Redlyn:


I didn't say all Christians i said most. And that is the case in my experience with Christians where they consider atheists to be on the devils side. If you don't think so good for you. So according to you before literature people were just immoral, killing each other, raping kids willy nilly and society approved of it I suppose. There are things that have not been condemned in the bible (slavery) but as a society we have unanimously turned against it as it causes harm to another. We use the same thought process to know killing for selfish reasons is bad. I don't need to read it on a list. There are things that have been condemned in the bible that majority (even you likely) ignore as they are not morally relevant (eating seafood, rounded haircuts, blended fabrics etc). So the bible is no the authority on morality like you think. Its OK, I don't expect a religious person to be able to digest this.

I have always wanted a christian to comment on that. Slavery is morally acceptable in the bible both old and new testament, but our moral codes as humans rejected it. In my point of veiw morality is doing what is u know is right without being told or threatened with hell fire before u do so

Abuamam:


Hmm. You might have some points (barring the profanity and bad language), , but you are not totally correct.
Animals do not actually have a similar moral code as you claim. And they certainly have no concept of 'fairness' or 'justice'. Primates are known to kill the young of their species. They attack, kill and steal from among themselves and from other groups; and as you say, they have no religion to teach them that. In actual fact, survival of the fittest promotes selfishness over the good of the species. No hungry animal would give its food to a hungrier animal... unless forced to. Each individual is after propagating his own genes. Even in animals with grouping tendencies, lions for example, the incoming male tends to kill all the cubs of his predecessor. So it is wrong to say that animals have a moral code. It is an instinct to survive, and there is nothing moral about it.

First of all, stop generalizing about animals. Some animals kill each other, some humans kill other humans. Baby killing happens fairly regularly among humans (which is not surprising given the fact that we are primates). In fact, we are not even the most peaceful among the great apes. That award goes to the Bonobos by a wide margin.

Secondly, you've shown a very poor understanding of how evolution via natural selection works. FYI, natural selection favours behaviors which enhance survival and reproductive success. If you live in a herd, being nice to your fellow members enhances your own survival which is why social animals evolve to behave altruistically towards each other. And altruistic behavior (kindness to others at personal cost) is extremely widespread in nature, going all the way down to bacteria sharing DNA with each other. That's because evolution favours cooperation over competition. And humans are no exception. We are guided by our instincts far more than we are willing to accept. And those instincts are where we get our morality from, not any stüpid religion.

Even among some backward tribes, stealing, killing, cannibalism and the like were highly valued codes of conduct, may still be. Our African ancestors were continually involved in inter village wars and plunder, and selling off their fellows as slaves.
As for fighting for religious reasons, most religionists believe that it is excused to prevent a greater harm to society. Even YOU would hold that the death penalty or killing in self defence is morally justified in some cases. The problem is in the difference in opinion between what is justifiable and what is not. Those who go to extremes tend to be very free with their justifications... including atheists like Stalin and Mao.
Religion has brought a lot of good, when combined with moderation and wisdom. It is the misapplication of religion that can bring harm to society.

Clearly you've swallowed the oyimbo's racist lies and propaganda about our forefathers. Did oyimbos not engage in inter-village wars, plunder and stealing? Have you read the old testament? Was it only black people involved in slavery? Doesn't the bible approve of it? Didn't the prophet Mohammed sell many of his poor victims into slavery (and share others among his men)? What makes one tribe backwards and the other civilized? And why is the oyimbo definition of civilization the only one you believe in?

And so what if Stalin and Mao were atheists? How does that mean all atheists tend to be free with their justifications for doing evil? So there aren't any atheists who aren't evil mass murderers? What about Hitler, who was catholic and received communion every Sunday even up to the late stages of the war? What about Christopher Columbus, Cortez, Joseph Kony, Idi Amin, Genghis Khan, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, George Bush, Mohammed Shekau? How do you know it was their atheism that made Stalin and Mao evil? What if it was their pot bellies, which is another feature they share? Or maybe it was the fact that they were both raised in deeply religious households or were both damaged early in life by their abusive fathers?

Clearly you have just been swallowing all the rubbish you've been told without thinking deeply first. That is a habit you need to break.