NationStates Jolt Archive

So.. after reading many arguments from Atheists on the issue of gay marriage it seems many just simply belive government has no right to dictate such social policy.. everyone should simply be equal

IF the government can't regulate marriage.. has no right in my bed room.. why does it have a right in the class room.. or my wallet ?

Does the government ever have an obligation to represent the viewpoint of the majority.. if its a super majority ? or just what is "right" for the country?

If the government shouldn't be bothered with the interest of the many, why then does it have the right to unporptionally tax the rich .. IF the government should be promoting equality under the law, why isn't proportional tax percentages fair enough ?

Also why should minority groups be given excess rights .. why does the government have the right to propgate affermative action ? the same argument.. if people are suppose to be equal under the law.. then they should be.. a black kid of lesser intelegence shouldn't be given priority over a white kid with greater intelegence..

When is it right for government to begin domestic/social policy, and when should it end ? religion ? race ? wealth ?

life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness right ? no education, no religion, no wealth.. though each of these things are intertwined.. so pick a side.. either equality under the law.. or what is right for the majority ?

Im not saying I agree with all these extremes but atleast tell me where the line is drawn in social policy ? CLearly there are many instances where people who demand equality in some domestic issues, push inequality in others (under the law)

Maybe you should go find some "Athesist" first....

So.. after reading many arguments from Atheists on the issue of gay marriage it seems many just simply belive government has no right to dictate such social policy.. everyone should simply be equal

IF the government can't regulate marriage.. has no right in my bed room.. why does it have a right in the class room.. or my wallet ?

Does the government ever have an obligation to represent the viewpoint of the majority.. if its a super majority ? or just what is "right" for the country?

If the government shouldn't be bothered with the interest of the many, why then does it have the right to unporptionally tax the rich .. IF the government should be promoting equality under the law, why isn't proportional tax percentages fair enough ?

Also why should minority groups be given excess rights .. why does the government have the right to propgate affermative action ? the same argument.. if people are suppose to be equal under the law.. then they should be.. a black kid of lesser intelegence shouldn't be given priority over a white kid with greater intelegence..

When is it right for government to begin domestic/social policy, and when should it end ? religion ? race ? wealth ?

life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness right ? no education, no religion, no wealth.. though each of these things are intertwined.. so pick a side.. either equality under the law.. or what is right for the majority ?

Im not saying I agree with all these extremes but atleast tell me where the line is drawn in social policy ? CLearly there are many instances where people who demand equality in some domestic issues, push inequality in others (under the law)

The Government's job is to PROTECT THE PEOPLE, not to push their values onto it.

Education and money directly affect EVERYONE. Sex does not. Sex is a human instinct, like eating or drinking or taking a dump.

The Government is supposed to think rationally, not religiously. Just because one group of religious fanatics think that it's wrong for a guy to stick his dick in another guy's ass, doesn't mean the government has to appease them. The government is supposed to represent all people, not just the religious right. And sometimes, the religious right needs to be completely ignored, such in the case of slavery and those who felt that God made the white man superior. Or with women and them getting their vote. The religious right tried to keep women from voting because of Eve from the Bible. Theocracies DON'T work. They NEVER have.

Besides that, it was George Orwell I believe that said that denying people sex is just another way to manipulate them. That politics and brainwashing is sometimes just sex taken out in a different way.

If two people love eachother, they should be able to be together.

The government isn't good for anything. It's a murder machine.

I think a good argument could be made that affermative action is hardly protecting everyone .. infact its more detremental then beneficial

and coudln't one argue that libertarian welfare states are pushing "their" values on us ?

and coudln't we say propagating morals in society can be a way of protecting society ?

Part of the government's job is to 'dictate policy' in all sorts of areas, including the social. Since you mention it, the argument from many atheists (probably not all of them) regarding government and gay marriage is that the government should be basing its policy upon facts and logic, rather than the arbitrary rules of a particular religion.

Example 1: incestuous relationships are known to have significant chance of resulting in severely handicapped children. Furthermore, they damage the gene pool even beyond the initial coupling. Thus incestuous relationships are prohibited by law.

Example 2: gay marriages are prohibited by Christian doctrine. Thus they are prohibited by law.

In the first example the law is based upon medical evidence. You could certainly choose to argue that the damage done by incestuous relationships is insufficient to warrant the removal of people's rights, but the point remains that any debate is based upon demonstrable fact.

In the second example the law is based upon...what? A rule supposedly passed down, without reasoned justification, by a deity in whom a sizeable chunk of the population does not believe.

So if you could demonstrate by reasoned argument (as suggested in a previous thread of yours) that gay marriage would seriously damage the nation, you would have some firm ground on which to raise a debate. And we could then discuss whether or not that damage is sufficiently high to warrant the removal of rights from part of the population.

It's late, I'm tired and the above could certainly have been expressed better, but does that help clarify things?

Read the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html). THAT's a government's role.

funny though.. people in the past never like to write their foundational documents in clearly disernable ways.. they always leave massive ambigiouity for the future to sort out.. especially in the bill of rights

I don't understand what education and tax policies have to do with atheism. Not all atheists are leftists, and vice versa.

Atheism isn't a political belief.

I think you're thinking of Libertarianism.

funny though.. people in the past never like to write their foundational documents in clearly disernable ways.. they always leave massive ambigiouity for the future to sort out.. especially in the bill of rights

Yes, because they-unlike multiple religions one might mention-realize that "the future...might-JUST might, now, trying not to sound TOO crazy-be different."

Atheism isn't a political belief.

I think you're thinking of Libertarianism.
That would make more sense

What has this thread got to do with being atheist? Atheists are found in all parts of the political spectrum.

So.. after reading many arguments from Atheists on the issue of gay marriage it seems many just simply belive government has no right to dictate such social policy.. everyone should simply be equal

IF the government can't regulate marriage.. has no right in my bed room.. why does it have a right in the class room.. or my wallet ?

Does the government ever have an obligation to represent the viewpoint of the majority.. if its a super majority ? or just what is "right" for the country?

If the government shouldn't be bothered with the interest of the many, why then does it have the right to unporptionally tax the rich .. IF the government should be promoting equality under the law, why isn't proportional tax percentages fair enough ?

Also why should minority groups be given excess rights .. why does the government have the right to propgate affermative action ? the same argument.. if people are suppose to be equal under the law.. then they should be.. a black kid of lesser intelegence shouldn't be given priority over a white kid with greater intelegence..

When is it right for government to begin domestic/social policy, and when should it end ? religion ? race ? wealth ?

life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness right ? no education, no religion, no wealth.. though each of these things are intertwined.. so pick a side.. either equality under the law.. or what is right for the majority ?

Im not saying I agree with all these extremes but atleast tell me where the line is drawn in social policy ? CLearly there are many instances where people who demand equality in some domestic issues, push inequality in others (under the law)

You, my dear, have just made the argument for Libertarianism probably without even knowing it. The only real problem with Libertarianism is that in it's practical application, it is juvenile and self serving at best.

No, the govenment has no right to dictate what you do in your bedroom, with your body, or your class room, but unfortunately, your wallet is another story....who do you think builds the schools, or the roads, or the sewage systems, or any number of the basic conveniences we all take for granted each day? Yup, it's the big bad government.

Sure, I dream of a land with no government, but that dream never includes me disposing of raw sewage or building my own road......so how do we reconcile the two ideals in a way where people can retain their basic rights and privacy while still enjoying first world amenities? Therein lies the challenge....

So what if we reduce this all to the basics.. Government has no say or may not infringe on rights without due process.. what happens when due process occurs (state constitutional bans on gay marraige now) Is it THEN the governments duty to enter the debate or respect the "law"?

We can argue weather gay marriage is right or wrong till we are blue in the face.. but the government has become involved now through the voice of the people.. perhaps not even on its own will.

I guess the simple belif is.. is democracy... majority rule ? or protectionism for minoritiy rights ?

I think much good has come from protectionism of minority rights, but is that democracy ?

And so many people argue secular government is the right answer for our democracy.. but France is such a secular government as you will ever find, and suffers far greater levels of intolerance then the United States (transending religion, race, wealth)

Is there a way to teach "morals" what is right and wrong to people and leave out religion without reducing the idea of morals to simple cost benifit analysis ?
Because when you can reduce it to this simple factor... there may come a time when immoral acts become more beneifical then the moral ones...

I know im all over the place.. but i tend to over anylize things.. and i think this is a really complicated issue. I have all these ideas swirling in my head while thinking of issues like gay marriage.

And if your only basis for logic and fact is science.. there is a flaw there as well.. because the facts of science today may well be the falsehoods of tomorrow. Such is the nature of science, to always question validity. This may or may not have much bearing on the issue of gay marriage in society.. but i think to simply look at logic and facts, and ignore what we may belive is moral perhaps is not the right choice either.. there has to be middle ground

oh im sorry.. I make the assumption most atheists on this forum are libertarian, or demoractic at worst. As such they have corrolating ideas on gay marriage and the other issues I mentioned. I generalized for simplicities sake, sorry to those athesits who are also concervative ^.^

I think that anarchists might be the word we're looking for?

And so many people argue secular government is the right answer for our democracy.. but France is such a secular government as you will ever find, and suffers far greater levels of intolerance then the United States (transending religion, race, wealth)
France has problems with intolerance, just like any other country - you can easily be intolerant without having to bring religion into it. What makes you say that France is far more intolerant than the US?

Is there a way to teach "morals" what is right and wrong to people and leave out religion without reducing the idea of morals to simple cost benifit analysis ?
Because when you can reduce it to this simple factor... there may come a time when immoral acts become more beneifical then the moral ones...

This suggests that religion has a monopoly on morality, which hardly seems reasonable. You'd be hard-pressed to find many atheists who disagree that murder is morally wrong. So why need we invoke a God when determining a common system of ethics?

And if your only basis for logic and fact is science.. there is a flaw there as well.. because the facts of science today may well be the falsehoods of tomorrow. Such is the nature of science, to always question validity.
Absolutely. If we base a law on a scientific 'fact' which is subsequently proven to be false, that law needs to be re-examined. This will always be the case, and rightly so. What alternative is there?

Also, we don't need to invoke hard science in every aspect of our legal structure. For example, we all presumably agree that "Unrestrained murder is clearly detrimental to society - we don't want people to be allowed to murder us - so murder should be illegal". Reason must be present, but science doesn't have to be (depending on your definition of 'science').

This may or may not have much bearing on the issue of gay marriage in society.. but i think to simply look at logic and facts, and ignore what we may belive is moral perhaps is not the right choice either.. there has to be middle ground
What else is your morality based upon, if not logic and facts? If your answer is 'religion', well, I gave you my thoughts on that earlier.

Part of the government's job is to 'dictate policy' in all sorts of areas, including the social. Since you mention it, the argument from many atheists (probably not all of them) regarding government and gay marriage is that the government should be basing its policy upon facts and logic, rather than the arbitrary rules of a particular religion.

This "policy" you speak of needs to protect everyone. Banning gay marriage would only protect the homophobics and the brainwashed religious right of this country.

Example 1: incestuous relationships are known to have significant chance of resulting in severely handicapped children. Furthermore, they damage the gene pool even beyond the initial coupling. Thus incestuous relationships are prohibited by law.
Yes. But Gay marriage does not result in severely handicapped children. In fact, it results in a lot of adoptions. And the gay parents I've met are a whole lot better than the straight ones I've met.

Example 2: gay marriages are prohibited by Christian doctrine. Thus they are prohibited by law.

Christianity is dying. Your God hasn't shown up in 2000 years. The Government is not supposed to be religious.

[/QUOTE]

ACtually that is a good question i dont understand... why is murder morally wrong to an atheist ? just basic cost benifit anaylsis .. or something more ? how do you build morals without a common foundation.. or is it simply arbitrary selection of certain issues ?

ACtually that is a good question i dont understand... why is murder morally wrong to an atheist ? just basic cost benifit anaylsis .. or something more ? how do you build morals without a common foundation.. or is it simply arbitrary selection of certain issues ?
Good question … most are based on a “no harm to others” rule basically …. Murder, rape, theft … so on so forth


but that brings up a relitivistic morals arguement

I think you misunderstood my intentions, Jenn - I'm an atheist, and I support gay marriage. My examples were intended to illustrate the weakness in basing legislation upon religion rather than observable phenomena and/or common axioms.

Then again, being taken for a member of the religious right certainly makes these conversations more interesting ;>

So what if we reduce this all to the basics.. Government has no say or may not infringe on rights without due process.. what happens when due process occurs (state constitutional bans on gay marraige now) Is it THEN the governments duty to enter the debate or respect the "law"?
It its then the governments job to prevent a tyranny from the majority

We can argue weather gay marriage is right or wrong till we are blue in the face.. but the government has become involved now through the voice of the people.. perhaps not even on its own will.
Once again, a tyranny of the majority must be prevented in the cases of the minority's rights.

I guess the simple belif is.. is democracy... majority rule ? or protectionism for minoritiy rights ?
Democracy? I don't know of any democracies, though I could easily be wrong. I know a few republics, though.

I think much good has come from protectionism of minority rights, but is that democracy ?
What country are you even talking about?

And so many people argue secular government is the right answer for our democracy.. but France is such a secular government as you will ever find, and suffers far greater levels of intolerance then the United States (transending religion, race, wealth)
No, France treads the line between secular and anti-religious, that's it's problem.

Is there a way to teach "morals" what is right and wrong to people and leave out religion without reducing the idea of morals to simple cost benifit analysis ?
It's called "philosophy"

Because when you can reduce it to this simple factor... there may come a time when immoral acts become more beneifical then the moral ones...
Not with the gift of philosophy

I know im all over the place.. but i tend to over anylize things.. and i think this is a really complicated issue. I have all these ideas swirling in my head while thinking of issues like gay marriage.
What's so hard to understand about gay marrige?

And if your only basis for logic and fact is science.. there is a flaw there as well.. because the facts of science today may well be the falsehoods of tomorrow. Such is the nature of science, to always question validity. This may or may not have much bearing on the issue of gay marriage in society.. but i think to simply look at logic and facts, and ignore what we may belive is moral perhaps is not the right choice either.. there has to be middle ground
I'm thinking of a rather long word that starts with a "p" and ends with a "hilosophy" ;)

ACtually that is a good question i dont understand... why is murder morally wrong to an atheist ? just basic cost benifit anaylsis .. or something more ? how do you build morals without a common foundation.. or is it simply arbitrary selection of certain issues ?
That's an enormous topic in itself - doing a search on 'ethics' will give you enough material to keep you busy for years. You can basically start at "Don't hurt anyone else, and try to help others when you can" and work your way up from there.

Edit: Also, you should ask yourself this: why is murder morally wrong to you? Is it only because the Bible says so, or would you find it wrong regardless?

So.. after reading many arguments from Atheists on the issue of gay marriage it seems many just simply belive government has no right to dictate such social policy.. everyone should simply be equal

IF the government can't regulate marriage.. has no right in my bed room.. why does it have a right in the class room.. or my wallet ?

Does the government ever have an obligation to represent the viewpoint of the majority.. if its a super majority ? or just what is "right" for the country?

If the government shouldn't be bothered with the interest of the many, why then does it have the right to unporptionally tax the rich .. IF the government should be promoting equality under the law, why isn't proportional tax percentages fair enough ?

Also why should minority groups be given excess rights .. why does the government have the right to propgate affermative action ? the same argument.. if people are suppose to be equal under the law.. then they should be.. a black kid of lesser intelegence shouldn't be given priority over a white kid with greater intelegence..

When is it right for government to begin domestic/social policy, and when should it end ? religion ? race ? wealth ?

life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness right ? no education, no religion, no wealth.. though each of these things are intertwined.. so pick a side.. either equality under the law.. or what is right for the majority ?

Im not saying I agree with all these extremes but atleast tell me where the line is drawn in social policy ? CLearly there are many instances where people who demand equality in some domestic issues, push inequality in others (under the law)

I must be missing what this has to do with Atheists..... :confused:

Atheists - What is government good for?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So.. after reading many arguments from Atheists on the issue of gay marriage it seems many just simply belive government has no right to dictate such social policy.. everyone should simply be equal

IF the government can't regulate marriage.. has no right in my bed room.. why does it have a right in the class room.. or my wallet ?

Does the government ever have an obligation to represent the viewpoint of the majority.. if its a super majority ? or just what is "right" for the country?

If the government shouldn't be bothered with the interest of the many, why then does it have the right to unporptionally tax the rich .. IF the government should be promoting equality under the law, why isn't proportional tax percentages fair enough ?

Also why should minority groups be given excess rights .. why does the government have the right to propgate affermative action ? the same argument.. if people are suppose to be equal under the law.. then they should be.. a black kid of lesser intelegence shouldn't be given priority over a white kid with greater intelegence..

When is it right for government to begin domestic/social policy, and when should it end ? religion ? race ? wealth ?

life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness right ? no education, no religion, no wealth.. though each of these things are intertwined.. so pick a side.. either equality under the law.. or what is right for the majority ?

Im not saying I agree with all these extremes but atleast tell me where the line is drawn in social policy ? CLearly there are many instances where people who demand equality in some domestic issues, push inequality in others (under the law)

It's called Libertariansim... you wouldn't understand unless you are one. (like me)

I must be missing what this has to do with Atheists..... :confused:
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

The only point of government is to protect the people. This extends most obviously into military and policing purposes, although it can extend into other areas if it is necessarry to help people. The only reason why democracy is a good form of government is because it is the form of government most capable, consistently, of protecting the people rather than oppressing them, of remaining comparatively isolationist and unwilling to sacrifice lives for intangible or horrible purposes - that is, it is the form of government most willing to protect the people. If a single person can be conclusively proved to always act in such a way as to protect the people of a nation, that person should unquestioningly be placed in a position of power until such time as that can no longer be conclusively proved, and then democracy should be returned to.
As to your comment on atheists... I miss the relevance.

ACtually that is a good question i dont understand... why is murder morally wrong to an atheist ? just basic cost benifit anaylsis .. or something more ? how do you build morals without a common foundation.. or is it simply arbitrary selection of certain issues ?
There is no common atheist morality code, but I consider murder to be wrong because it infringes on another person's right to life.

I must be missing what this has to do with Atheists..... :confused:
He thinks that all atheists are Democrats.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:


hey there scrappy ;) :fluffle:

ACtually that is a good question i dont understand... why is murder morally wrong to an atheist ? just basic cost benifit anaylsis .. or something more ? how do you build morals without a common foundation.. or is it simply arbitrary selection of certain issues ?

Okay. Let me step into this, and I doubt I've posted more than once here before.

I'm an atheist. Murder is not morally wrong to me. I have no problem with the concept of murder. I can step far removed from the subject and look from an objective standpoint.

Q: What is murder?
A: Murder has been defined as the taking of life *forcefully or not (i.e. involuntary manslaughter)* by one party towards another party. Hence, Kevorkian is a 'murderer' because he took someone's life. Not sure how, but he apparently did.
Q: What penalties are involved?
A: Death, life imprisonment, varies.
Q: Does it bother you that people kill people?
A: No. Not at all. It's a natural thing, violence. All it is is the expression of emotion.


In fact, I'd say I have less moral issues with murder than my religious friends. Am I endorsing murder? No. Is it morally wrong? No.

I should re-iterate: Your questions are flawed. As an moderate atheist, my view on government is different from that of a liberal or conservative atheist. Perhaps you should get the ideological and political spectrums straight before you ask questions?

That's an enormous topic in itself - doing a search on 'ethics' will give you enough material to keep you busy for years. You can basically start at "Don't hurt anyone else, and try to help others when you can" and work your way up from there.

Edit: Also, you should ask yourself this: why is murder morally wrong to you? Is it only because the Bible says so, or would you find it wrong regardless?

For people of religion its easy.. because we are given a vision of perfection "god/jesus" told we are his creations we must strive to be like this perfection. And in trying to be this way we acheive eternal salvation.. heaven. And we are given laws from god from which to follow.. so basically because the bible says so.

But without this.. in the absense of the thought of perfection and afterlife.. why think "dont hurt anyone else" ? if this life is all we have.. there are plenty of instances hurting someone.. or disreguarding other people could be extremely benifical.. its a concept i can't grasp.. ive studied philosphy .. but even within philosphy there are many roads which lead away from the bounds of science reality and nature... beyond the belife that we are nothing more then biochemical and electrical impulses..

hey there scrappy ;) :fluffle:
only scrappy if someone tryes to hurt ya ;)

Serpskastan ...So then you make my point.. atheists really dont have morals.. because the only morals/ethics they can claim to have are based on laws.. and laws require legitmacy which is almost always given by Religious people because they have a reasoned foundation of morality which outline what is moral.. and so they push to have their morals relfected in government.. in the end it seems atheists succum to the morals of religious belifs anyway.. weather they like to admit it or not.. this is the only logical path i can see.. if im wrong please correct me

Doesn't Religion have a monopoly on morality ?

So.. after reading many arguments from Atheists on the issue of gay marriage it seems many just simply belive government has no right to dictate such social policy.. everyone should simply be equal

IF the government can't regulate marriage.. has no right in my bed room.. why does it have a right in the class room.. or my wallet ?

Does the government ever have an obligation to represent the viewpoint of the majority.. if its a super majority ? or just what is "right" for the country?

If the government shouldn't be bothered with the interest of the many, why then does it have the right to unporptionally tax the rich .. IF the government should be promoting equality under the law, why isn't proportional tax percentages fair enough ?

Also why should minority groups be given excess rights .. why does the government have the right to propgate affermative action ? the same argument.. if people are suppose to be equal under the law.. then they should be.. a black kid of lesser intelegence shouldn't be given priority over a white kid with greater intelegence..

When is it right for government to begin domestic/social policy, and when should it end ? religion ? race ? wealth ?

life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness right ? no education, no religion, no wealth.. though each of these things are intertwined.. so pick a side.. either equality under the law.. or what is right for the majority ?

Im not saying I agree with all these extremes but atleast tell me where the line is drawn in social policy ? CLearly there are many instances where people who demand equality in some domestic issues, push inequality in others (under the law)

Before I respond I am going to make one point perfectly clear: I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic.

So, the government can enforce equality, why should it be allowed in the classroom, your wallet? Well, I suppose education is a bad thing. After all, it only prevents societal collapse. Then again, without education we can all become hunter/gatherers and live in caves! Sounds like fun! Or perhaps we can all become homeschooled religious fundamentalists! "What is a boson? Who cares! Let's talk about how cavemen never existed!" As far as your wallet is concerned, I'm not in favor of currency, I feel it is bad for society.

Next, the government usually represents the viewpoint of the majority through a little thing called ELECTIONS. Then again, our elected officials are always inexplicably stupid.

Moving on, the government "unproportionately taxes the rich" because we have a "graduated taxation system." This means everyone is taxed (for example) 33%. Regardless of whether you make $20,000 a year or $15,000,000 a year, the government takes 33%. This seems a lot worse for the lower classes than the upper classes.

Personally, I don't agree with affirmative action. I feel that unfair treatment (pro-con) of any social body is unfair. No argument from me here.

Concerning your social/domestic policy statement. It is my solemn belief that the freedom of expression/speech/religion should be entirely uninhibited. When we grant freedoms, we open up positive realms of possibility for society. I don't believe in capitalism, but that is another issue entirely.


You begin to rant, I'll address this as well as I can. Religion and public education should not be intertwined. Another 18th century political maxim you should be familiar with is "separation of church and state."

I am an egalitarianist by nature. I can't tell you where the line is or isn't as far as equality is concerned. I can tell you that we haven't come close to reaching it.

Serpskastan ...So then you make my point.. atheists really dont have morals.. because the only morals/ethics they can claim to have are based on laws.. and laws require legitmacy which is almost always given by Religious people because they have a reasoned foundation of morality which outline what is moral.. and so they push to have their morals relfected in government.. in the end it seems atheists succum to the morals of religious belifs anyway.. weather they like to admit it or not.. this is the only logical path i can see.. if im wrong please correct me

Doesn't Religion have a monopoly on morality ?

No, it doesn't. Philosophy does. ;)

I'm an atheist, and I consider murder to be morally wrong, for depriving people of rights is morally wrong and people have a right to life.

I know plenty of atheists that think similarly.

Do not judge all atheists by the thoughts of one atheist. Especially since I'd guess he'll change his mind eventually, lack of morality is illogical.

No, it doesn't. Philosophy does. ;)

I'm an atheist, and I consider murder to be morally wrong, for depriving people of rights is morally wrong and people have a right to life.

I know plenty of atheists that think similarly.

Do not judge all atheists by the thoughts of one atheist. Especially since I'd guess he'll change his mind eventually, lack of morality is illogical.

Religion is only more a harnessed version of philopshy.. clear defined.. organized. Philosophy is only a borad term.. encompasing all thoughts of life and existance. including science and religion.

I would say as soon as you delve into the realm by which life, and existance is limited to only biochemical response and electron pusles.. you lose sight of morality.. because there is no basis for it.

You say people have a right to life ? why ? IF there is no god, no devine law, then there is only what we make of this world.. and what we have in the present. what gives you a right to life, any more then the moth you swat, or the mosquito you squash. Your mental capacity is just a product of nature and nothing more.. why does a human then have more right to life then any other animal we might send to the slaughter. If there is no soul, there is nothing distinguishing you or any other person.

So i ask again..what is the basis for an athesits morals ?

Religion is only more a harnessed version of philopshy.. clear defined.. organized. Philosophy is only a borad term.. encompasing all thoughts of life and existance. including science and religion.



I would say as soon as you delve into the realm by which life, and existance is limited to only biochemical response and electron pusles.. you lose sight of morality.. because there is no basis for it.


"limited" to only biochemical response and electron pulses? You say that as if it's a bad thing! I can't envision anything more spectacular and awe-inspiring than the chain of complexity, from subatomic particles up to us as "concious" beings...

Anyhow.

I haven't lost sight of morality, and I'm an atheist. Or, rather, I've regained sight of it; I used to believe as [whoever that was that didn't see anything amoral about murder] and "grew up" and out of that.


You say people have a right to life ? why ?

Because that philosophy increases the happiness of the greatest number of people.


IF there is no god, no devine law, then there is only what we make of this world.. and what we have in the present. what gives you a right to life, any more then the moth you swat, or the mosquito you squash.

Because we're human and they're not.


Your mental capacity is just a product of nature and nothing more..

And? Again, you seem to use that as a demeaning phrase. "just a product of nature." I don't find it that way at all.


why does a human then have more right to life then any other animal we might send to the slaughter. If there is no soul, there is nothing distinguishing you or any other person.

Sure there is. Intelligence, being human, and so on. We quite arbitrarily pick those to be our guidelines, because that's who we are.


So i ask again..what is the basis for an athesits morals ?

The basis for my morals, at least, is "act towards others how you would want others to act towards you." I find that to be a good guideline - quite unrelated to whether God, Satan, or An Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.

The more people follow this, the better a place the world is - total happiness/contentment/quality of life/etc increases. So I try to be as good a person as I can, because, well, it's the right thing to do. Do I succeed? Probably not. But I try.

I can't speak for other atheists - it's not an organized religion, we don't standardize our morals.

You say people have a right to life ? why ? IF there is no god, no devine law, then there is only what we make of this world.. and what we have in the present. what gives you a right to life, any more then the moth you swat, or the mosquito you squash. Your mental capacity is just a product of nature and nothing more.. why does a human then have more right to life then any other animal we might send to the slaughter. If there is no soul, there is nothing distinguishing you or any other person.

this is the arguement of hitler your useing.please remember this.

but anyways,common sense.i dont want to be hurt,you dont either.lets all agree NOT to hurt eachother and all our lives are better.

Atheist morals?

Any real moral can be boiled down to the Golden Rule... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...

Don't want to be killed? Don't kill others... Don't want your stuff stolen? Don't steal from others... Etc, etc...

These things are natural impulses, and do not need to be handed to us from On High... They preserve our own well-being (one of the main goals of life itself, because without it, life would be extinguished), and the well-being of the species as a whole... It doesn't require a voice from above to give us these rules, they are simple common sense...

I don't need a soul, or the goal of reaching Heaven to value my life... I enjoy living, and don't wish for it to end in the near future... Therefore, in order to receive the "favor" of not being killed by anyone else, I agree to not kill anyone else...

Yes, I'm an atheist... But, I'm probably more "moral" than many of those who claim to be religious... Why? Simply because all true morals fall into place when you simply follow the Golden Rule... And you can just as easily take it for truth without having to believe that it came from God...

Homosexuality is not a question of morality... It is not harming anyone for someone to be homosexual... And in fact, opposing homosexuality is immoral by the above standard...

I do not want someone dictating who I can love or have sexual contact with, therefore, I won't dictate the same to others...

Of course, as has been mentioned, there are some areas in which this is a necessary thing to do... Incest, for example, causes observable harm to those involved and the species as a whole... Therefore, it must be prohibited...

But homosexual relations between two consenting adults causes no harm to anyone (outside of the weak-minded who think it is "icky" or "wrong")

I just don't understand why you (and many others) think that morals have to have some higher power behind them... Is something only right because an authority figure said so?

"Do on to others as others do on to you."

That idea comes right out the bible. In fact most of what we believe to be true and moralistic has come from factors coming from the founding fathers who built our nation. Look at the money, the religious sayings we see everyday is on our currency.

I do believe we are just neural electrical processes created by bio-chemical reations. But we do have the ability which seperates us from all other animals, the ability to communicate our thoughts in an understandable manner. Thats what separates us from animals.

Oh I dont believe that the "Do on to others as others do on to you" is an inborn reasoning for self preservation. We were born to be needy and act on our needs, look at what a baby is.

Why dont we continue to act on our needs? I believe that society changes us to who we become, be it from family, friends, or other outside influences. That is what you're missing from your statement.

At least reason a little before posting a comment, dont just say "cause we are human." WTF kind of answer is that?

so now the argument is a line straight out of the bible ? do unto others as you would ahve done onto you... in this case.. if someone does steal from you.. why not steal from them ? or do you become the "suckers" of society.. allowing yourself to be taken advantage of. Your argument of treat others the way you want to be treated is simply boiled down to a cost benefit analysis.. if use this line of thinking.. and given the reality that in society even without religion there are those who will take advantage of the system, there will most likely come a time in which it is more beneifical for you to betray that system to better yourself. Cost benefit anaylisis is simply weighing the benefits to the costs.. so in a perfectly neutral state.. yes.. making this deal is ideal..then u wont kill me i wont kill u.. after this deal is made however i now have an advantage.. i can kill you without risk of u trying to kill me because of this deal.. hence the benfit side becomes tilted.. without religion behind this idea of atempting to acheive perfection in the eyes of god.. or following gods path.. you cannot rationalize the idea that if wrong is done onto you.. you should turn the other cheek.


"Because that philosophy increases the happiness of the greatest number of people. "

Id ont understand this at all.. you as an individual who has no hope of an after life.. why should you care about the happiness of the greatest number of people ? why not your own happyness.. should you sacrifice your happyness so others can be happy ? this seemingly is not the nature of humans. Seporated from god that is...

Because we're human and they're not.

how is this an argument propgating the superiority of humans ? its like saying because thats the way things are... baseless.. if its intelegence why aren't we killling the vegitables sucking op our health care system, or the disabled unable to contribute to society.. why do we keep the elderly alive .. ? WHy would someone who is not compelled to a higher authority go along with such ideologies.. it dosn't make sense..

It is blatently clear that people base their morals on the laws... and if you trace those laws back.. you will find religious basis. It all come back to religion .. because religion has a firm basis for which morality to florish

oh there are many rules, such as "do unto others and you would like for them to do unto you", "do unto others as they have done unto you"(so if they fuck you over, you fuck them over, and if they are nice again, you are nice again to them as well), "do nice things for others until they screw you over, then you screw them over in return forever and ever", and "fuck them over before they can fuck you over"

So.. after reading many arguments from Atheists on the issue of gay marriage it seems many just simply belive government has no right to dictate such social policy.. everyone should simply be equal

IF the government can't regulate marriage.. has no right in my bed room.. why does it have a right in the class room.. or my wallet ?

Does the government ever have an obligation to represent the viewpoint of the majority.. if its a super majority ? or just what is "right" for the country?

If the government shouldn't be bothered with the interest of the many, why then does it have the right to unporptionally tax the rich .. IF the government should be promoting equality under the law, why isn't proportional tax percentages fair enough ?

Also why should minority groups be given excess rights .. why does the government have the right to propgate affermative action ? the same argument.. if people are suppose to be equal under the law.. then they should be.. a black kid of lesser intelegence shouldn't be given priority over a white kid with greater intelegence..

When is it right for government to begin domestic/social policy, and when should it end ? religion ? race ? wealth ?

life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness right ? no education, no religion, no wealth.. though each of these things are intertwined.. so pick a side.. either equality under the law.. or what is right for the majority ?

Im not saying I agree with all these extremes but atleast tell me where the line is drawn in social policy ? CLearly there are many instances where people who demand equality in some domestic issues, push inequality in others (under the law)

I'll read the rest of this thread tomorrow, as I'm too tired at the moment, but I do have a few things to say. (And I am an Athiest.)

A government, more or less, can do whatever it want. Morals are subjective. If it goes too far on an issue people are sensitive about, then the people riot, protest, and in extreme cases rebel. Even though loyalty from a state's citizens is vastly important, it's pretty much the people with the majority of the power who have the control. If a revolt occurs, the military puts it down. If the revolting populace outnumbers the military by enough to overpower the military, they can successfully overthrow the government and establish a new one.
So in other words, if a government isn't doing it's job then the very people who put it into power in the first place take it's power away.
This also leads to my belief that Democracy is inefficient, but I won't get into that now.


Currently, I'm not giving the US government the right to tell me not to drink, or to give unfair advantages to minorities, the government is taking it by force.

If you can't give an argument which shows the basis for atheists morality, then im left to belive your morality is derived from what you've learned in society thus far based on the laws we have.. If you track history our laws are derived from those very same religoius institutions you condem . How then can an atheist legitmatly attack the belifs of a religious person.. when their own set of belifs and morals are based on those same religous belifs.

You convientely allow yourselves to be endulged by theories with no clear answers and endless hypothesis and test and attack religion for its unscientific nature, all the while basing your everday belifs on essentially religious morals.

So the argment now comes to the question.. does atheist have religious morals.. ? or no morals ?

Back to the gay marriages going against the survival of the fittest, it does work. Survival of nature is a concept which is applied to the passing on genes. By showing examples of homosexual behavior in animals you are merely showing that deviant activity happens in nature, just like it happens in society. You are completely ignoring the fact that the homosexual animals do not pass on genes but only die without an offspring.

Sure the bird which was raised from a homsexual pair is stronger because it had two males, but the bird raised was from another parentage. There is no benefits to parenting a child not from your own womb. This is on the level of nature.

However I'd like to add that because we are humans with emotions and the ability to communicate, we dont quite apply to the survival of the fittest. Look at the underprivileged families whom we support with welfare. That goes against nature (only under democratic rule).

Its ironic that republicans, the placeholders of religious beliefs tend to move towards the concept of survival of the fittest.

You see, the mistake you're making is that you're assuming that these rules originate with religion...

From our point of view, these rules exist outside of religion, and they've only been used by religion... Or rather, that religion has been used to enforce them...

So yes, you can say that our morals are religious morals... But only because we've taken them from the same source... Religion simply puts a different name and face on that source, because it was felt that the people needed that before they'd listen...

Oh BLOODY fucking hell. Here we go again.

so now the argument is a line straight out of the bible?
The bible isn't the only thing to quote it. You don't have a monopoly on "morals."
do unto others as you would ahve done onto you... in this case.. if someone does steal from you.. why not steal from them?
Actually, it would be more correct to translate this "golden rule" into eye for an eye, a sort of new version of Hammurabi's Code.

or do you become the "suckers" of society.. allowing yourself to be taken advantage of.
Depends on their philosophy

Your argument of treat others the way you want to be treated is simply boiled down to a cost benefit analysis.
Religion does the same, it only adds the "afterlife" card into the deck like that slick guy from Mavrick.

if use this line of thinking.. and given the reality that in society even without religion there are those who will take advantage of the system, there will most likely come a time in which it is more beneifical for you to betray that system to better yourself.
This is under the assumption that everyone is purely egotistical.

Cost benefit anaylisis is simply weighing the benefits to the costs.. so in a perfectly neutral state.. yes.. making this deal is ideal..then u wont kill me i wont kill u.. after this deal is made however i now have an advantage.. i can kill you without risk of u trying to kill me because of this deal.. hence the benfit side becomes tilted..
And thus society exists to protect these rights. ZING!

without religion behind this idea of atempting to acheive perfection in the eyes of god.. or following gods path.. you cannot rationalize the idea that if wrong is done onto you.. you should turn the other cheek.
If you need an invisible man to make sure you're a good preson, then you're just an asshole. I'm sorry, but you are. If that's truly the only thing keeping you from going on mass murdering sprees and whatnot, then you need to be locked away.


"Because that philosophy increases the happiness of the greatest number of people. "

Id ont understand this at all.. you as an individual who has no hope of an after life.. why should you care about the happiness of the greatest number of people ? why not your own happyness.. should you sacrifice your happyness so others can be happy ? this seemingly is not the nature of humans. Seporated from god that is...
Once again, you assume all people are fully egotistical. This is not true.

Because we're human and they're not.

how is this an argument propgating the superiority of humans ? its like saying because thats the way things are... baseless.. if its intelegence why aren't we killling the vegitables sucking op our health care system, or the disabled unable to contribute to society.. why do we keep the elderly alive .. ? WHy would someone who is not compelled to a higher authority go along with such ideologies.. it dosn't make sense..
It doesn't make sense to you because you can't see beyond your Bible Goggles™. It's simple-there is no afterlife, so the only way to become imortal is to be remembered. Therefore, one would do good acts in order to be remembered. This fits even your shitty view that all people are egotistical.

"Do on to others as others do on to you."

That idea comes right out the bible.
And several other sources, but who's counting?

In fact most of what we believe to be true and moralistic has come from factors coming from the founding fathers who built our nation. Look at the money, the religious sayings we see everyday is on our currency.
How many times must this happen?!

1) Founding Fathers were NOT a christian majority
2) The US is NOT a christian nation
3) "Under God" and what not on the currency was ADDED IN THE MOTHER FUCKING FIFTIES.
4) EVEN THEN, "God" doesn't just belong to you. Other epople have the concepts of a single diety, you know. Shocking, but true.

I do believe we are just neural electrical processes created by bio-chemical reations. But we do have the ability which seperates us from all other animals, the ability to communicate our thoughts in an understandable manner. Thats what separates us from animals.
It is logic and reason that seperates us, in my view.

Oh I dont believe that the "Do on to others as others do on to you" is an inborn reasoning for self preservation. We were born to be needy and act on our needs, look at what a baby is.
A baby is a human being who has yet to fully develop, and as such is lacking in logic and reason.

Why dont we continue to act on our needs? I believe that society changes us to who we become, be it from family, friends, or other outside influences. That is what you're missing from your statement. [/quote[
And what you are missing, is that, in turn, we change society.

Well, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work at any rate.

At least reason a little before posting a comment, dont just say "cause we are human." WTF kind of answer is that?
And I cleared things up, hopefully.

because the only morals/ethics they can claim to have are based on laws.. and laws require legitmacy which is almost always given by Religious people because they have a reasoned foundation of morality which outline what is moral.. and so they push to have their morals relfected in government..

I have yet to see any legitimacy given by a vague, unquestionable source of 'wisdom.' Once you use a 'god' as a figurehead, and if there is no 'god' on earth, how can you question the 'legitimacy' of his/her/it's rulings?

You can't. That's not legitimacy. That's a sham.

Religion could hardly be termed 'reason.' What 'reasonable' person could ban homosexuality on the grounds that it is two people showing affection for each other? What 'reasonable' person could kill hundreds of another religion on the sole basis of their lack of faith in the 'god' worshipped by the persecutors?


*Note, at this point, that there seems a contradiction between my previous post and this one - I never said murder was reasonable, however... and I still have no problem with the taking of life. I'm merely using the murder example to show a lack of reasoning by the religious.*

Hahaha. The Golden Rule didn't come from Christianity. The Golden Rule is an important aspect of almost every world religion. Satanism being one exception.

Hi. Ever heard the phrase "Due Process". The laws of the United States federal government protect Due Process. Due Process is the right to live your life undisturbed. Arresting you is legally the government taking away your Due Process for the public good. Read up on it and discover why it's your best friend.

So.. after reading many arguments from Atheists on the issue of gay marriage it seems many just simply belive government has no right to dictate such social policy.. everyone should simply be equal

i'm not atheist, i'm agnostic, but i think that's a good image of government...all people equal under the law.


IF the government can't regulate marriage.. has no right in my bed room.. why does it have a right in the class room.. or my wallet ?

the government has the right to regulate the schools that it organizes and supports, just as private schools have the right to regulate their curriculums. the government does not have the right to regulate private schools, beyond imposing the same laws all citizens must follow (i.e. private schools may not molest or abuse children, etc).

as for the "right" to your wallet, if you wish to enjoy the benefits of the government then you must be prepared to pay for them just as all citizens should. if you wish the police to protect you, or the schools to educate your children, or if you wish to use public libraries, or if you wish to vote or have a say in government, then you must also contribute. i think that's only fair.


Does the government ever have an obligation to represent the viewpoint of the majority.. if its a super majority ? or just what is "right" for the country?

it's not so much an obligation as a practical reality. the government, in America, will simply be replaced if it fails to respect the will of the people. however, there are many rights that should be guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of what the majority thinks; for example, if the majority voted that raping babies was a good thing, American law still should prohibit that activity because it violates fundamental rights guaranteed to all persons in this country.


If the government shouldn't be bothered with the interest of the many, why then does it have the right to unporptionally tax the rich .. IF the government should be promoting equality under the law, why isn't proportional tax percentages fair enough ?

i believe all citizens should be taxed equally, and no citizen should be expected to contribute more than any other. equal under the law.


Also why should minority groups be given excess rights .. why does the government have the right to propgate affermative action ? the same argument.. if people are suppose to be equal under the law.. then they should be.. a black kid of lesser intelegence shouldn't be given priority over a white kid with greater intelegence..

i do not support affirmitive action in any way. i believe that merit alone should be the standard for success, and skin color, gender, religious affiliation, sexuality, or any other such irrelevancies should be totally disregarded when it comes to gauging success.


When is it right for government to begin domestic/social policy, and when should it end ? religion ? race ? wealth ?

i don't understand this question. the government should not dictate religion, should not discriminate based on ethnicity, and should not control wealth in any way other than to prevent and prosecute illegal activities.


life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness right ? no education, no religion, no wealth.. though each of these things are intertwined.. so pick a side.. either equality under the law.. or what is right for the majority ?

again, the question is not clear. i believe it is in the best interests of my country for free public education to be made available to all citizens, but also for there to be private schools that parents can choose if they so desire. i believe religion has no place in government, and government no place in religion, because only by keeping the two apart can maximal freedom be assured in both spheres of life. wealth is the product of labor, and i believe a person's efforts (and the fruits thereof) belong to them alone. i do not believe there is anything shameful about success or wealth, so i see no reason to punish those who acheive either.


Im not saying I agree with all these extremes but atleast tell me where the line is drawn in social policy ? CLearly there are many instances where people who demand equality in some domestic issues, push inequality in others (under the law)
i don't understand why you addressed this topic to atheists; nothing in your topic seems to have the least bit to do with atheism or principles that are inherently atheistic. why did you address this to atheists?

The originator of this thread asked atheists what good purpose does government serve. The person noting this question directed it to atheists. I am a Christian, but I would say as Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God."

Therefore, depending under which government one is governed, it varies as to what good purpose government serves. In the United States, and in Florida in particular for me, I would say the government serves me by its police force and its firefighting force. In my neighborhood, the water and sewer service are government entities.

The provision of education to most of the children in the state is the requirement of government, although some people choose private schools or teach their children at home.

As for the core issue of morals, that is something that belongs to God. Therefore, I would say that if my government rules upon me and says I must murder, steal and perform other acts that I know God prefers that I do not perform, then I will have to violate the government.

So far, I have not seen that in Florida or the United States. Luckily, I do not have to serve in the military because I am too old. Besides, we do not even have a draft here any more.

War. Hwooah. What is it good for, absolutely nothing.

War. Hwooah. What is it good for, absolutely nothing.

I wondered how that was spelled. Yeah. War! Hwooah! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again...

and coudln't one argue that libertarian welfare states are pushing "their" values on us ?
No, because libertarians are the the people most opposed to a welfare state

and coudln't we say propagating morals in society can be a way of protecting society ?
Fuck society...but seriously, whose morals? When most people say "morals" they mean some mindless superstition that they never rationally thought over for half a second.

The state's only legit reason for existance is to protect men from violence and theft (which arguably could include things such as polluting out water, since that steals from all of us). When you move beyond that, you end up with secret torture camps in Cuba and Iraq, immense deficits that threaten to crash the world economy, and ass-loads of corruption (~1300 public 'servants' indicted last year)

How then can an atheist legitmatly attack the belifs of a religious person.. when their own set of belifs and morals are based on those same religous belifs.

huh? what religious beliefs are atheistic morals based upon? the sanctity of life, respect for others, a code of honor...none of these things require religious belief of any kind. indeed, i am frightened by your implication that the only thing keeping you (and those like you) in line is belief in God. would you really murder, rape, steal, and otherwise dishonor yourself if not for God's profered lollypop of heaven? are you really stalled at the childish level of morality, where only rewards and punishments dictate your behavior? i am good to others because i find it pleasureable to be kind and generous; i am honorable because i wish to be the best person i am capable of being. i do not act honorably because i wish to gain some reward from any God, nor do i merely reign in my hideous urges to avoid the punishment of Hell. i care about my fellow humans, my country, and my world, and i wish to use my life to help and protect all of them as best i can. none of my values have ever been founded on religious belief, and, indeed, most of my most dearly held morals are in direct conflict with religion and God-thought.


You convientely allow yourselves to be endulged by theories with no clear answers and endless hypothesis and test and attack religion for its unscientific nature, all the while basing your everday belifs on essentially religious morals.

again, please cite these "religious" morals. you seem to think that religion may lay claims to beliefs and values that actually are quite independent from religion simply because there are also religious people who happen to hold those values. that is an incorrect analysis.


So the argment now comes to the question.. does atheist have religious morals.. ? or no morals ?
an atheist, by definition, cannot have religious morals. however, all thinking persons have a moral code they follow. that moral code may not resonate with you, and it may not even match up with the moral code of any other living being, but all humans have a set of morals that they follow. most atheists, in my experience, are far more ethical and moral than religious persons, because they have found reasons to be good and honorable that go beyond wanting to please a parent figure or to avoid a punishment.

huh? what religious beliefs are atheistic morals based upon? the sanctity of life, respect for others, a code of honor...none of these things require religious belief of any kind. indeed, i am frightened by your implication that the only thing keeping you (and those like you) in line is belief in God. would you really murder, rape, steal, and otherwise dishonor yourself if not for God's profered lollypop of heaven? are you really stalled at the childish level of morality, where only rewards and punishments dictate your behavior? i am good to others because i find it pleasureable to be kind and generous; i am honorable because i wish to be the best person i am capable of being. i do not act honorably because i wish to gain some reward from any God, nor do i merely reign in my hideous urges to avoid the punishment of Hell. i care about my fellow humans, my country, and my world, and i wish to use my life to help and protect all of them as best i can. none of my values have ever been founded on religious belief, and, indeed, most of my most dearly held morals are in direct conflict with religion and God-thought.



I agree ... but I can see where they are TRYING to argue relativistic morals

Beyond enforcement of adherence(your lollypop of heaven), what even SETS the morals to start with. While I agree that religion is not needed for the adherence of morals what creates them?

I personally go by the no harm rule … if it does not harm others it should be at least considered (though societal cost should be weighed in there too)

I don’t know maybe there is something universal about morals … some deep ingrained thing … so rather then religion CREATING morals … morals created the basics of religion (some of the first and most basic teachings of religions) maybe we got it back asswords.

(I am sure I am not clear at this time of day but hope you understand what I am saying)

Doesn't Religion have a monopoly on morality ?
No. Atheists do not lack morals. They make their own moral code.

You say people have a right to life ? why ? IF there is no god, no devine law, then there is only what we make of this world.. and what we have in the present.
Many of my beliefs are common to humanism, so I think that humans have a natural right to life.

Atheist morals?

Any real moral can be boiled down to the Golden Rule... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
Indeed it is a golden rule, as it can be found in almost every religious philosophy.

It is blatently clear that people base their morals on the laws... and if you trace those laws back.. you will find religious basis. It all come back to religion .. because religion has a firm basis for which morality to florish
No, I'm sure almost everyone here disagrees with some law or other.

If you can't give an argument which shows the basis for atheists morality, then im left to belive your morality is derived from what you've learned in society thus far based on the laws we have.. If you track history our laws are derived from those very same religoius institutions you condem . How then can an atheist legitmatly attack the belifs of a religious person.. when their own set of belifs and morals are based on those same religous belifs.
Based on religion? No. Influenced by it? Yes. Most atheists are humanists, I think.

Its ironic that republicans, the placeholders of religious beliefs tend to move towards the concept of survival of the fittest.
Republican =/= Christian.

The right-wing Christians are mainly what I call "old testament Christians". They believe in angry God and they have it out for people they think God doesn't like. They pretty much ignore the largely communist teachings of Jesus.

I believe the state will eventually wither away after the inevitable transition to true Communism. Until then the job of the state should be to redistribute wealth through progressive taxation and to provide for those who are disadvantaged within society.