I truly get it, I really do see why people turn to faith in order to find their moral compass...

[WCGreen]

Last edited Fri Feb 10, 2012, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)

After all, it's all laid out there for people to follow.

(Now if all the people who claim to follow the teachings of their particular higher power, the world would be A LOT more peaceful, don't you think?)

And it doesn't bother me if candidates say that he/she bounces ideas off of god, or uses god as a moral dip stick, so to speak.

Having said that, after all their postering, I want people of religion to promise that they will put the needs of the country over the needs of their denomination,

In other words, plain words that they can understand, you are an American first and a ___________ second.

You must swear to recognize that we live in pluralistic society where all sorts of ideas, practices and worship routines come together to make us a country.

The only thing that ties us all together, and what makes us unique, is our system of government.

It's tough enough already to fit all the pieces together without purposely dividing people even more with the quirks of worship that have developed over the centuries.

The one true document that defines us is the Constitution. It isn't the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Big Book, the Moon Book...

So, I really want to zoom back to 1960 when people questioned then Senator John Kennedy if he would swear not to take his marching orders from the Vatican.

We all know what he said. He was an American first and a Roman Catholic second.

Candidates today get away with a lot. I have heard far too many candidates say they turned to god to make their decisions that their pastor is their guide. (Why is it right to have some mail order preacher as a moral guide but not the pope? JFK MUST have asked himself that question.)

What does that really mean? Especially to someone who knows some fundamentalists with really crazy ideas.

I want an American in the oval office. Preferably a democrat. I could care less if his/her moral compass points to god. After all, history is full of characters who shielded some awful behavior in the name of God.

Bottom line, I don't trust anyone who panders to believers just to get something they want.

I've seen it first hand when I ran for office.

I really think I would have done better as a politician if I went back to the family religion, Catholic, instead of looking toward the Unitarians for my spiritual guidance. (I actually overheard someone say she didn't trust Unitarians, they think too much.)

I just had to be true to myself.

It scares the bejeebies out of me that the GOP has a hard time separating P form D in their nickname.

Bottom line, I respect those who are true to their moral compass where ever iit comes from.

But as an American, it is my right to get my moral backbone from anywhere I see fit.

We are a country of laws, laws inspired many time by "God". But in the end, we are all just mortals who should really take a lesson from Icarus and not try to become a god. It's much better to be firmly attached to the bedrock of the Constitution, the higher power we all answer to in front of our peers.

[1ProudAtheist]

1. Samuel Clemens

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true."

[hifiguy]

48. Ol' Sam said many wise things

but none better than that.

[jody]

2. What basis do you offer for humans who once lived in nature without laws, to create a society that

depends upon laws?

What is your argument to support laws such as "Thou shalt not kill"?

[WCGreen]

4. Well, it's a good thing to not go around killing people...

Especially when you are all trying to work together to make something larger than the sum of the people involved.

All I can really say is that Thou Shalt Not Kill is constantly being violated whether or not that the threat of Eternal Damnation is there or not.

Laws are really the codification of morality.

Having said that, being a moral person should not be determined by how a man worships but how a man lives.

[jody]

7. "it's a good thing" is an unsupported assertion. Please support it. nt

[WCGreen]

11. Well Jody, it goes like this...

Killing people willy nilly makes for a distabling social order and if you really want to come together in order to get things done in the collective, you kind of have to put the Keebash on the Killing....

[jody]

12. Interesting commentary, now please support your assertion.

I don't expect you to and neither can I or anyone else absent a belief in a preternatural entity that will hold you and I responsible for various deeds in this life and punish us for them in an afterlife.

Given that eternity is so long and our lifespan is so short, without an afterlife one may as well do whatever one has the power to do and gamble that one won't get caught and punished in this life.

Seems to me the corporatist party and organized crime is composed of such people and aided by puppets in the White House and Congress who make and execute "man's laws" that absolve a select few from punishment in this life.

[Arugula Latte]

17. Oh, B.S.

Those of us who believe "this life is it" don't go around killing people for the heck of it. How ridiculous. If anything, we realize we'd better make the best of this life because this is all we've got. Killing people doesn't fit into making the best of it. Religious people are the ones who tend to think they have a get-out-of-jail-free card because at the end of their killing sprees they can come to Gawd 'n' Jebus and git them some forgiveness and some everlastin' life!

If you don't like obeying the laws of man, why don't you go live in a theocracy? Maybe Iran will take you.

[jody]

20. I'll record your post as unable to prove the cited assertion. Have a great evening. nt

[Arugula Latte]

27. Lol. Where is your proof?

Oh, I forgot. You have "faith" so you're excused from critical thinking.

[RegieRocker]

40. No critical thinking in your post. Only hatred and condemnation.

[snooper2]

78. I didn't seen any hatred or condemnation, just deserved ridicule

and entertainment for the rest of us

[pintobean]

80. While replying to you

in another thread, the blue box appeared. Jury duty on this post.

the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

[RegieRocker]

81. Oh you're the entertainment and we laugh at you folk incessantly.

[snooper2]

82. Sweet, laughing is greatness...Helps turn tools into fools LOL

And you use "folk", don't tell me you live in Bedford or something

Here, enjoy some Rebirth, it'll make everything better once you complete the video- What was this thread about again?

[RegieRocker]

84. Folk was in reference to you roflmao

[snooper2]

85. Don't break your back...Of course Folk was a reference to me..

I was wondering from your lingo if you hung out in the Bedford area....

[RegieRocker]

86. Is Bedford a common area?

[Capitalocracy]

44. I usually don't get involved in religious discussions of this kind...

because I don't happen to believe in gods, but I believe respecting people's religious beliefs is of utmost importance... especially considering us heathens and nonbelievers would be the first against the wall if this was not the case.

But I would just like to point out that you're asking for an awful lot of proof and evidence and stuff from those who don't believe in the existence of something, when you do believe in the existence of something which is, to say the least, less than plausible.

Any evidence you wish to provide?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

22. Atta girl, my dear Arugula Latte!

You put your finger right on it.

B.S. indeed.

I've got your back!

[Arugula Latte]

26. Thanks, Peg!

[RegieRocker]

35. No the get out of jail card is total B.S.

I was going to come you your defense but after this Crapola I decided to address it. To rid oneself of a crime of murder in the heart and mind is an undertaking that is almost always never achieved. So no, true Christians do not believe in a get out of jail free card. One must be pure of spirit before GOD.

[progressoid]

52. +1

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. "A belief in a preternatural entity" doesn't get you any further

because a belief in such an entity gets you nowhere in agreeing on what such an entity would want. Humans can get together and decide their laws either on the basis of agreement on what is best for society; or by a complete guess what supernatural entities might want (which might, for instance, include human sacrifice, indiscriminate killing of other ethnicities that don't worship that particular entity, and so on). By ignoring the possibility of gods, demons and so on, we can concentrate on human life, rather than supernatural existence for which there is no evidence.

[SammyWinstonJack]

53. ...

[LiberalFighter]

30. Why must people without faith believe that they can or should do what they want without consequences

There are other consequences other than the afterlife for those that believe. Consequences on this earth either under the legal system and/or family and friends.

What about those that interpret the afterlife consequences in their favor to justify their actions while alive?

[RegieRocker]

36. What about those who don't believe in a higher power and believe take what you can

anyway you can because you only have one life to live and as long as you're not caught go for it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. That's what we have laws for

Laws which are set in real life, hopefully (in a democracy) by agreement. Those who believe in a higher power are taking random guesses at what one or more higher powers want, and then justifying their behaviour on that fiction.

[RegieRocker]

58. The fiction is you believing that mans laws remain constant. The moral teachings of the bible do

however remain constant since Christ. So it is you who believe in fiction. The ever changing world of man. I however am an Agnostic.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

So in essence you claim to be GOD yourself. Since you know that one does not exist. You believe and know that not anything nor any kind of higher power exists in all of the universe or beyond. Closed minds abound on both sides, Atheists and God or Gods believers. I see some from both suffering from the same illness. You probably won't get it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Your arguments contradict themselves

First of all, I don't think that human laws remain constant. Why on earth would I think that? I actually said laws are set in real life, by agreement. They are set, and modified, as our societies develop. "The ever changing world of man", far from being 'fiction', is reality.

If you, as a agnostic, think claims about deities are unknowable, then you must surely see that trying to derive morals from the claims about one of these deities is basing morals on a man-made fiction. And if the idea of the deity is fixed, then this becomes even worse - you end up stuck with morals based on a story thousands of years old, that, even if the writer made up the story with the purpose of justifying what he thought would be good morals, would be one man's opinion, now thousands of years out of date. A continued effort to set morals and laws by societal agreement is far preferable. And an agnostic viewpoint should not be privileging any one religious fiction over another.

No, of course atheists don't "claim to be god". We are people, who live our lives and, jointly, take part in and direct our society.

[RegieRocker]

62. As I stated you missed the point enitrely

You can not know if there is a GOD or not. All men are created equal was fiction until slavery was abolished. The humorous thing here is if GOD is man made and the morals from GOD, then you end up with the same result. The morals are man made. Thanks for the chuckle.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. But you don't end up with the same morals

Morals invented to satisfy an unknowable god are not as good as morals designed to serve human society. I already gave an example in this thread - some societies thought that human sacrifice was acceptable, because their image of a god was an angry one that needed to be placated. Both sets of morals may be man made, but they are made for different purposes, and thus achieve different results. And those that try to take a fictional god into account are worse for humans.

[RegieRocker]

66. Yes and what about this

DULCE ET DECORUM EST(1)

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares(2) we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest(3) began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots(4)
Of tired, outstripped(5) Five-Nines(6) that dropped behind.
Gas!(7) Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets(8) just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime(9) . . .
Dim, through the misty panes(10) and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering,(11) choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud(12)
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest(13)
To children ardent(14) for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.(15)

Wilfred Owen
8 October 1917 - March, 1918

http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html

For country (tribe) is mans morals and it has caused more deaths than religion ever will.

I find just the opposite. Those that don't believe in the remote possibility of a higher authority are worse for humans.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. That was a war fought between countries that all had near total religious belief

(most Christian; Turkey was Muslim, and Japan Shinto/Buddhist), but the morals of those religions didn't stop the war being fought. In fact, the religious authorities in each country overwhelmingly supported the war.

However, "For country (tribe) is mans morals" is an unsupported statement. Laws about theft, assault, murder and so on do not distinguish between the nationality of the victim or perpetrator.

In what way do you think that your claim that we cannot know anything about a higher authority makes you, personally, 'better for humans' than someone who says there isn't a higher authority? You agree with them that no idea of what any higher authority wants can be known.

[RegieRocker]

69. However, "For country (tribe) is mans morals" is an unsupported statement. You got to be kidding

You really think the Germans in WWII were religious and it was a religious cause. Like I said "you're unable to understand".

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. You quoted a WWI poem

But, if you do want to talk about WW2, yes, there was a strong religious component to it - of course. Hitler despised the Jewish religion, and tried to exterminate it; he continued to use the religious claims that Germany used to (eg "Gott Mit Uns" on the army uniforms), and added in a bit of mystic stuff that was certainly tribal, but also semi-religious (eg the Nuremberg rallies).

[RegieRocker]

76. WWII was not a religious war for the Germans.

When Christians kill Christians it is not a Holy War. You can buy into that ruse, that is your choice. And the poem applies for all wars. Patriotism is a far greater threat to the world than religion. Religious people ignore their religion for patriotism. Only a minute few become conscientious objectors. The Iraq war was a prime example of patriotism and revenge gone amuck. And sadly it will happen again and again by man and from the morals and laws of man.

[RegieRocker]

63. Double post

[LiberalFighter]

51. You already got one response to this

Do you think that your faith keeps you entirely within the morality of your community?

Meaning that you don't need a police car to remind you to slow down. The IRS possibly auditing your tax return. The media reporting on individuals committing crimes and being caught as a reminder that there are consequences in this world.

If faith was all that is needed we wouldn't need a government with laws created by local and federal legislators, law enforcement to catch the criminals, and judges to determine the punishment.

[RegieRocker]

57. My point was that with or without faith there will always be bad apples and you should have known

that. To expect all persons of faith to not have one or more failures in the moral trek is the same as expecting all that do not have faith to be morally corrupt.

[progressoid]

54. What about those that DO believe in a higher power and still take what they can?

The definition of what God will let you get away with is fluid. Apparently as long as I pick the religion that supports my morals (or lack thereof), I can get away with murder. I just need to accept the Lord as my personal savior, and I'm getting into heaven. The threat of eternal damnation is a dog without teeth. This is why we, as a society, also have laws here on earth.

A belief in a higher power doesn't equal morality.

[RegieRocker]

60. The morality of man has caused more death than any belief in GOD.

[RegieRocker]

42. Her response is hilarious.

She speaks and thinks in a tribe mindset. Killing continues. Why? Because most of these lost individuals have a narrow minded view of what exists. They are incapable or unwilling to try and fathom the big picture.

[Angry Dragon]

74. How about you support your first paragraph

[snooper2]

77. LOL, without Gawd there would be anarchy in the streets

You know, you could have just said that and saved a whole shitload of keystrokes

[LiberalFighter]

29. How long did humans live without any form of laws?

[snooper2]

79. A hell of a lot longer than the witch trials lasted

LOL

[Tsiyu]

68. HA ha!!!!

Oh, yeah, that "Thou SHalt Not Kill" thing really kept the Christians from killing anybody






I am crying I am laughing so hard......

[unblock]

3. faith is not about finding a moral compass. it's about rationalizing a moral compass.

if a loss of faith leads you to suddenly turn to evil and crime, then you never believed in the first place.

[rhett o rick]

5. Faith is important. We probably go insane w/o it. You have faith that the engineers

the designed the bridge knew what they were doing. But faith should never be substituted for reasoning.

[WCGreen]

9. But then again we live in a pluralistic society where there are all sorts of ways

to get to morality.

And that is where I place my faith, that in the end, we will, collectively, more times than not, arrive at the right decision.

I also have faith that if we do not get there the first time, we can get there in the end.

[Arugula Latte]

19. Lots of sane people don't have "faith." That is a ridiculous statement.

Faith is just justifying the irrational that has no supporting evidence. It doesn't make someone a better person if they convince themselves that fairytales are the truth.

[rhett o rick]

32. I did a terrible job of making my point. Let me try again.

The word faith is often used in the religious context. But faith also means confidence or trust in a person or thing. I have faith that this bridge is built to standards. or I have faith that my taxi driver wont drive on the wrong side of the street. In this capacity, faith is a good thing. If we didnt have this trust we would fear walking on the bridge or riding in a taxi. But IMO we should never let faith take the place of reason.

[RegieRocker]

37. Nor does it make a better person that has no answers to question "who created everything?"

The lack of any answer is not better than a guess. I dunno is less than "could it be".

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Wtf?

That statement has a seriously insulting implication regarding all of us who live our lives without irrational beliefs. Who are the insane delusional people?

[rhett o rick]

31. If that came across as insulting, I am sorry. It is only because of my inability to express myself

well. I am not claiming anyone is insane or delusional. IMHO, some people use faith to supersede rational thinking. I dont agree with that. But what I was trying to say, was that faith isnt all bad. You can have faith in people. I have faith that my parents arent going to leave me at Disneyland. To me it means that you believe and trust. That isnt always bad. When people use faith in a religious way, sometimes they let the faith take the place of reason. For example, if someone told me that they had cancer but they had faith that God would heal them, I would say that's taking faith too far. The only reason that I am making the distinction, is that I had someone recently tell me that faith was a bad thing. But he was using the word faith to mean only in the religious connotation.

I would be surprised if this gibberish clears things up, but it's the best I can do.

[RegieRocker]

38. No irrational beliefs? Mr. perfect has spoken!

That is dellusional.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. No I am not perfect, I just don't have to worship a sky-being to keep from going bonkers.

[quaker bill]

6. Friends find Faith to be

not a set of beliefs one professes but a way of life that one leads. We meet not to find a moral compass, but to express the one we already have.

[WCGreen]

10. I have a friend who is a Quaker...

If he hadn't moved away, I would have taken him up on that visit.

[quaker bill]

16. All are always welcome

you don't need to bring a buddy. We generally aren't selling ourselves, and very few meetings even ask for money. My Meeting has a tiny, nearly unnoticeable contribution box on a table near the door, we will occasionally remind members that it exists. We usually have to look for a volunteer to commit to going out of their way to greet visitors. At our meeting, if you keep coming, after two or three weeks people treat you just like you have been there for years.

About the only time in my 25 years I can think of where someone was not welcome, was the case of a minister who kept coming by to read the Bible at us. After a number of weeks it became the sense of the meeting for a small group of us to meet this guy at the door to peacefully stand in his way and suggest that he take his message to someplace where it would be welcome. Once was enough to do the trick....

[napoleon_in_rags]

8. good post. thats like the prerequisite for making pluralism work.

Not trying to BE God I mean. That's the whole contraceptive thing right there. They have the right not to use it, but when they decide for other people, they,re playing a new role.

[WCGreen]

13. That's what got me going....

I tried to do it a couple of days ago but it didn't turn out so good....

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. When they decide for other people, who may not agree with how those folks think...

Then a wrong thing is being done.

It can often be hypocritical.

[RegieRocker]

41. Roflmao

Atheists are the epitome of what you're suggesting.

[provis99]

14. no, I put my multinational family before America.

America is a distant second to my family.

and screw religion.

[Lunacee2012]

28. My views are kind of like your's.

I'm a person first, then an American. And I don't follow any organized religion.

[Kellerfeller]

47. Safe to assume you are completely on board

with companies out-sourcing then?

(This assumes you meant everyone in the world, not just your immediate family which is internationally located. I apologize if I mis-interpreted that)

[renie408]

18. You know, I am not sure a person of a deep, abiding and true faith actually CAN lead a nation.

When I think about the Bible, it says that you must commit 100% to the Lord. I am paraphrasing here, but it says "Be either hot or cold, but not lukewarm or you will be spat out." So, basically God is saying you have to go all in or go home. I think the Bible pretty much says, "God first, everything else second." So, to be of true and abiding faith, you would need to put your responsibilities to God first, not those of your country. And a national leader really SHOULD think of the country first...so there's a quandary right there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. "Man is the only animal to have discovered the One True God.....several of them." Mark Twain

[RegieRocker]

59. Hmm another one. Poor Mark Twain. Didn't know he knew what went on

in animal minds. He was quite amazing.

[cthulu2016]

24. Religion should come above country

If you believe in God and your nation is in conflict with God then it would be utterly ridiculous to be a nationalist first.

We are talking about GOD, not one of many ways to think about things.

I'm an atheist but I would certainly not suggest to anyone that they put nation before god (or hold a higher allegience to nation)

It's GOD.

[DonCoquixote]

33. kindly read some neitzche

For examples of a morality that has nothing to do with heaven or hell.
As far as killing goes, my dear, faith has made it easier to kill as well as stopped killing. I do not have the means to send you to Jerusalem or Syria, but I am sure you would find tangible proof that faith can make killing easier.

[WCGreen]

55. Believe you me I am not a big fan of religion....

I basically was saying as I get older, I have mellowed in my strident view of the worlds various religions. If people find peace within because of a belief in religion, who am I to critisize them.

And I understand what you are saying about people killing people in the name of god. But if it wasn't "god", it would be something else.

[JFN1]

34. I don't get it.

It is beyond me why people have this apparent need to be led to a thing they already possess, or why they seek constant moral approval, when we (as a general rule) already know what is right and what is wrong.

Morality and ethics are rooted in empathy, which the majority of human beings both possess, and are capable of utilizing.

"How would I feel, if that were me?" - is not rhetorical; it is one's moral compass being accessed. Combined with maturity and information/facts/knowledge, empathy needs only one's desire to be moral, and the will to act accordingly.

No "higher power" is required...

[Kellerfeller]

49. However, if a person is lacking empathy

I generally support them believing in an afterlife.

Let's take a person who is angry and feels they have nothing to live for. If that person has no belief in an afterlife or consequences, there is really nothing to stop him from killing himself and at least trying to take out everyone he is pissed at (or even random folks) along the way.

On the other hand, if he believes in eternal damnation, then he might think twice. If fear of a higher power stops even a small portion of these people, then it is a good thing.

I think people have every right to take themselves out of this world but I'd like to minimize the number of other people they take out.

The counter argument is that religion motivates some people to kill others. On a global scale, that is certainly true. Granted, I believe that if they didn't have religion to blame it on, many of these wars would still be happening with a different excuse. However, if we just look within America we have very few people killing in the name of religion but far too many taking out a bunch of people just because they are pissed.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

73. You mean like people who kill abortion doctors, like Dr. Slepian and Dr. Tiller?

They are Christians killing abortion doctors as a justification.

[Mopar151]

39. Jesus makes a pretty good moral compass

Even for atheists. Rush Limbaugh is a terrible moral compass - for anybody.

If you're gonna go with "monkey see, monkey do", you gottta pick the right monkey.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

71. Jesus, really????? Are you kidding????

Just a few examples out of HUNDREDS in the Bible:

From the GOSPEL of LUKE:

God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel's words. 1:20

"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
Just a few verses earlier (1:17-20), Zacharias is struck dumb for doubting his wife's angel-assisted pregnancy. Why wasn't Mary punished for her disbelief? 1:34-35

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3

"Be content with your wages" -- no matter how unjust they may be. 3:14

John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17

Peter and his partners (James and John) abandon their wives and children to follow Jesus. 5:11

Jesus cures a paralytic by forgiving his sins, thereby proving that he is God (since only God can forgive sins) and paralysis is caused by sin. 5:18-25

Jesus says that people who are rich, well-fed, happy, or respected are going to hell. 6:24-26
==========
There are many, many more examples of Jesus and his injustice and cruelty.

It's quite possible to have morality without any gods. And to do good without expecting a reward.

[Mopar151]

75. I said pretty good - I did'nt say perfect.

But to guage true north from a magnetic compass, you need to know context - like latitude, longitude, and year of observation. I suspect the same is true for a moral compass.
I'm happy you have found a compass that works for you - but to declare it perfect and inerring is readin' it wrong.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

83. Jesus is NOT pretty good as a moral compass.

If I posted the hundreds of examples of Jesus' approval of cruelty, mass murder, and absurd rules, it would be deleted by the authorities.

We don't have to ignore anything the Buddha said.

We have to ignore MANY hundreds of things Jesus said that are cruel and hateful. I don't call that "pretty good". I call that "pretty awful".

What is wrong with you? You are so fixated on Jesus that you can't see the many horrible things he said that are recorded in the New Testament.

And you're saying a moral compass is "relative", which gives you latitude with Jesus' sayings.

I don't think the gospels are an accurate recordation of anything.

[nanabugg]

87. From where are your citations coming? What if 5:18-25? nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

72. Gautama the Buddha is a much better moral compass.

The Buddha's teachings are absolutely consistent, unlike the cruelty and violence advocated by Jesus which Christians conveniently ignore. His teachings make no mention of gods. They are teachings about dealing with the human condition and the problems we all face.

There is no place where Buddha said "Kill your enemies" and therefore that part of his scriptures must be ignored.

There is no evidence in the historical record that Jesus actually existed. We have much better evidence that famous people around his time period actually existed.

There are shrines to Buddha that have his teeth and bones in them. We know that Shakyamuni Buddha actually lived.

Hundreds of monks memorized his teachings. When Buddha died at the age of 80, they wrote down all his teachings on palm leaves to preserve them.

Other good moral teachings: Secular humanism. To do good without promise of reward, because we pass this way but once.

[mmonk]

43. I just fish off mine.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. ^ lol ^

[WCGreen]

56. glad you got a chuckle...

[mmonk]

65. Sorry, it was just sitting there saying take me.

I didn't mean anything by it. I'm impulsive that way.