You are an extremely arrogant young man.

"The objective of each Jew is to survive."

Is it? Science can't tell you anything about what each Jew's objective is. Given that they probably wouldn't smother the baby, it's clear their objective is a little more complicated than mere survival. It's probably something like "survive, provided you don't end up fucking over another Jew in the process." Now you could conceivably tell a computer to ASSUME some amoral objective (maximise survival), and then have it find the most efficient way of achieving that (smother the baby), but obviously that has nothing to do morality, and most importantly, NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT A GROUP OF ATHEISTS WOULD DO IN A SIMILAR SITUATION.

Atheism doesn't mean "stop having emotions". Atheists are just as prone to their impulses as theists are. Atheism also doesn't say anything about whether or not baby smothering is A Good Idea. The actions of an atheist are determined by his value system, just as those of the Jew are determined by theirs. The only difference is that the atheist's value system hasn't been corrupted by an Omelette of Ancient Texts that read like the ramblings of a drugged horse.

Unfortunately for you, there is nothing scientific about the proposition that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." It's not even a statement that science can have an opinion on, because it is totally unverifiable (whereof we cannot speak, theoreof we must hang our heads in shame.)

But let me tell you another story: Once upon a time, I thought Morals were Magical Wisdoms Floating Around In The Clouds. I thought they were self-evident, timeless truths that were totally disconnected from the petty dealings of Man. That was when I was 6. And amusingly, it isn't far off the religious model for morality, in which The Wond'rous Mysteries of Right and Wrong are REVEALED to the faithful, usually through a text written by a complete prat.

But Scripture and Holy Revelation are not good bases for morality, and they lead to dumplings like this:

"Of all clean birds ye shall eat. But these are they of which ye shall not eat: ... the bat." -- Deut. 14:11-18

A better basis is to simply ask yourself: what do I value? If I said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!" I would really be saying that I value human life, and that I would do whatever I could to minimize the net loss of human life. After a good deal of soul-searching (and several unfortunate soilings) I have discovered that I value human life, I value private property, I value personal freedom (provided that freedom does not lead to anyone being gay), and so on. I can't say WHY I value those things -- most are just innate impulses I have -- but the point is I would rather live in a world where people did value such things, so I do what I can to encourage it. The WHY is secondary. I may as well ask myself why I like chocolate. I JUST DO, OK!?

In conclusion: you may eat bats if you wish.

Too late.

I don't know his killers, but if they show no remorse then they're probably sociopaths. And sociopaths are sociopaths, irrespective of their religious identity. The normal, healthy human being has empathy for other human beings. I'm prepared to accept that empathy can be encouraged by upbringing, but it's also an innate capacity in the vast majority of people. This shouldn't come as a surprise because it's an advantage to our species that we co-operate with each other, and don't kick each other to death outside our homes. When it does happen, you're going to hear about it, because it's a newsworthy event and will be reported in a News which you will no doubt observe.

Even if the religious tendency was inevitable, you could still argue whether or not it was a good thing. Obviously.

But the main point is that it's not inevitable in most people. With very few exceptions, people adopt the religion of those around them (their family, their madrasa, their badmington club), which makes it OBVIOUS that it's their environment that has led them to that particular belief system, rather than any hard-coded voices in their head. Just suppose the clamour they were subjected to everyday came from secularists, rather than from people exalting faith in The Local Religion as the highest virtue.

In my view, religion is a throwback to our infancy as a species; to a time before we all became McEnlightened and had to worship shoehorns. Science has been enormously successful at explaining phenomena that were previously attributed to God. A powerful example (not to mention Darwinism) is the germ theory of disease: before that, the causes of infection were frequently attributed to punishments from God. When people see science contradicting their religion, they might initially reject it as heretical, but eventually the truth becomes Obvious Beyond Thunderdome, so they either water down their religion, or throw it in the nearest spastics home. That is why atheism is the fastest growing 'religious identity' in America. USA! USA! USA!

Regarding your infidel point, what *do* you think about the afterlife of non-believers? Do you think they deserve eternal damnation?

Finally, the link between religion and morality is not weaker than *I* think. It's weaker than religious people think. I already think it's weak, and where it does influence morality it's usually in a poisonous way (making good people do bad things). It's the Religious who argue that Religion is the only basis for morality.

Is that what I said? No. I said the world would be better. The "religious tendency" is the tendency to hold beliefs based on insufficient evidence. That is what "faith" means. That this tendency is somehow A Good Idea, is beyond me. Not only is it A Bad Idea, it's a dangerous one, particularly when the faith is induced by the threat of Eternal Violence.

Consider your own position. Does religion make you a better person? I for one do not need divine inspiration to know that murder is naughty. Perhaps you do?

Because it's the sects that preach "Love thy infidel" that are the perversions. That's just not what the Bible says. Jesu doesn't love infidels. If he did, he wouldn't condemn them to eternity in Hell. Obviously.

http://tinyurl.com/2kertn

Yes, damn those sects. But as a gentleman, I would rather be done with the whole shebang. Many religions include some form of punishment for the infidel. Christianity (the religion that normals have) requires its followers to accept Jesu as their Saviour, else suffer an eternity of spanklings. Muslim is similarly punitive. Coincidence? Or is Punishment Of Infidels just a good survival mechanism for religion? It frightens people into blind faith. And violent sects are an inevitable corollary.

Would you rather live in a world without the Muslim religion?

Oh I get it. They want to kill me because I don't believe in their stupid, horrid religion, so to stop that *I* have to pay *them* money? Yeah that makes sense-- reward the insolent and punish the victims.

Here's a better idea: they all stop believing in -=MUSLIM=- of their own accord, apologize for all the trouble they've caused, and pay reparations until they've learnt their lesson. I guarantee they'll be better off in the long run.

dunce

Complimenting your own poemes is an extremely arrogant thing to do.

[X] Pointedly unanswered questions