I never said atheists were "less moral." Again, you're lying. The fact is religion serves a purpose because it teaches moral values. It doesn't guarantee moral behavior, but it is there to inhibit human nature from taking over. Atheists might be equally or more moral than some theists, but it cannot be said this is due to atheism since atheism teaches nothing, let alone morality.
As has already been pointed out to you, you are playing a game of semantics. You have clearly stated that atheists lack a “requisite inhibitor.” You state right here in this post that this means “inhibit human nature from taking over”. Requisite means necessary. So if religion provides a necessary inhibitor to prevent “human nature from taking over”, the logical result is that atheists, who lack that requisite inhibitor, allow “human nature to take over”, which means they are less moral. This has already been pointed out to you by other posters, as well, not just me.
The point, according to you, isn’t that “atheism teaches nothing”. It is that there is no “requisite inhibitor” to stop “human nature from taking over”.
So, no, you haven’t used the exact words “atheists are less moral”, but your statements mean the same thing. If atheists are NOT ‘less moral’, than your entire argument is moot, because no “requisite inhibitor” is necessary.
That isn't bigotry either, it is a simple recognition of the facts. Keep in mind that I brought up the latter point in the context of atheistic attacks on religious dictators. Somehow it didn't count as bigotry when people like JAK said religion is inherently dangerous to society. Where were you then? Oh yea, on the sidelines with your pom poms. Where was your protest of bigotry then beastie?
Heh. Bigots always claim they’re just “recognizing facts”. That’s what makes them bigots, Kevin. They believe these are the facts.
Yes, you said that atheists dictators are more likely to engage in violence against their people because they lack the requisite inhibitor. Which is what I attributed to you, by the way. And yet, according to you, I’m “lying”.
The problem is that you apparently have not thought through the logical consequences of your statements. If atheists lack a “requisite (necessary) inhibitor (to keep human nature from taking over)” then they are less moral than theists. It amazes me that you still argue otherwise.
Please cite a post of mine wherein I “pommed pommed” Jak or any other poster who said that religion is inherently dangerous to society.
by the way, you are going to waste hours of your time looking, because I never did. I have always been “on the fence” regarding whether or not religion is dangerous or beneficial to society, and have stated as much when I am involved in such a discussion. But good luck looking, anyway.
You're intentionally twisting what has been said and it is pathetic. I specifically said I am speaking on my experiences in these forums, and have never made a "blanket statement" about all atheists. And who the hell could dispute this? Just look at the crowd I'm dealing with.
See above. You are not just talking about this forum when you discuss “requisite inhibitors” and “atheist dictators”.
Kevin, it is laughable that you consider yourself more philosophically inclined than Gad and EA. Either one could best you blindfolded in a philosophical discussion – because, unlike you, they actually know what they’re talking about. I rarely try to enter those discussions because I recognize I don’t know what I’m talking about, in terms of philosophy, at least. It isn’t an area I’ve seriously studied or been trained in. You were around on ZLMB. Were you participating on the numerous philosophical discussions there? If you were, you should know better.