I am an atheist.

[ding]

And the Saeculum Cycle validates the logic of the early thinkers of our country.

 

[ding]

And the history of the Jewish people as they cycled between remembering and forgetting God's ways validates the logic of the early thinkers of our country.

 

[ding]

And reason and experience validates the logic of the early thinkers of our country.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

If you are hungry, I will offer you food.
If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do this things in hope of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished. I do these things, because I know them to be right. I set my own standards, and I, alone, enforce them...

...I am an atheist.

The fact that you feel the need to claim this to strangers on a forum either shows that it's false, or you believe other atheists wouldn't do the same. As a matter of fact, most people don't care if you're some form of religious or an atheist, we're all just people.

Besides, this was proven false months ago when I posted about a friend of mine becoming homeless, begging for help, and you were nowhere to be seen. Most people don't help others in need, the chance of being robbed is drastically higher than that of the person legitimately needing help.

Oh, fuck off! You know damned well why an atheist would post this declaration. As to your friend, first, I don't monitor my discussion groups all that closely, looking for pleas of help. Second, even if I had seen it, your damned right I'm not going to offer to "help" some anonymous fucktard on an internet discussion board claiming to need assistance for some alleged homeless "friend". I'll stick to helping the actual people that I see every day, just as I have been doing.

You post this declaration because you don't think other atheists would.

Your anger at my statement only shows I'm correct in my assessment. Thanks for proving my point<3

 

[Czernobog]

or, maybe I wasn't thinking anything like that, at all...

I know you weren't thinking like that. That's why I pointed out why you were wrong.

I never suggested it does. Do you only do things that are completely healthy? You never eat fast food? You've never gotten drunk? Further, you seem to equate not choosing to forgive someone with "holding a grudge". I would submit that they are two separate things. When I tell you to fuck off, you no longer exist in my reality, and then proceed to simply cut you out of my life. I am not "holding a grudge", I am simply deciding that you are not worthy of being a part of my life. I, then, go on with my life without ever giving you so much as a single thought. That's not "holding a grudge"; that's cutting out a cancer.

a thing is not another thing.
You are rationalizing why withholding forgiveness is a good thing. It's not and never will be. Just because we mete out punishment as a form of justice doesn't make it right. A much better way of looking at it is that it is wrong but we still choose to do it. Why is this better? Because it doesn't lower the standard. Which is something I believe you have done in an incrementalized fashion the way it has always been done in its time honored tradition of normalization of deviance. It really shouldn't have been a surprise that the Nazi's went from we don't like Jews, to Jews are evil to Jews are not human to kill the Jews.

I'm doing no such thing. I never posited that withholding forgiveness is a "good" thing. It it you who is attempting to ascribe a value to forgiveness that I do not recognise. I do not perceive forgiveness as either good,or bad. It is simply a choice. It's interesting that you bring up Nazis and the Jews. How many Jews - particularly those with tattoos on their arms - do you think have forgiven Hitler? Or Mengele? I'm sure your desire screams, "All of them," I would be willing to bet that the truth is a whole lot less than that. And that's okay. Some acts one simply does not forgive. Perhaps your God will forgive you, for I certainly will not.

Your incremenatalization of moving the standards is no different. You end up far away from what is good and just.

It's not "incremenatalization" (which, incidentally, isn't even a word; but we'll forget about that; I don't feel like being the Grammar Nazis). Rather it is recognising that a thing is not another thing. If you ask me why I choose to ride a bike to work, and I say, "I don't, I take the bus," I am not just choosing a different increment of "transportation"; I am telling you that the thing I use is not the thing you claimed I use.

Sometimes, yeah. It is cathartic. If you have never enjoyed the catharsis of punching a dick in the face, then it is something that you simply will not understand.

No. It isn't. And if it is, you are devoid of virtue.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[Czernobog]

And reason and experience validates the logic of the early thinkers of our country.

Concerning the law, and our society, maybe. However, I am not trying to influence our society. I am simply stating my personal moral code, which does not require a religion.

 

[Czernobog]

It usually does when I'm dealing with sanctimonious trolls.

Bully for you! Do you want a cigar or a blowtorch to light it with? Those that seek to do service for others don't feel the need to advertise it. Nothing takes away from doing good for others than by standing up and wanting recognition and appaluse for having done it...........capiche'?

And another pompous ass missing the point. I didn't post the OP for milk, and cookies. I posted it to point out that one does not need religious indoctrination to do good.

Dr. Ron Paul responds:

"Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."

Woohoo. Ron Paul is entitled his opinion. It does not change that I need no church, no religion for me to decide to do what I do. Your point?

My point here was that religion serves a purpose and is a force for good.

"Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."

See?

You're entitled your opinion. It does not change the fact that I do not need your religion to recognise what i consider to be good.

 

[Czernobog]

It usually does when I'm dealing with sanctimonious trolls.

Bully for you! Do you want a cigar or a blowtorch to light it with? Those that seek to do service for others don't feel the need to advertise it. Nothing takes away from doing good for others than by standing up and wanting recognition and appaluse for having done it...........capiche'?

And another pompous ass missing the point. I didn't post the OP for milk, and cookies. I posted it to point out that one does not need religious indoctrination to do good.

The early thinkers of our country were convinced that the state must be held accountable to the authority of a higher ethical and spiritual standard – the “Natural Law” or the “Law of Nature’s God.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” John Adams Letter of June 21, 1776

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” Samuel Adams Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” Patrick Henry Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1799

“The only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” Benjamin Rush Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical, 1798

Again, woohoo. In what way does what any of these people had to say alter that I live my live devoid of any religious indoctrination, and the moral code I follow, as posted in the OP, is no less positive than theists?

But according to the early thinkers of our country, you can't be good without religion. That's the point. They are calling bullshit on your ability to do so in a vacuum. Moreover, there belief was that no government could succeed if the populace is corrupt. There point was that we need religion, morality and virtue if we are ever going to maintain freedom and liberty. That freedom and liberty cannot exist without morality and virtue and that religion is necessary for morality and virtue.

...and, yet...I am. Picture that...

 

[Czernobog]

If you are hungry, I will offer you food.
If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do this things in hope of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished. I do these things, because I know them to be right. I set my own standards, and I, alone, enforce them...

...I am an atheist.

The fact that you feel the need to claim this to strangers on a forum either shows that it's false, or you believe other atheists wouldn't do the same. As a matter of fact, most people don't care if you're some form of religious or an atheist, we're all just people.

Besides, this was proven false months ago when I posted about a friend of mine becoming homeless, begging for help, and you were nowhere to be seen. Most people don't help others in need, the chance of being robbed is drastically higher than that of the person legitimately needing help.

Oh, fuck off! You know damned well why an atheist would post this declaration. As to your friend, first, I don't monitor my discussion groups all that closely, looking for pleas of help. Second, even if I had seen it, your damned right I'm not going to offer to "help" some anonymous fucktard on an internet discussion board claiming to need assistance for some alleged homeless "friend". I'll stick to helping the actual people that I see every day, just as I have been doing.

You post this declaration because you don't think other atheists would.

Your anger at my statement only shows I'm correct in my assessment. Thanks for proving my point<3

I'm angry at your post, because you claim to know what you cannot - what is in my mind. I'm angry at your post, because you think that some post - that I never saw - pleading for help on an anonymous forum would encourage anyone to give money to a complete stranger, or expose those who don't as something other than they claim to be. You don't know me, yet you pretend to know exactly what I think. You are a sanctimonious, bloviating ass. That's not anger, incidentally; just an observation.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

If you are hungry, I will offer you food.
If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do this things in hope of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished. I do these things, because I know them to be right. I set my own standards, and I, alone, enforce them...

...I am an atheist.

The fact that you feel the need to claim this to strangers on a forum either shows that it's false, or you believe other atheists wouldn't do the same. As a matter of fact, most people don't care if you're some form of religious or an atheist, we're all just people.

Besides, this was proven false months ago when I posted about a friend of mine becoming homeless, begging for help, and you were nowhere to be seen. Most people don't help others in need, the chance of being robbed is drastically higher than that of the person legitimately needing help.

Oh, fuck off! You know damned well why an atheist would post this declaration. As to your friend, first, I don't monitor my discussion groups all that closely, looking for pleas of help. Second, even if I had seen it, your damned right I'm not going to offer to "help" some anonymous fucktard on an internet discussion board claiming to need assistance for some alleged homeless "friend". I'll stick to helping the actual people that I see every day, just as I have been doing.

You post this declaration because you don't think other atheists would.

Your anger at my statement only shows I'm correct in my assessment. Thanks for proving my point<3

I'm angry at your post, because you claim to know what you cannot - what is in my mind. I'm angry at your post, because you think that some post - that I never saw - pleading for help on an anonymous forum would encourage anyone to give money to a complete stranger, or expose those who don't as something other than they claim to be. You don't know me, yet you pretend to know exactly what I think. You are a sanctimonious, bloviating ass. That's not anger, incidentally; just an observation.

Hey, you're the one who claimed to be willing to help people in need. Not my fault there are inconsistencies in your statement and your actions. Maybe you should have said "If you're not a stranger, I'll help you if I feel like it". I think that would be more on the dot. Maybe you should edit that into your original post.

 

[Czernobog]

If you are hungry, I will offer you food.
If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do this things in hope of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished. I do these things, because I know them to be right. I set my own standards, and I, alone, enforce them...

...I am an atheist.

The fact that you feel the need to claim this to strangers on a forum either shows that it's false, or you believe other atheists wouldn't do the same. As a matter of fact, most people don't care if you're some form of religious or an atheist, we're all just people.

Besides, this was proven false months ago when I posted about a friend of mine becoming homeless, begging for help, and you were nowhere to be seen. Most people don't help others in need, the chance of being robbed is drastically higher than that of the person legitimately needing help.

Oh, fuck off! You know damned well why an atheist would post this declaration. As to your friend, first, I don't monitor my discussion groups all that closely, looking for pleas of help. Second, even if I had seen it, your damned right I'm not going to offer to "help" some anonymous fucktard on an internet discussion board claiming to need assistance for some alleged homeless "friend". I'll stick to helping the actual people that I see every day, just as I have been doing.

You post this declaration because you don't think other atheists would.

Your anger at my statement only shows I'm correct in my assessment. Thanks for proving my point<3

I'm angry at your post, because you claim to know what you cannot - what is in my mind. I'm angry at your post, because you think that some post - that I never saw - pleading for help on an anonymous forum would encourage anyone to give money to a complete stranger, or expose those who don't as something other than they claim to be. You don't know me, yet you pretend to know exactly what I think. You are a sanctimonious, bloviating ass. That's not anger, incidentally; just an observation.

Hey, you're the one who claimed to be willing to help people in need. Not my fault there are inconsistencies in your statement and your actions. Maybe you should have said "If you're not a stranger, I'll help you if I feel like it". I think that would be more on the dot. Maybe you should edit that into your original post.

Yeah, I also got an e-mail last year from a Nigerian Prince who was badly in need of my assistance. Guess what? I didn't send him any fuckin' money, either! Taking the beggar on the corner into McDonald's for a meal is being helpful. Giving money to some complete stranger because they asked really nicely over the internet is reckless, stupid, and naive.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The fact that you feel the need to claim this to strangers on a forum either shows that it's false, or you believe other atheists wouldn't do the same. As a matter of fact, most people don't care if you're some form of religious or an atheist, we're all just people.

Besides, this was proven false months ago when I posted about a friend of mine becoming homeless, begging for help, and you were nowhere to be seen. Most people don't help others in need, the chance of being robbed is drastically higher than that of the person legitimately needing help.

Oh, fuck off! You know damned well why an atheist would post this declaration. As to your friend, first, I don't monitor my discussion groups all that closely, looking for pleas of help. Second, even if I had seen it, your damned right I'm not going to offer to "help" some anonymous fucktard on an internet discussion board claiming to need assistance for some alleged homeless "friend". I'll stick to helping the actual people that I see every day, just as I have been doing.

You post this declaration because you don't think other atheists would.

Your anger at my statement only shows I'm correct in my assessment. Thanks for proving my point<3

I'm angry at your post, because you claim to know what you cannot - what is in my mind. I'm angry at your post, because you think that some post - that I never saw - pleading for help on an anonymous forum would encourage anyone to give money to a complete stranger, or expose those who don't as something other than they claim to be. You don't know me, yet you pretend to know exactly what I think. You are a sanctimonious, bloviating ass. That's not anger, incidentally; just an observation.

Hey, you're the one who claimed to be willing to help people in need. Not my fault there are inconsistencies in your statement and your actions. Maybe you should have said "If you're not a stranger, I'll help you if I feel like it". I think that would be more on the dot. Maybe you should edit that into your original post.

Yeah, I also got an e-mail last year from a Nigerian Prince who was badly in need of my assistance. Guess what? I didn't send him any fuckin' money, either! Taking the beggar on the corner into McDonald's for a meal is being helpful. Giving money to some complete stranger because they asked really nicely over the internet is reckless, stupid, and naive.

He wasn't asking for money. Regardless, you still need to specify since there are far more conditions on your willingness to help than you let on in the OP<3

 

[Peach]

I get ....distressed when churches keep their doors closed with freezing rain, and temperatures. Thus, my non denominational stance.

 

[ding]

I'm doing no such thing. I never posited that withholding forgiveness is a "good" thing. It it you who is attempting to ascribe a value to forgiveness that I do not recognise. I do not perceive forgiveness as either good,or bad. It is simply a choice. It's interesting that you bring up Nazis and the Jews. How many Jews - particularly those with tattoos on their arms - do you think have forgiven Hitler? Or Mengele? I'm sure your desire screams, "All of them," I would be willing to bet that the truth is a whole lot less than that. And that's okay. Some acts one simply does not forgive. Perhaps your God will forgive you, for I certainly will not.

But forgiveness is naturally good. The outcomes tell us so. Forgiveness is a successful behavior because it naturally leads to success. I didn't make it this way. Nature did. It's all very Darwinian. Or do you still reject the notion that a phenomenon that exists in nature is not subject to natural selection? Are you telling me that nature doesn't select traits and behaviors which lead to functional advantage and survival?

You take offense at the example I brought up, but that example is exactly how standards of decency change. It is an incremental process. You will never learn anything if you keep taking everything so personal.

I don't know how many of the Jewish survivors or their descendants have or have not forgiven the Nazi's. I bet it is more than you think though. I know this because I know how the mind works and that forgiveness is mainly for the person doing the forgiving. You don't accept this, so you ignore the overwhelming evidence for it.

But for the ones who didn't forgive them I'm certain their lives went on. But this argument isn't over that. It is about the best way. And I still believe their lives would have been better if they had. I say this because reason and experience tells me so.

It's not "incremenatalization" (which, incidentally, isn't even a word; but we'll forget about that; I don't feel like being the Grammar Nazis). Rather it is recognising that a thing is not another thing. If you ask me why I choose to ride a bike to work, and I say, "I don't, I take the bus," I am not just choosing a different increment of "transportation"; I am telling you that the thing I use is not the thing you claimed I use.

I understand you need to quibble over something. That's your ego talking. It doesn't affect me either way. Only you.

What you just said made absolutely no sense to me. "...it is recognising that a thing is not another thing?"

Look, you don't move to a diametrically opposed position or standard overnight. That process takes steps. The standard is lowered in incremental steps. It's called gradualism. That's why you should never abandon the first standard.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Thank you and my opinion is that if you enjoy inflicting suffering on another human being then at that moment you are devoid of virtue.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm doing no such thing. I never posited that withholding forgiveness is a "good" thing. It it you who is attempting to ascribe a value to forgiveness that I do not recognise. I do not perceive forgiveness as either good,or bad. It is simply a choice. It's interesting that you bring up Nazis and the Jews. How many Jews - particularly those with tattoos on their arms - do you think have forgiven Hitler? Or Mengele? I'm sure your desire screams, "All of them," I would be willing to bet that the truth is a whole lot less than that. And that's okay. Some acts one simply does not forgive. Perhaps your God will forgive you, for I certainly will not.

But forgiveness is naturally good. The outcomes tell us so. Forgiveness is a successful behavior because it naturally leads to success. I didn't make it this way. Nature did. It's all very Darwinian. Or do you still reject the notion that a phenomenon that exists in nature is not subject to natural selection? Are you telling me that nature doesn't select traits and behaviors which lead to functional advantage and survival?

You take offense at the example I brought up, but that example is exactly how standards of decency change. It is an incremental process. You will never learn anything if you keep taking everything so personal.

I didn't take offence at it. I demonstrated that you hit on a rather famous example where forgiveness is most certainly not the natural response.

I don't know how many have or have not forgiven the Nazi's. I bet it is more than you think though. I know this because I know how the mind works and that forgiveness is mainly for the person doing the forgiving. You don't accept this, so you ignore the overwhelming evidence for it.

I think it is probably less than you think, as I also know how the mind works, and we are not wired to forgive "crimes against humanity". Further, as a religion, Judaism is not exactly a religion of forgiveness - remember they very much still live according to the "eye for an eye" mindset - so I doubt they would be all that willing to forgive such atrocities.

But for the ones who didn't forgive them I'm certain their lives went on. But this argument isn't over that. It is about the best way. And I still believe their lives would have been better if they had. I say this because reason and experience tells me so.

And that's my point. Their lives. Went. On. Forgiveness is not necessary to living a healthy life.

It's not "incremenatalization" (which, incidentally, isn't even a word; but we'll forget about that; I don't feel like being the Grammar Nazis). Rather it is recognising that a thing is not another thing. If you ask me why I choose to ride a bike to work, and I say, "I don't, I take the bus," I am not just choosing a different increment of "transportation"; I am telling you that the thing I use is not the thing you claimed I use.

I understand you need to quibble over something. That's your ego talking. It doesn't affect me either way. Only you.

What you just said made absolutely no sense to me. "...it is recognising that a thing is not another thing?"

Look, you don't move to a diametrically opposed position or standard overnight. That process takes steps. The standard is lowered in incremental steps. It's called gradualism. That's why you should never abandon the first standard.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Thank you and my opinion is that if you enjoy inflicting suffering on another human being than at that moment you are devoid of virtue.

Okay.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh, fuck off! You know damned well why an atheist would post this declaration. As to your friend, first, I don't monitor my discussion groups all that closely, looking for pleas of help. Second, even if I had seen it, your damned right I'm not going to offer to "help" some anonymous fucktard on an internet discussion board claiming to need assistance for some alleged homeless "friend". I'll stick to helping the actual people that I see every day, just as I have been doing.

You post this declaration because you don't think other atheists would.

Your anger at my statement only shows I'm correct in my assessment. Thanks for proving my point<3

I'm angry at your post, because you claim to know what you cannot - what is in my mind. I'm angry at your post, because you think that some post - that I never saw - pleading for help on an anonymous forum would encourage anyone to give money to a complete stranger, or expose those who don't as something other than they claim to be. You don't know me, yet you pretend to know exactly what I think. You are a sanctimonious, bloviating ass. That's not anger, incidentally; just an observation.

Hey, you're the one who claimed to be willing to help people in need. Not my fault there are inconsistencies in your statement and your actions. Maybe you should have said "If you're not a stranger, I'll help you if I feel like it". I think that would be more on the dot. Maybe you should edit that into your original post.

Yeah, I also got an e-mail last year from a Nigerian Prince who was badly in need of my assistance. Guess what? I didn't send him any fuckin' money, either! Taking the beggar on the corner into McDonald's for a meal is being helpful. Giving money to some complete stranger because they asked really nicely over the internet is reckless, stupid, and naive.

He wasn't asking for money. Regardless, you still need to specify since there are far more conditions on your willingness to help than you let on in the OP<3

Well, duh! I would think that would go without saying. Anyone who holds any position, absolutely, is short-sighted, irrational, and doomed to have their absolutism come back to bite them in the proverbial ass.

 

[ding]

And reason and experience validates the logic of the early thinkers of our country.

Concerning the law, and our society, maybe. However, I am not trying to influence our society. I am simply stating my personal moral code, which does not require a religion.

No, not maybe, and no, not law. Reason and experience validates the logic of the early thinkers of our country that liberty and freedom are dependent upon virtue and morality and that virtue and morality are dependent upon religion.

We live in a shared society with shared consequences. The less religious a society becomes the more corrupt it will become.

You are 100% free to do as you choose. I am just showing people what the consequences of our decisions will be.

It was for good reason that Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism. It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness.

 

[ding]

Bully for you! Do you want a cigar or a blowtorch to light it with? Those that seek to do service for others don't feel the need to advertise it. Nothing takes away from doing good for others than by standing up and wanting recognition and appaluse for having done it...........capiche'?

And another pompous ass missing the point. I didn't post the OP for milk, and cookies. I posted it to point out that one does not need religious indoctrination to do good.

Dr. Ron Paul responds:

"Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."

Woohoo. Ron Paul is entitled his opinion. It does not change that I need no church, no religion for me to decide to do what I do. Your point?

My point here was that religion serves a purpose and is a force for good.

"Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."

See?

You're entitled your opinion. It does not change the fact that I do not need your religion to recognise what i consider to be good.

I agree 100%. You are 100% free to do as you choose. I am just showing people that religion does serve a purpose. It's all very Darwinian.

 

[ding]

Bully for you! Do you want a cigar or a blowtorch to light it with? Those that seek to do service for others don't feel the need to advertise it. Nothing takes away from doing good for others than by standing up and wanting recognition and appaluse for having done it...........capiche'?

And another pompous ass missing the point. I didn't post the OP for milk, and cookies. I posted it to point out that one does not need religious indoctrination to do good.

The early thinkers of our country were convinced that the state must be held accountable to the authority of a higher ethical and spiritual standard – the “Natural Law” or the “Law of Nature’s God.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” John Adams Letter of June 21, 1776

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” Samuel Adams Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” Patrick Henry Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1799

“The only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” Benjamin Rush Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical, 1798

Again, woohoo. In what way does what any of these people had to say alter that I live my live devoid of any religious indoctrination, and the moral code I follow, as posted in the OP, is no less positive than theists?

But according to the early thinkers of our country, you can't be good without religion. That's the point. They are calling bullshit on your ability to do so in a vacuum. Moreover, there belief was that no government could succeed if the populace is corrupt. There point was that we need religion, morality and virtue if we are ever going to maintain freedom and liberty. That freedom and liberty cannot exist without morality and virtue and that religion is necessary for morality and virtue.

...and, yet...I am. Picture that...

No one is really. That you think you are should be your first clue that you are wrong about a good many things.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You post this declaration because you don't think other atheists would.

Your anger at my statement only shows I'm correct in my assessment. Thanks for proving my point<3

I'm angry at your post, because you claim to know what you cannot - what is in my mind. I'm angry at your post, because you think that some post - that I never saw - pleading for help on an anonymous forum would encourage anyone to give money to a complete stranger, or expose those who don't as something other than they claim to be. You don't know me, yet you pretend to know exactly what I think. You are a sanctimonious, bloviating ass. That's not anger, incidentally; just an observation.

Hey, you're the one who claimed to be willing to help people in need. Not my fault there are inconsistencies in your statement and your actions. Maybe you should have said "If you're not a stranger, I'll help you if I feel like it". I think that would be more on the dot. Maybe you should edit that into your original post.

Yeah, I also got an e-mail last year from a Nigerian Prince who was badly in need of my assistance. Guess what? I didn't send him any fuckin' money, either! Taking the beggar on the corner into McDonald's for a meal is being helpful. Giving money to some complete stranger because they asked really nicely over the internet is reckless, stupid, and naive.

He wasn't asking for money. Regardless, you still need to specify since there are far more conditions on your willingness to help than you let on in the OP<3

Well, duh! I would think that would go without saying. Anyone who holds any position, absolutely, is short-sighted, irrational, and doomed to have their absolutism come back to bite them in the proverbial ass.

Glad you agree with me, have a nice day<3