XPost: alt.atheism, alt.religion.islam, alt.society.liberalism   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 22:50:20 -0400, Kurt Nicklas    
   wrote in alt.atheism:   
      
   >In article ,   
   >lunch@nofreelunch.us says...   
   >>   
   >> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 07:24:01 -0400, Kurt Nicklas    
   >> wrote in alt.atheism:   
   ...   
   >> >And yet you condemn certain religious practices in such absolutist terms   
   >> >that it seems YOU, at least, know EXACTLY what is true and fales.   
   >>   
   >> So you claim, but I do not recall ever doing such a thing. Yes, I find   
   >> that many actions taken by many religions are harmful to societies and   
   >> that many societies had to kill the priests to free themselves from the   
   >> evil that their religious bodies had inflicted on them. I see no   
   >> evidence that any religion is inherently good or inherently bad or that   
   >> any claims about them should be taken without question.   
   >   
   >We're not talking about other religions. We're talking about your sense   
   >of morality.   
      
   Are you?   
      
   >Is it really so hard to understand? You can't logically make broad,   
   >general claims about 'evil' this and 'despicable' that in such broad   
   >terms and, at the same time, claim that morality is relative.   
      
   Ethical standards change. Most religions refuse to. They have been used   
   to defend most of the great evils of the past.   
      
   >Rethink this.   
      
   You have offered no counter view.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)