sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0312072247.42b18279@posting.google.com>...

I don't care what Ayn Rand said about abortion. I don't care
about Ayn Rand period. I find it hilarious that she felt qualified to
comment on morality when as an atheist she was not.

And *I* find it hilarious that you think an atheist isn't qualified
to comment on morality

They aren't, since the basis for their morality is non-existent.

Wrong.

I've been in this debate more times than I care to count.

Utilitarianism is a perfectly sound basis for athiest morality.

Except that there's no perfectly sound reason why an atheist should
adhere to it if he decides he doesn't want to. Well, save societal
pressure but you and I both know that's not exactly objective, either.

Of course it is unlikely that any two utilitarians will agree on what
is a morally good action

That's exactly why atheists have no objective standard for morality.

but since Christian's can't agree a moral code

amongst themselves either,

That's incorrect.

this is a mute point.

The word you want is MOOT.

--S

You know, Sneech, no better argument exists for summarily aborting
abortionists than the routine and utterly ignorant misspellings/misuse
of such simple words. My goodness, the distinction in these two words
is eighth grade stuff. I mean, think about it for a moment. It's not
exactly like we collared any of these dullards on the street and asked
them to participate in a spelling bee.

No, these leftist ignoramuses are in here of their own volition, the
presumption being that when one participates in a forum like this that
they're at least able to communicate their ideas somewhat beyond a
junior high school level. Indeed, most of these little socialists
posting their drivel in here are dumb as a box of rocks but have
self-esteem oozing out of every pore of their nasty hides.

And you'll also notice that few conservatives who post in these
newsgroups make these kinds of errors. The next time someone demands
that I make a case for vouchers, I am going to snip that moot/mute
item above.

Cordially, Marie

"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:

This is a mute point.

The word you want is MOOT.

My goodness, the distinction in these two words is eighth
grade stuff. I mean, think about it for a moment. It's not
exactly like we collared any of these dullards on the street
and asked them to participate in a spelling bee.

sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0312072247.42b18279@posting.google.com>...

sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0312071358.53a74ab8@posting.google.com>...

xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<3fe65d7c.40702024@netnews.mchsi.com>...

On 6 Dec 2003 23:47:10 -0800,
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't care what Ayn Rand said about abortion. I don't care
about Ayn Rand period. I find it hilarious that she felt qualified to
comment on morality when as an atheist she was not.

And *I* find it hilarious that you think an atheist isn't qualified
to comment on morality

They aren't, since the basis for their morality is non-existent.

Wrong.

I've been in this debate more times than I care to count.

Perhaps you could direct me to some of the threads or parts of threads
where you have debated this point.

covering old ground.

Utilitarianism is a perfectly sound basis for athiest morality.

Except that there's no perfectly sound reason why an atheist should
adhere to it if he decides he doesn't want to.

And what is the sound reason why a religious person should adhere to
their God's moral code if he decides he doesn't want to?

Well, save societal
pressure but you and I both know that's not exactly objective, either.

Of course it is unlikely that any two utilitarians will agree on what
is a morally good action

That's exactly why atheists have no objective standard for morality.

but since Christian's can't agree a moral code

amongst themselves either,

That's incorrect.

On some issues Christians agree.

On some issues almost all atheists agree.

However you know as well as I do that on issues like abortion or homosexual
acts Christians do not all see eye to eye.

Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<nfhatv047vdembnrvnl5jj2qk6akrdq7gm@4ax.com>...

On 7 Dec 2003 18:41:54 -0800,

sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0312071358.53a74ab8@posting.google.com>...

xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<3fe65d7c.40702024@netnews.mchsi.com>...

On 6 Dec 2003 23:47:10 -0800,
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't care what Ayn Rand said about abortion. I don't care
about Ayn Rand period. I find it hilarious that she felt qualified to
comment on morality when as an atheist she was not.

And *I* find it hilarious that you think an atheist isn't qualified
to comment on morality

They aren't, since the basis for their morality is non-existent.

Wrong. Utilitarianism is a perfectly sound basis for athiest morality.
Of course it is unlikely that any two utilitarians will agree on what
is a morally good action but since Christian's can't agree a moral code
amongst themselves either, this is a mute point.

I would go back to the Nicomedean Ethics.

I must confess my ignorance here. What are Nicomedean Ethics?

Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<nfhatv047vdembnrvnl5jj2qk6akrdq7gm@4ax.com>...

On 7 Dec 2003 18:41:54 -0800,

sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0312071358.53a74ab8@posting.google.com>...

xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<3fe65d7c.40702024@netnews.mchsi.com>...

On 6 Dec 2003 23:47:10 -0800,
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't care what Ayn Rand said about abortion. I don't care
about Ayn Rand period. I find it hilarious that she felt qualified to
comment on morality when as an atheist she was not.

And *I* find it hilarious that you think an atheist isn't qualified
to comment on morality

They aren't, since the basis for their morality is non-existent.

Wrong. Utilitarianism is a perfectly sound basis for athiest morality.
Of course it is unlikely that any two utilitarians will agree on what
is a morally good action but since Christian's can't agree a moral code
amongst themselves either, this is a mute point.

I would go back to the Nicomedean Ethics.

I must confess my ignorance here. What are Nicomedean Ethics?

On 7 Dec 2003 22:54:44 -0800,
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <

"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <

"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't care what Ayn Rand said about abortion. I don't care
about Ayn Rand period. I find it hilarious that she felt qualified to
comment on morality when as an atheist she was not.

And *I* find it hilarious that you think an atheist isn't qualified
to comment on morality ...

They aren't, since the basis for their morality is non-existent.

ROTFL!!!! They don't need a "basis,"

Everyone needs a basis. Otherwise one's moral code is for sale.

All ANY person needs to do is ---

...beyond the COMMON SENSE, intelligence, and fair-
mindedness that it takes to live by the Golden Rule.

YOU can't even do that, so I don't expect it from people who
followed Madalyn Murray O'Hair, either.

Hmmmm. As I recall, Madalyn succeeded in removing the
threat that our public schools might be theocratized by narrow-
minded loons like you.

So you have no case in badmouthing her.

And as for me, let's first look at you.

Is that what your God says?

God was no doubt well aware that people's IQ's are widely
distributed,

... when most of them are EXPONENTIALLY *more* moral
are than today's Anti-Choicers/homophobes/RRR cultists.

I doubt it, since atheism is responsible for more human death and
suffering in the last century alone then all religious wars and cults

combined.

You are blaming anomalous atheists (like Stalin) who,
unfortunately, came into positions of immense power. It wasn't
atheism, per se, that was at fault.

Really, were they being hypocritical in some way?

Let's see some proof that atheism caused them to be so murderous.

Atheism doesn't teach people any such thing.

encourages people to think for themselves.

WITH people.

It was mental illness.

Oh. So what does a person have to do to be considered evil?

Be off his rocker, to some extent.

No SANE person could BE a Stalin or a Pol Pot.

Really, who diagnosed them?

Society in general would suffice.

What do YOU have to say about the Crusades?

Nothing. Was I supposed to be talking about the Crusades
for some reason?

YOU are the one claiming that Christians are more "moral" than
atheists.

That action on the part of "Christians" was one of the
most notoriously IMmoral in world history!

Were THEY atheists?

Who cares?

Duck and cover, loser.

On 7 Dec 2003 21:31:42 -0800,

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<ra97tvg1uap65slpgjh58paa4sd38vvi2p@4ax.com>...

On 7 Dec 2003 13:58:46 -0800,

xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<3fe65d7c.40702024@netnews.mchsi.com>...

On 6 Dec 2003 23:47:10 -0800,
"Sneechres" <

I don't care what Ayn Rand said about abortion. I don't care
about Ayn Rand period. I find it hilarious that she felt qualified to
comment on morality when as an atheist she was not.

And *I* find it hilarious that you think an atheist isn't qualified
to comment on morality

They aren't, since the basis for their morality is non-existent.

when most of them are EXPONENTIALLY

*more* moral are than today's Anti-Choicers/homophobes/RRR
cultists.

I doubt it, since atheism is responsible for more human death and
suffering in the last century alone then all religious wars and cults
combined.

What deaths would those be, precisely?

*sigh*

The deaths of innocent people and farmers in communist atheist
regimes.

Doesn't make atheism responsible, does it?

Or is every murder in Italy to be blamed on Catholicism?

"My source is The Guinness Book of World Records. Look up the
category 'Judicial' and under the subject of 'Crimes: Mass Killings,'
the greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign
against the government of another is 26.3 million Chinese during the
regime of Mao Tse Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. The
Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary
in July 1971 placed the parameters of the total death toll in China
since 1949 between 32 and 61.7 million people. An estimate of 63.7
million was published by Figaro magazine on November 5, 1978.

Where does it say that atheism was the driving force behind that?

"In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn
estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from
October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at
66.7 million.

Where does it say that atheism was the driving force behind that?

"Finally, in Cambodia (and this was close to me because I lived in
Thailand in 1982 working with the broken pieces of the Cambodian
holocaust from 1975 to 1979) 'as a percentage of a nation's total
population, the worst genocide appears to be that in Cambodia,
formerly Kampuchea. According to the Khmer Rouge foreign minister,
more than one third of the eight million Khmer were killed between
April 17, 1975 and January 1979. One third of the entire country was
put to death under the rule of Pol Pot, the founder of the Communist
Party of Kampuchea. During that time towns, money and property were
abolished. Economic execution by bayonet and club was introduced for
such offenses as falling asleep during the day, asking too many
questions, playing non-communist music, being old and feeble, being
the offspring of an undesirable, or being too well educated. In fact,
deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation center in Phnom Penh, which is
the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 in a day.'

Where does it say that atheism was the driving force behind that?

"Then in Chinese history of the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries
there were three periods of wholesale massacre. The numbers of victims
attributed to these events are assertions rather than reliable
estimates. The figures put on the Mongolian invasion of northern China
form 1210 to 1219 and from 1311 to 1340 are both on the order of 35
million people. While the number of victims of bandit leader Chang
Hsien-Chung, known as the Yellow Tiger, from 1643 to 1647 in the
Szechwan province has been put at 40 million people.

Where does it say that atheism was the driving force behind that?

"China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker
Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist
revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death
66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire
population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese at two different
times in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and
40 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, make note that these deaths
were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that
had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion. And
all but the very last actually assert atheism." --Greg Koukl

Where does it say that atheism was the driving force behind that?

Which wars have been started,
not by atheists, but to eliminate religion?

Who cares?

Since you don't, we can see that your point is unsupported.

I can think of one successful genocide, and several more attempted
genocides, carried out for religious motivations.

And?

Which wars were
carried out for atheist motivations?

Again, who cares?

If you can't name any, then it's obvious that you don't know of any
instances of atheism being responsible for them.

committed by an atheist doesn't make atheism responsible,

Now, where are all those deaths that *atheism*, as a philosophy, is
responsible for?

*atheism* behind them as a motive?

For that matter, where in atheist philosophy is killing supported?

you want to blame the criminal action of an atheist on atheism, why do
you screech so when the same standard is applied to the religious?