holy books and live in reality along with the rest of us.<br /><br />Also, the differences you're pointing out in the prevailing morality portrayed in the bible, koran, etc. and that that's extant today is really only an example of a shifting "Zeitgeist" (a notion Richard Dawkins devotes some discussion to).<br /><br />It doesn't support the truth value of belief in a god and, in fact, stands as a counter-example (god's morality is supposed to be eternal and unchanging). It only reflects _human_ morality, and nothing more cosmic than that.lshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-92140593553652682392009-08-05T03:00:45.639-05:002009-08-05T03:00:45.639-05:00But you can have your cake and eat it too... if it...But you can have your cake and eat it too... if it's omnipresent and omnidelicious.<br /><br />Check out <i>The Magic Pudding</i> by Norman Lindsayv_quixotichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18068607586238616369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68712721317739340372009-08-05T00:55:55.782-05:002009-08-05T00:55:55.782-05:00No, i don't believe in a Christian hellNo, i don't believe in a Christian hellHoly Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67143288586201329102009-08-05T00:55:18.119-05:002009-08-05T00:55:18.119-05:00Ing
In short, its because Jews don't look at ...Ing<br /><br />In short, its because Jews don't look at the Torah as the sole definitive word on what is moral. It is a stepping stool for the nation as a whole to be more moral, righteous and infuse life with a sense of holiness. We look at different mitigating circumstances and wrestle with competing values. What works in one instant does not necassarily mean it will work in all instances. It's like Miamonides approach to biblical sacrifices. He doesn't hold that there is something inheritly "moral" about them, but simply that that was a way to get the Israelites to use a common means or worship away from pagan Gods to their god. (Hence a stepping stool). The bible to those <i>within</i> the religion find it relevant and sacred <i>because</i> it shows its relevancy in our lives and its teachings (ie, the corpus of Jewish thought around it) is why we hold it sacred. I think I can understand why people find that odd. But we don't simply open up the Torah and say "aha, lets act like Pincheous did." <br /><br />We discuss it, we find underlying messages (regardless if its there or not) and we apply it. This is what the Talmudic rabbis did in a span of centuries. They wrestled with it find applied meaning and how should a man behave. Did they always get it right? I don't think so. <br /><br />The idea of what is moral is first that there is One God and to ACT righteous and do justice. This is not me making this up but you can check in later books of the bible where Israel is hammered for their useless rituals as opposed to acting justly and morally.<br /><br />So I guess to wrap it up, you ask why we pick and choose. Because to us (at least Jews), the Torah is not supposed to be static. It lies within a system that <i>allows</i> for the reapplication of what the stories and laws are supposed to teach the nation. <br /><br />So in conclusion (I am sorry this is long), I will leave you with a Talmudic tale: Rabbis were discussing a specific law. The majority thought the law was X, but a lone rabbi thought and was SURE it was Y. He instituted divine assistance to PROVE that the law was as he stated. Sure enough a heavenly voice came down and said the law goes according to the lone rabbi. The other rabbis turn around and say to God: "The Torah is not in heaven." God responds with laughing: "My children have defeated me"<br /><br />The meaning of this tale is, that the Torah is on earth now. WE decide what to make out of it based on what we feel the need is. In it's very nature, is one for reapplications and understanding. Its not about solidified morality of zealotry against "enemies of God". You may not accept this. You may now call it apologetics, but that is how we approach it and HAVE been approaching it.<br /><br />PS- Kosher is not an issue of morality hence I thin its irrelevant that if slavery is abolished it means kosher is too.<br /><br />PSS-Sorry for cursing beforeHoly Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82105385770200812862009-08-04T23:49:06.305-05:002009-08-04T23:49:06.305-05:00Me being hyporicical now.
@ Johnboy. While I thi...Me being hyporicical now.<br /><br />@ Johnboy. While I think your points are damn valid, and despite my own snapping at him due to frustration I wouldn't go as far as to call him retarded. And in the continuing spirit of fairness HH is jewish and thus most likely doesn't believe in Hell. <br /><br />I got an e-mail from HH clearing up his position. Which the problem is that really I don't understand. His statement was that Jews today do not hold the passages allowing/ordering atrocities as they were held in the past. IE such things are not a good idea. This still baffles me. I can't understand how you can look at your sacred book, throw things out and still believe it's a flipping sacred book! If slavery and the like is no-go then why bother keeping kosher? Why bother with any of the laws since you're clearly judging them by an externally formed morality and deciding which ones are of real value and which are historical tid bits. It's an inconsistent position.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53768032950791954582009-08-04T22:30:55.415-05:002009-08-04T22:30:55.415-05:00Hey Holy Hyrax,
No I am not the same Scott from ...Hey Holy Hyrax, <br /><br />No I am not the same Scott from JA's site. I only discovered The Atheist Experience and its blog about 4 months ago, though I have been an Atheist since I was 15 years old (21 years). The responses I created today are the 2 of the 3 I've ever created here. I normally don't have time to do more than listen to and read the opinions here but since I'm home sick with a cold and had some time on my hands I decided to join in, in the debate.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11808046374934603869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57799122892496250352009-08-04T22:04:13.040-05:002009-08-04T22:04:13.040-05:00@ Scott.
Yeah that's basically what I was get...@ Scott.<br /><br />Yeah that's basically what I was getting at. Apparently for some reason I couldn't communicate it and thus doubt my own insanity.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49666695642382099512009-08-04T21:52:32.997-05:002009-08-04T21:52:32.997-05:00oh yeah
3. If god adjusted and dumbed down the mor...oh yeah<br />3. If god adjusted and dumbed down the morals of the bible to fit 3000BC...where did the morals prior to 3000BC come from?<br /><br />If you say we came up with it ourselfs, then you are admitting that a god is not needed to come up with a moral standard.<br />If we didn't come up with it, who did? If it was god, why did he change it later onJohnboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428622628537697916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45077859180360522142009-08-04T21:39:31.213-05:002009-08-04T21:39:31.213-05:00"What the fuck do you want him to do. HOCUS F..."What the fuck do you want him to do. HOCUS FUCKING POCUS. All of a SUDDEN, you Israelites no longer live in 3000BC and think of your women in 21st cenutry ways. How the fuck do YOU not get this?"<br /><br />Holy Hyrax you are hilariously retarded.<br /><br />According to your retarded logic GOD adjusted his rules to fit the morals of 3000BC. This is retarded on so many levels:<br /><br />1. The creator of the UNIVERSE had to compromise and lower his standards down to US to make them work. Apparently you can't do whatever you want even if you are GOD. You are basically saying God had no other choice. rofl<br /><br />1.1 The goal of a moral code is not to chose them so that they "work" as often as possible. To say "ah nobody would have obeyed todays morals back then, so he picked easier rules rules to follow. Even if 99,99% of all people back then would have failed to comply to a higher moral standard, why would god not at least tell them what his real moral standards are? Why would HE lower himself to us, just for the sake of having a higher percentage of people obeying his rules.<br /><br />2. According to your argument the moral code of the bible is not really gods true moral standard since he had to dumb it down for the people of that time. So not only do we not know what gods moral values truly are, he is also sending people to heaven/hell over millennia based on a dumbed down, compromised version of his true moral values...but still claiming in the book that those rules are the real ones.Johnboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428622628537697916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47322740618961207812009-08-04T21:20:11.959-05:002009-08-04T21:20:11.959-05:00Scott
You bring up some good questions. I think t...Scott<br /><br />You bring up some good questions. I think though too much has been written on this thread. Feel free to email me.<br /><br />BTW- Are you the same scott from JA's site?Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89834308592804456032009-08-04T20:58:52.933-05:002009-08-04T20:58:52.933-05:00Holy Hyrax,
When I stated that theists want their...Holy Hyrax,<br /><br />When I stated that theists want their cake and eat it too, I was referring to the cherry picking that run rampant among theists and is evident in the comments you've posted here. Theists pick the parts of the bible they like and disregard or reinterpret the parts that they know are out of touch with reality, logic, and modern social standards. Additionally Theists quite frequently hold God to a different set of standards than they would hold another human being. God commands that humans kill innocent humans yet you state (paraphrasing) "that's how war was waged back then". Your religious texts document ultra violent actions and shows God ordering the killing of innocent people yet I'm not seeing you hold God accountable for the violence and actions carried out against innocent people, nor do I see you holding God accountable for his lack of intervention and the prevention of such atrocities. Instead you're blaming the morals of men who lived thousands of years ago. The fact that it happened ages ago doesn't' make it alright and the fact that the God of the bible commanded such things doesn't make it alright either. While not everything in the Bible is "bad" this particular example (1 Samuel 15) really paints God in an unflattering and evil light which is contrary to what Theists claim God is. Anyone who orders the killing of innocents is an immoral asshole...there is no excuse anyone can make to justify such a thing. Why anyone would worship a God like this I'll never know.<br /><br />I also see that in several parts of your later posts you claim that things like slavery and such where part of the economic norm and that God never said you "HAVE" to have slaves, which is an incredibly weak argument. The fact that an all knowing, all powerful being would create a system in which it would allow its creations to suffer things like rape, famine, disease, slavery, killings of innocents, etc. and then claim he loves each and every creation is absurd. You should be asking yourself why God would do something like this and if a God such as this is even worthy of love and worship. Furthermore being the all knowing being he is God, knew before he created any of this that it was going to happen and that he was going to do nothing about it.<br /><br />"no Jew believes God could have snapped his hands and created a new human society out of clothe in the middle of the middle east out of nowhere. Things take time, and even the rabbis of early centuries understood this."<br /><br />What really? God can create the Earth and everything on it in 6 days but is so lacking in power that things "take time"? From the many conversations I've had with Theists, I was lead to believe God had unlimited power and so why did he not create a system or reality where these things wouldn't exist?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11808046374934603869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6190719868613930702009-08-04T20:32:53.337-05:002009-08-04T20:32:53.337-05:00I think we can end this with your final wordI think we can end this with your final wordHoly Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25221699538800551062009-08-04T19:17:03.382-05:002009-08-04T19:17:03.382-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29009798350364623772009-08-04T19:09:11.760-05:002009-08-04T19:09:11.760-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22636787067863068882009-08-04T18:51:52.270-05:002009-08-04T18:51:52.270-05:00>If we can get better ethics from outside relig...>If we can get better ethics from outside religion than what's the point of it?<br /><br />Thats a fair question that I wouldn't mind tackling with you. I have no problem discussing stuff with atheists as I "conveniently" work with three atheists and we get into good discussions. I think it can (shock) even be respectful as opposed to what your tone has been. It's almost 5:00 so I have to go home soon. Can you email me (that is if you want to continue)Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43244159798540390322009-08-04T18:51:42.015-05:002009-08-04T18:51:42.015-05:00"The law IS you don't rape people. DUH.&q..."The law IS you don't rape people. DUH."<br /><br />No the law doesn't say "Don't rape a woman or you'll be punished for a crime, say like with death" it's "if you slip up and rape a woman you have to pay a fine"<br /><br />"So I understand you. You wanted God to set a law to really fundamentally change people social behaivors by not shaming the woman. Ok, Fine."<br /><br />YEAH CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE BOOK SAYS HE FUCKING DID! HE SET UP 100+ FUCKING LAWS TO BUILD HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE'S SOCIETY AND RED LOBSTER GOT MORE DAMNED THAN A RAPIST. THIS IS SKEWED PRIORITIES THAT ISN'T REALLY GOOD EVIDENCE THAT THESE LAWS WERE WRITTEN BY A PERFECT GOD. <br /><br />"Me, personally, I feel that would be impossible."<br /><br />IT. IS. SUPPOSED. TO. BE. GOD. Really, how do you not get it.<br /><br />" Women are even shunned today. "<br /><br />YEAH MOSTLY BY PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW YOUR FUCKING RULES!<br /><br />"So the next best thing is to take care of the womans needs."<br /><br />And yet the father gets paid. Real great fucking system.<br /><br />"Look, lets ask this WITHOUT the God factor. Do you believe in THAT time frame, that that was a good rule?"<br /><br />NO! Giving the woman over as property to the rapist is a horrible idea. And apparently the Isrealites didn't either cause later on they punish an outsider for rape by murdering his entire tribe. <br /><br />I'm done talking...God, with Cipher having talked to you before no wonder he went crazy.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30342556696087281432009-08-04T18:44:56.430-05:002009-08-04T18:44:56.430-05:00>Um yeah you said we were all "Immoral clo...>Um yeah you said we were all "Immoral clods" so yeah excuse me for taking you at your word. If we can get better ethics from outside religion than what's the point of it? That was my whole point and you denied it. <br /><br />AND I RESPONDED THAT WAS SARCASM FOR YOU ASKING ME IF I FELT ATHEISTS WERE IMMORAL. READ THE FUCKING COMMENTS.<br /><br />>out of curiosity, you said you help the poor with a Jewish group (in Israel?) do you/would you help a poor Muslim?<br /><br />I said I we help the poor in our community. There is no test for religion. Our synagogue sends food to a local homless shelter and another synagogue opens their doors to the homeless every thursday and congregants have lunch with the homeless. Also, a few synagogues went together to help out "Jewish World Watch" which helps the people of DarfurHoly Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83088512991380087392009-08-04T18:42:01.960-05:002009-08-04T18:42:01.960-05:00>Or you could make the law "don't rape...>Or you could make the law "don't rape people" and have the penalty for rape be death. Again, pork worth out right outlawing...rape naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Not even a word about taking care of women victimized or at least not shaming them.<br /><br />The law IS you don't rape people. DUH. <br /><br />So I understand you. You wanted God to set a law to really fundamentally change people social behaivors by not shaming the woman. Ok, Fine. <br /><br />Me, personally, I feel that would be impossible. Women are even shunned today. So the next best thing is to take care of the womans needs.<br /><br />Look, lets ask this WITHOUT the God factor. Do you believe in THAT time frame, that that was a good rule?Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72432984916482282222009-08-04T18:41:37.235-05:002009-08-04T18:41:37.235-05:00"But you know what, since you enjoy being a J..."But you know what, since you enjoy being a Jerk, I will be one and call you just as dence. I SPECIFICALLY said you CAN get ethics outside. Here is my comment so you can try to read it once again and not be such a fucking tool and ignore what ever you don't like and latch onto other things:"<br /><br />Um yeah you said we were all "Immoral clods" so yeah excuse me for taking you at your word. If we can get better ethics from outside religion than what's the point of it? That was my whole point and you denied it. <br /><br />I'm a jerk to you cause you don't seem to realize how assholish and monstrous your excuses for this flawed stupid moral code is. <br /><br />out of curiosity, you said you help the poor with a Jewish group (in Israel?) do you/would you help a poor Muslim?Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.com