Comments on: You Don’t Need Religion to be Moral

By: Friendly Atheist » 2008 » January » 17

Friendly Atheist » 2008 » January » 17 — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:55:23 +0000

[...] can check out some of my favorite Indexed cartoons here, here, here, here, and [...]

By: Maria

Maria — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:27:49 +0000

Ummm…yup. I date one. Not ALL religious people are horribly twisted fundies

true enough

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:59:40 +0000

I suppose there can be religious, secular humanists.

Ummm…yup. I date one. Not ALL religious people are horribly twisted fundies…

By: Aj

Aj — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:38:34 +0000

Oh, so you weren’t implying that Atheists you disagree with fall outside the area marked “A”? This must have been a great misunderstanding. I don’t know how I could have misinterpreted your comments so greatly. It must be my hysterical nature, making me overreact.

By: Bad

Bad — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:21:54 +0000

AJ: Give it a rest. Hysterically overreacting and exaggerating things is not exactly a charming personality trait, nor is it a path to convincing rational arguments. And it sort of more proves my point than it accurately or effectively ridicules it.

By: Jen

Jen — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:19:38 +0000

The RSS aren’t humanists and don’t follow the ethic of reciprocity, they’re morally bankrupt, and Brian Sapient has himself killed many kittens. People who disagree with Michael Shermer are immoral animals who don’t follow the golden rule. Anyone who doesn’t give religion the unique respect it requires are evil, evil people that need to be whined about in the comments of every post, even when it’s unrelated.

Right, cause every single post on here has been about the RSS-didn’t realize 2 was all of them. No one said this automatically makes RSS bad, just that they don’t agree with them. Apparently everyone who doesn’t agree with RSS (and there are plenty of other non-theists who don’t) is now giving religion unique respect? If one then the other right? You’re either with them or against them? It can’t be that they simply don’t agree, period? You just can’t stand any views that don’t agree with yours can you?

By: Mriana

Mriana — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:26:08 +0000

Anyone who doesn’t give religion the unique respect it requires are evil, evil people that need to be whined about in the comments of every post, even when it’s unrelated.

Religion needs to be given respect? This is a new one on me. I guess that makes me an evil person, because I’m always griping about Fundamentalists and their dogmas. Oh well. Arm-a-geddon (as in I ma geddon) outten here, then.

By: dennis

dennis — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:10:16 +0000

Bad: true, that. I suppose there can be religious, secular humanists. They’re not too common, though, and that’s mainly because many religionists seem to think that humanism is amoral, not because secular religionism is uncommon.

By: Aj

Aj — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:34:59 +0000

The RSS aren’t humanists and don’t follow the ethic of reciprocity, they’re morally bankrupt, and Brian Sapient has himself killed many kittens. People who disagree with Michael Shermer are immoral animals who don’t follow the golden rule. Anyone who doesn’t give religion the unique respect it requires are evil, evil people that need to be whined about in the comments of every post, even when it’s unrelated.

By: Bad

Bad — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:03:41 +0000

Good point dennis, I guess I was projecting. Still, a Venn does show that some portion of secularism is outside of the golden rule, which is always too bad.

Of course, as I understand secularism, a religious person can be a secularist too: I see it as the idea of keeping civil society/government separate from the religious convictions of the citizens themselves: a value which, by and large, many religious people have supported and would never exist or have thrived in the US without the support of many many religious people..