[Closed] Bloody Athiests!

how about we go for a ride?

No thank you.

You sure? I think we would get along famously 😀

Or is my neurotic displacement disturbing you? 😉

loum - Member

Am I right in understanding this,
that someone who doesn't believe in the soul and believes that they don't have one, is taking offence at being described as soulless?

The intention of the proposer is to level an accusation of being somehow a "lesser" person than are they, because they possess a "soul", and I do not.

I take offense at the attempt to belittle, couched in the belittler's terms. Not the terminology itself, which is as vapid as the "philosophy" that is being touted.

Fair enough. I've removed my comment now anyway.

1. The cathexis - an object of desire
2. The will to extend oneself for the purpose of nuturing one's own or another's spiritual and personal growth

I'll let you work out which one I endeavour to live by.

Given your chosen nickname is slackalice.. is it the first one? 😉

slackalice - Member

how about we go for a ride?

No thank you.

You sure?

Positive.

Given your chosen nickname is slackalice.. is it the first one?

Northwind - Member
Regretably there is no alternative to a Religious belief system that gives kids moral guidance and sets boundaries.
And yes, this is incredible cobblers.

Ironically, despite not being at all religious, and coming from an irreligious family, I've ended up with a fairly "christian" set of morals. Reason being, they mostly make sense, which is why they're shared with most other religions. And the reason for that, is that religions don't create morals- they coopt them.

Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness
Thou shalt not covet

Not a trace of religion in that. And the rest is basically copy protection.

Interesting quotes, who said that and why should it be true?

I can't stand evangelical Atheists any more than the the other sort.

There is no proof, we can argue all day, but the fact remains, even for those allegedly claiming faith we are agnostic, like it or not.

As to the bringing up kids thing you need to have done it a few times to get it, once they stop believing in Father Christmas (yet still hang those stockings up) they get it and the whole God hypocrisy thing, but it keeps them in line, they 'get' right from wrong, which unfortunately in this day and age fewer and fewer folk do, so give me the Catholic method over the hand wringing lefty liberal way any day.

Now folk using their 'God' to justify wholesale slaughter or to swear themselves in to another parliamentary session so they can renege on their election promises whilst fiddling their expenses, their rules? Sorry they don't count, so if Cougar could just absolutely prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that shooting that bastard bank manager of mine in the head is not going to impact on any future condemnation of a lifetime here, I'd like to hear about it, because there are a couple of other types that have it coming...

"If you want robust discussion on controversial subjects, let's have one."

No thanks

"If you want to express hurt because your holy flower of universal love has been tarnished by the nasty man who seems impervious to being moved by the universal spirit of one-ness, stay away. That's my advice, anyway."

And I'll pass on taking the advice of a "nasty man" thanks. How do feel about calling yourself that by the way? Not sure many would like to be known as nasty?

"I take offense at the attempt to belittle" ... Do unto others wopptit do unto others .... Luke 6:31

Edit... Not sure Luke actually knew you.

And I'll pass on taking the advice of a "nasty man" thanks. How do feel about calling yourself that by the way?

Allow me to enlighten you - the phrase "nasty man" is a reference to how you seem to view me, not a self-description.

Luke 6:31 Oh the ironing. 🙄

Allow me to enlighten you

WOWZER! There are a fair few "Bloody Athiests" on posting here! You question why some athiests are so angry, especially in the UK, and certain athiests are start mouthing off. It reminds me of when you ask more evangelical religious people questions that cause them to think about their beliefs! And 5 pages in 4 hrs with constant reminders of past discussions of the same arguments... there really is no difference between a militant athiest and a young Earth creationist'esq beleiver when trying to discuss certain topics.
Don't be mad at religious people or even some religious leaders for trying to impose their beliefs on other people, that's what their books tell them to do. Be mad at the politicians that let them get away with it.
I'm trying to find out why some athiests (maybe you are or maybe your not) still get angry at some random plumber who goes to a local church and believes 2000ya in the middle east a man who some people claimed he said he was the son of a god and was born of a virgin and pretty much said we should all get along and he wishes to live a life simalar too that? Why does that bother some people so much that they have to speak up against it with such hostility and claim he his a delusional fool. Militant athiests tar every religious person with the same brush as the most extreme example of the most hostile religions.

igrf - Member

Interesting quotes, who said that and why should it be true?

Er, I was quoting you. Unless you mean the 10 Commandments? That was quoting God.

Edit: got the poster wrong and went off on a tangent and frankly this has gotten tedious. As usual.

I should know better, really.

And that's why I'm out.

There is no proof, we can argue all day, but the fact remains, even for those allegedly claiming faith we are agnostic, like it or not.

Militant agnosticism. Like +1 😉

if Cougar could just absolutely prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that shooting that bastard bank manager of mine in the head is not going to impact on any future condemnation of a lifetime here, I'd like to hear about it, because there are a couple of other types that have it coming...

I'm not sure I understand the question. You're saying that if you weren't a Catholic, you'd be a serial killer?

Religion the most successful money making/ marketing scam of all time.

I'm trying to find out why some athiests (maybe you are or maybe your not) still get angry at some random plumber who goes to a local church and believes 2000ya in the middle east a man who some people claimed he said he was the son of a god and was born of a virgin and pretty much said we should all get along and he wishes to live a life simalar too that? Why does that bother some people so much that they have to speak up against it with such hostility and claim he his a delusional fool.

If only it were that simple. I don't think many people would argue with what the supposed chap is supposed to have said, it all seems very laudable. However, it's when they build an organisation around it that becomes hugely wealthy and powerful, which then starts to force people into behaving as they say because that's how they interpret what the supped bloke has supposedly said.

They can worship the devil, Odin or any other deity[ or deities] they choose for all i care as long as it has no impact on anyone else

I'm an atheist (that does not exclusively define who I am, just like being a mountain biker does not define all of who I am).

Morality does not come from God(s)- morality does not derive from doing what a higher power tells you to (as the WWII Nazi trials demonstrated.)

However,

Anyone can believe in whatever God(s) what they want. I personally can't understand why people fall for this BS, but then again some people think golf is fun.

But:-

Their beliefs are not protected form ridicule - there must be no blasphemy laws, no protection form ridicule about a particular belief system (protection from discrimination, of course).

Their beliefs do not protect them from the law. (Circumcision male or female, beating, killing your child because God told you to, refusing healthcare to employees, paying taxes, discriminating against people on grounds of race, gender, colour, sexual orientation, disability).

Religion cannot and must not define the law. I don't think we need to look at many theocracies past or present to see that it's generally a bad idea. Separation of church ad state should be absolute.

If all religions/religious people did that, there would be no 'angry atheists'

But that is not how the world currently is, so some people feel a need to try and change that. I think you'll find that many people who have striven to overturn injustice, bigotry and immorality have got a bit shouty from time to time.

.....but He loves you!

I'm an atheist (that does not exclusively define who I am, just like being a mountain biker does not define all of who I am).

My point is just that:
The vast majority of religious people cannot be defined by a) the most extreme cases of the worst examples of a minority who practice harmful rituals of other religions, and b) many don't define themselves by their beliefs of the afterlife and what influences those beliefs. Some people just so happen to find themselves being born in an environment where christians- for example are the majority and concepts such as morality and the afterlife heavily influence their thinking. In such cases when they are asked what religion they belong to or if they believe in a god they say christian as default. It is wrong to say all religious people are delusional, wife beating, slave loving, child killing, skin wearing, racist, fascist, dogmatic, science devouring, delusional bleepers who are a drain on society.

If all religions/religious people did that, there would be no 'angry atheists'

And if all atheists realised that then there wouldn't be no 'angry atheists'. Just as it is wrong to say all atheists are the same in their beliefs about morality it is wrong to assume all religious people are the same nor are all christians or muslims or whatever.

Saying that I would argue that all fools are fools though...

p.s. I'm not calling anyone a fool 😆

25% of Britons believe in creationism.
50% of Americans too.

Really.
Have a think about that.

In the UK, bishops sit in the House of Lords, the head of state is also the head of the state church, you can't get into some state schools if you weren't baptised in the right religion, evangelical christians fund some academy schools and intelligent design might be appearing on the curriculum.

Just a wee correction to point out; that's all for England (and Wales, I suppose), not UK.
The bishops are CofE, so no Church of Scotland influence in House of Lords (or Catholic, for that matter). Church of Scotland was heavily involved in the devolution movement, but has no constitutional role in the Scottish parliament, as far as I am aware.
Queen is head of CofE only.
We do unfortunately have denominational schools in Scotland, but I know that some non Catholics do attend them, so not totally exclusive. Still a divisive system, in my opinion, and I would prefer to see explicitly secular education.
I don't believe there is any chance of Evangelical creationists influencing the Scottish education system.

25% of Britons believe in creationism.
50% of Americans too.

Really.
Have a think about that.

Still a divisive system, in my opinion, and I would prefer to see explicitly secular education.

I'm thinking where are those figures from and I am very sceptical that they are true reflection

I'm thinking where are those figures from and I am very sceptical that they are true reflection.

Well, if you do a bit of research you'll find these figures confirmed by both religious and secular sources.

Regretably there is no alternative to a Religious belief system that gives kids moral guidance and sets boundaries.

Well, if you do a bit of research you'll find these figures confirmed by both religious and secular sources.

Buddhism is inside the religious umbrella so it is hardly an alternative to religious belief

Well, if you do a bit of research you'll find these figures confirmed by both religious and secular sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#United_Kingdom
A 2010 Angus Reid poll found that "In Britain, [i]two-thirds of respondents[/i] (68%) side with evolution while less than one-in-five (16%) choose creationism.
A subsequent 2010 YouGov poll on the Origin of Humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% didn't know.[59]

Regretably there is no alternative to a Religious belief system that gives kids moral guidance and sets boundaries.

There is:
[i]Mary don't steel Joseph's handy many chisels.
why not daddy
Because it is not very nice. how would you feel if Joe took your barbie doll from you, it wouldn't be very nice would it?
no daddy 😳
So before you take someone elses toys think how sad it would make you feel if someone took your toys.[/i]
Essentially it's the Golden Rule, treat others how you wish to be treated everything will fall into place.

As I say to my 3 year old and we also say "Olivia you must share, sharing is caring."

Buddhism is inside the religious umbrella so it is hardly an alternative to religious belief

Buddhists don't derive their morality from an outside source, and also this demonstrates the problem I have with angry atheists who umbrella all religious people the same.

Angry atheist "he is a religious person therefore a stupid person who is hindering the progress of science and mankind"

Me, "Really...? The Dali Lama?"

Some scared people hate religion to help them put order into their world.

I may have to call alanis morrisette again.

I get your point re Buddhism being unlike christian religions but it remains a fact that it is a religion. Its morality is external in the sense it comes from Dharma [teachings] and from the Buddha
Given the importance placed on no self i doubt they would say it [ or anything much] comes from within or self.
We also have the 8 fold path of which morality [ethical conduct]is one branch [ i forget the name [Sila from Google] with some rules etc

Granted i would rather be like the his holiness than the other one [the Pope].

Granted i would rather be like the his holiness than the other one [the Pope].

I'd be the Pope - you get a big hat and a massive house in Rome. The other fella just gets grief.

Mind you, I'm an atheist so I apparently have no moral rules to my guide my tawdry little life.

Me, "Really...? The Dali Lama?"

You may want to read up on exactly what sort of society Tibet was before you proclaim that the Dali lama is all sweetness and light. Oh and the straw man arguments really are getting very very old.

With you all the way CountZero 🙂

It's easy to be fearful of that we don't know.

As regards Buddhism, I tend to regard it as more of a philosophy, even though it is generally thought of as a religion. Much of my current beliefs are founded on Buddhist principles/teachings, letting go of stuff, silencing the chattering mind through observation and many more.

Mindfulness, acceptance and attitude are 3 words I came to understand and appreciate whilst working at a Buddhist Monastery in Sussex, building them a new Dhamma Hall.

The Dali Lama

Is the misspelling of "llama" part of the surreality?

seriously though, how many people reallly beleive that there religion will involve them ascending to the sky and living a life with wings and halos?
how many people following there beleifs have lived by these 10 commandments? as far as i can tell purgatory will be a very busy place from what ive experienced in my life so far, heck even the people preaching it are going to hell.
is there an animal heaven as well , and how do they know what way to live by?

Some links:

[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/bloody-athiests/page/6#post-4107807 ]Christian Today.[/url]

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism ]Rescuing Darwin.[/url]

Also lets assume these figures are correct why does this make you feel any hostility towards all religious people? If you don't what was the reason for posting the figures?

I don't feel any hostility toward religious people, just toward irrational belief, which degrades everything that we have strived toward since we crawled out of the slime.

seriously though, how many people reallly beleive that there religion will involve them ascending to the sky and living a life with wings and halos?

And if they do believe that then why do they still cry at funerals?

living a life with wings and halos

And if they do believe that then why do they still cry at funerals?

...because Wings are a truly sh!te band..?

Rusty Spanner - Member

25% of Britons believe in creationism.
50% of Americans too.

That's a pretty dicey sounding stat... Only 53% of people identified themselves as christian in the last census, even with the leading question. A followon survey found that of people that did so, only 48% believe in god. (the rest are obviously very confused, but I do enjoy the fact that half of all christians are apparently atheists)

So that gives you a stat barely over 25% believing in the christian god at all, let alone creationism. So I call shenanigans.

The above 😆

25% of Britons believe in creationism

I'd like to see the survey.

If it asked 'do you believe that the universe was created or at least initiated by a superior being' then maybe 25% is about right.

If on the otherhand it asked 'do you believe the universe was created c6000ya over the course of 6 days by the god of the Judeo-christian tradition' then I'd question it.

Creationism comes in different flavours and science hasn't yet shone light into all the possible hideyholes of a creator.

I don't feel any hostility toward religious people, just toward irrational belief, which degrades everything that we have strived toward since we crawled out of the slime

Some archaeologists think that organised religion was actually a precursor to man becoming forming organised civil structures rather than as a result of it ie. it's been an important part of mans development. There's a little bit of it at the bottom of this article about [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe ]Göbekli Tepe[/url]

Their beliefs are not protected form ridicule - there must be no blasphemy laws, no protection form ridicule about a particular belief system (protection from discrimination, of course).

25% of Britons believe in creationism

There's the problem. If 25% of society believe in something they can reasonably request that society doesn't ridicule them for it.

You may want to read up on exactly what sort of society Tibet was before you proclaim that the Dali lama is all sweetness and light. Oh and the straw man arguments really are getting very very old.

we are referring to the [i]current[/i] Dalai Lama (that's Lama with one L not the animal :?) the one traveling the world promoting peace, dialogue over conflict and the continual request of the Tibetan people to use non violent protests? Maybe because he comes under the banner of a "religious person" by default he is the bad guy.
There is a common factor with all militant arguments and that is the use of the term "straw man argument" I'm not sure if you fully grasp the meaning of this phrase?

If 25% of society believe in something they can reasonably request that society doesn't ridicule them for it.

Protection from discrimination, yes, protection from ridicule, no.

Some archaeologists think that organised religion was actually a precursor to man becoming forming organised civil structures rather than as a result of it ie. it's been an important part of mans development.

So what?
A misguided belief in a non existent creator may once have served a purpose.
That doesn't make it any less of a dangerous lie.

There's the problem. If 25% of society believe in something they can reasonably request that society doesn't ridicule them for it.

Their beliefs are not protected form ridicule - there must be no blasphemy laws, no protection form ridicule about a particular belief system (protection from discrimination, of course).

But of course if anyone were to ridicule your [i]lack of belief[/i] in a god you would welcome it and encourage it? Ridiculing is not exactly helpful in dialogue and communication!

But of course if anyone were to ridicule your lack of belief in a god you would welcome it and encourage it? Ridiculing is not exactly helpful in dialogue and communication!

Yep, speaking for myself, you can ridicule away.
It's part of human nature.

However, ridiculing a rational belief backed by scientific evidence just makes you look a bit daft.

My beliefs will stand up to any rational and scientific investigation you care to subject them too.
Yours on the other hand do not.

No they can't.
They can request it, but as there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god then their request is not reasonable - there is no right not to be ridiculed.

In this case I think you are wrong. If they believe something and they are a part of society they they have a right to ask for something whether or not another part of society thinks it is correct for whatever reason. That's just part of society. It's why the religious lobby is so strong in the US

[i]They can request it, but as there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god then their request is not reasonable - there is no right not to be ridiculed.[/i]
Does a just society ridicule others for holding different beliefs on the grounds of a lack of evidence, lack of evidence is no more proof against something than it is for it. That isn't a reason to ridicule something nor should ridicule be encouraged, there are much more effective forms of communication.

I see where you are coming from Rustyspanner, however I think ridiculing a Creationist would be futile and a complete waste of time.
I remember a thread recently about good sayings in life where someone said
"Never get into an argument with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you on experience."

There's the problem. If 25% of society believe in something they can reasonably request that society doesn't ridicule them for it.

I see no reasonable argument that suggests a position/faith/opinion is less open to criticism due to the number of people who believe in it.

And where do you define the boundaries of a 'population'? If 25% of a village believe you should sleep with your sister, does that make it OK? Village too small, what about city, or a country?

However, ridiculing a rational belief backed by scientific evidence just makes you look a bit daft.

Ridiculing any belief based on human scientific knowledge, which fails even to rationally explain the origins of life on our planet, may also make you look daft. No-one has all the answers and the biggest cocks are the ones who think they have a definite answer.

Does a just society ridicule others for holding different beliefs on the grounds of a lack of evidence, lack of evidence is no more proof against something than it is for it. That isn't a reason to ridicule something nor should ridicule be encouraged, there are much more effective forms of communication.

Well, rational analysis is how we determine whether things are true or not. It's the best system we have evolved to separate fact from fiction. Do you not believe in it?

there are much more effective forms of communication.

No-one has all the answers and the biggest cocks are the ones who think they have a definite answer.

I've never said I have the answer.
I've just said that based on the systems we've evolved to explain and rationalise every other single aspect of our lives, it is reasonable to assume that there is no god.

I see no reasonable argument that suggests a position/faith/opinion is less open to criticism due to the number of people who believe in it.

The idea is that if you are part of a society they you are also part of setting what the agreed rules of that society are. It doesn't mean there isn't a logical reason for the criticism, rather that as a group you can say that you don't find it acceptable

I'm not sure that criticism it the correct word here either. The point is that if there are a significant group of any sort they they have an influence on what is acceptable in society

Maybe because he comes under the banner of a "religious person" by default he is the bad guy.

There's the problem. If 25% of society believe in something they can reasonably request that society doesn't ridicule them for it.

An unevidenced superstitious historical belief systems with a demonstrably false account of creation and some daft laws [ and some good ones] seems to me the perfect target of ridicule no matter what number believe in it.

you could always tell people that they will suffer for all eternity if they don't believe what you tell them.

😆

EDIT: leffeboy I think we all get what you are trying to say but it really does depend. What if enough think theft is ok, infanticide, female circumcision has high belief status in some cultures or example. Some think a rape victim has to marry the perpetrator. Do we treat them all equally because [ the majority in some cases] of numbers?

If 25% of a village believe you should sleep with your sister, does that make it OK? Village too small, what about city, or a country?

Unfortunately that is [i]exactly[/i] how society works. The alternative is a dictatorship. You can argue that morality dictates that that particular action isn't correct but then we are back to the 'whose morality' question 🙁

eg. faith healers in Zimbabwean villages promoting the idea that sleeping with virgins cures aids ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6076758.stm). Completely acceptable in the local society but not in the global one

It's part of human nature.

However, ridiculing a rational belief backed by scientific evidence just makes you look a bit daft.

My beliefs will stand up to any rational and scientific investigation you care to subject them too.
Yours on the other hand do not

However, ridiculing a rational belief backed by scientific evidence just makes you look a bit daft.

Remember that scientific evidence can also be wrong (Lance 🙂 ). A classic case would be the history of ulcer treatment where even as recently as the late 80s what we believed that science told us about the cause and treatment was completely turned around [url= http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm ]with the use of antibiotics.[/url]

I'm not suggesting of course that all science is completely wrong and can be ignored - rather that a blind faith in science is just as bad as any other blind faith

[quoteDo you think he thinks he is not the spiritual leader for the Tibetan people and therefore de facto a religious person...I supect hi sdevotees and followers think he is.

I repeat [i]Maybe because he comes under the banner of a "religious person" by default he is the bad guy.[/i]
Not all religions and religious people are the same nor should they be treated so. Surely it is unfair to compare the Dalai Lama with Osama Bin Laden based purely on the grounds that they are both spiritual leaders.

EDIT: ^^^^^^Yes Fair point, ignore me on that one

Regarding ulcers was that science defeated by a scientist using science or did they have a big book of facts that they just read out loud?

edit: deleted because the point was already made. oops, I just delete the dprk bit which makes the next post confusing 🙁

25% is not a majority and that is what we were discussing

i think there is a large, no actually Huge, grey area/middle ground between sleeping with virgins to cure AIDS or dictatorship along North Korea terms.

I'm not suggesting of course that all science is completely wrong and can be ignored - rather that a blind faith in science is just as bad as any other blind faith

This is the crux of the matter. I've no problem with religious beliefs or scientific ones, none at all. I've met excellent people on either side. No-one can prove anything, and anyone who leans upon either the crutch of rationalism with all of its obvious dimensional limitations or religion with all of its critical flaws, is a fool and RIPE FOR THE PICKING.

just sign here ...

Remember that scientific evidence can also be wrong (Lance ). A classic case would be the history of ulcer treatment where even as recently as the late 80s what we believed that science told us about the cause and treatment was completely turned around with the use of antibiotics.

I'm not suggesting of course that all science is completely wrong and can be ignored - rather that a blind faith in science is just as bad as any other blind faith

I'm pretty sure your example shows that science can accept that it's wrong, and also that science *isn't* followed with blind faith. Otherwise, we'd still be treating ulcers with antacids.

The video above is an example of an Angry Atheist. The Bloody Atheist assumes all christians believe the same things the likes of the organisation AiG believes. Not all christians believe what this guy claims "his christian friends" believe, as a christian I didn't believe most of what this fool is so arrogantly claiming i believed. To me being a christian simply meant believing that God existed and that I should follow is teachings on what I now know is the Golden Rule- treat others how you yourself expect to be treated. That was it.

i think there is a large, no actually Huge, grey area/middle ground between sleeping with virgins to cure AIDS or dictatorship along North Korea terms.

Of course

25% is not a majority and that is what we were discussing

Yes, but although in a wide sense a group may be 25% in a local sense it might be much higher - a local majority. So in the case of Zimbabwe the AIDS 'solution' was local to parts of the county and elsewhere there were campaigns to stop the practice.

I'm not sure I would ever want every part of society decided completely by the majority. I guess this is why particular voting systems are important for deciding what happens along with such things as the House of Lords (opens can...)

Much of my current beliefs are founded on Buddhist principles/teachings, [b]letting go of stuff, silencing the chattering mind through observation and many more.[/b]

I'm not sure I would ever want every part of society decided completely by the majority. I guess this is why particular voting systems are important for deciding what happens along with such things as the House of Lords

you are not wrong but the HoL is not the ideal solution to that issue

I'm pretty sure your example shows that science can accept that it's wrong, and also that science *isn't* followed with blind faith. Otherwise, we'd still be treating ulcers with antacids.

Agreed, and although some people may blindly follow accepted wisdom there are others who are exploring and trying to change the understanding. Exactly as is happening with how people try to interpret what is meant by the various bits of writings and stories that religions use. However when they do that everyone is up in arms with 'that's not what you said before'

Maybe this will get lost amongst all this but anyways.

Another example of what I'm talking about here is Sam harris, he continually uses the most extreme examples of some of the rituals practiced by the Abrahamic faiths such as Abrahams willingness to kill his son to please god to today where it is still practiced to mutilate female genitalia in order that they don't have pleasure from sex and honour killings to extreme voodoo rituals. Again under the banner of "religious people".

you are not wrong but the HoL is not the ideal solution to that issue

No, but it's why democratic solutions tend to involve some sort of 'second chamber' as a balance

and he drags defeat from the jaws of victory

Unfortunately that is exactly how society works. The alternative is a dictatorship.

No, the alternative is a democracy with a constitution to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the masses".

No-one has all the answers and the biggest cocks are the ones who think they have a definite answer.

That would be (most) organised religions then...

The point is that if there are a significant group of any sort they they have an influence on what is acceptable in society

As someone who believes that it is possible to have an objective morality free from dogma, I'd have to answer again - that doesn't make them right.

You could argue (although it would be hard to prove) that a significant portion of Saudi Arabia thinks that their treatment of women is acceptable, divinely required even.

That does not make it right.

You could argue that a significant proportion of Pitcairn believed that it was OK to rape children.

That does not make it right.

We as a species are now equipped with enough knowledge, self awareness and communication capability that a common morality, unfounded on religious dogma could be stated. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Rights of the child do go some way towards this.

When determining what's right and wrong we don't need to appeal to a higher power for guidance, or do it for hope of reward or the fear of punishment. We have our own critical thinking skills. It's about time we learned to use them.