>Great communities are a consequence of the chosen lifestyle and morality of religious people
You don't give athiests and agnostics enough credit. Religion is not required for morals and community values.
You don't give athiests and agnostics enough credit. Religion is not required for morals and community values.
See, I agree, but probably because I understand "religion" differently than you do.
I would say, though, that love of God is required for morals and healthy community (not sure what 'community values' are). There are a lot of difficult things in this life (addiction, betrayal, chronic illness, corruption, oppression) that are difficult to tackle with bald reason, raw force of will, and whatever teamwork we can scrape together.
Maybe some atheists also have these, but there's not a guarantee all act this way.
IMO, before founding an "atheist church", I'd at least establish "secular values" and find a community around it.
EDIT: I was called a "delusional idiot" for claiming Christians are defined by fraternity, equality, goodness.
I'm referring to the SYSTEM OF VALUES. Something must be aspired for and desired in social interactions. I'm well aware of "hypocritical Christians", it has nothing to do with them.
If you cannot understand that, I'm not a "delusional idiot"; you are just ignorant.
So you haven't really pointed to a real difference.
No true Scotsman!
I didn't use it to refer to "true Christians", but as an ontological description of Christianity.
Atheists as a whole might be less likely to share a system of values, but those who sought and joined such an organization of their own volition (and not because their family dragged them to church every Sunday) are extremely likely to shared its values.
Also, your second argument is ridiculous.
Say you and me go to a party. We both decided this on our own. That doesn't mean we share A SINGLE value.
I don't want to be rude, so instead of replying I'll just bow out of this conversation. Farewell.
You probably value a good party, right?