I've never seen a prominent atheist use the argument from authority. Sure, everyone uses quotes but you have to notice subtle distinctions. Generally speaking an atheist might quote someone and mention the authors name out of respect, and so as not to cause confusion and take credit for something he did not do or say. A theist almost invariably precedes or follows the quote with "the greatest", "the most famous" so and so which is a clear indication that the qualities of the person he's quoting are important for his argument.

That's why you almost always hear bullshit like Stalin was an atheist, and almost never that priests are pedophiles. Both are irrelevant for the argument, but theists are not above demagoguery. Obviously...

An argument with some snide italics in front of it is still better than no argument. You're just hammering in my point that no reasonable argument about this issue can be made by a vegan. ;)

Don't get me started on relativism... But you can't ignore the fact that there is some sort of a moral zeitgeist, also mentioned by Richard Dawkins, in God Delusion I believe. I understand it as a basically bottom up approach to morals. Something not designed, prescribed, agreed upon but more like a product of different social and cultural pressures. The argument is pretty much analogous with the much more prominent creationist v. evolutionist debate so there’s no need to get in to too much detail. And those are a different kind of morals then what we came up with evolution, which could be called baseline. In which group does the self sacrifice fall in I couldn’t tell you for certain, but I strongly believe there’s a thought process behind it. This would put it in the moral zeitgeist category.

lol, the previous debaters argued that the question is too specific, and you say it's generalized.

Anyway, that's what I wanted to hear - it takes a whole lot of apologetics, cherry picking and plain ignoring of the "word of god". That literal\non literal reading doesn't fly here because the bible is very clear about slavery. So much so that any attempt to modernize it requires such fundamental changes that it's just hypocritical to still keep calling it by the same name.

There is, but there's no deity involved. When you see a woman get hit by a man do you think to yourself: "This does not sit well with my god\parents\culture"? Well, maybe you do. But what if he hits her in the stomach? Maybe it takes her being pregnant for you? In any case there is a point where you just don't think any more, you react viscerally, what your religion, parents or culture taught you doesn’t even enter your mind and you just want to kick the guy’s ass. And that, my friends, is a universal moral law and it’s something we’ve evolved. The only ones who don't abide by it are by definition sociopaths and psychopaths.

You are, once again, ignoring the fact that the debate starter doesn't seem to be a very intelligent person, and that he posed two fundamentally different questions. So you'd be best off not to extrapolate anything. My arguments are perfectly clear, whereas you have yet to produce one. I can only suppose that being a vegan prevents you to make any kind of a reasonable argument about this matter.

You're right. The point can be generalized to probably include half the planets population. But I’m focusing on African Americans because their, and I’m trying to tread lightly here, pain is more recent. It is more a part of their culture today and they are more aware, it seems to me, of it.

In any case I suspect that most people think of African Americas when slavery is mentioned, and the debate is not about slavery itself but the irrationality of being an African America and a follower of an abrahamic religion.

I really don't have the mental gymnastics power to interpret any holy text in a way that does not clash with today’s moral standards. I leave that to modern theologians and believers, and I love watching them squirm. The verse was chosen simply because it mentions slaves. The more important and easier to follow clues can be found in the Wikipedia article.

First, sorry it took so long to reply, I’ve been busy.

I don’t exactly mean for religion to be evolving (as it indeed does, look at the newer ones like scientology), but you got it almost right. The most basic argument would be that human society evolves and religion is but one parameter you can use to gauge its progress. As it happens we are stuck with some Iron Age myth (abrahamic religions) that’s holding us back. I will none the less answer questions that do not come from the aforementioned misunderstanding:

1) It seems you’re confusing the afterlife of a person, with the real, future lives of fellow human beings. In any case, how does belief in an afterlife make you not squander the one (and indeed only one) you have now? I would’ve presumed it’s just the opposite.

2) It correlates nicely. The more we know about the world, the more our lives are pleasant, and the more religions turn out to be false. Search for ‘god of the gaps’.

3) It can have because we’re talking about the society, and it would get it from humans. If it was a natural process and humans were 100% honest with themselves it would be easier. Believers would be extinct – dying in a church, clutching a prayer book, of a burst appendix, pneumonia, rotten teeth or hunger because cars, cell phones and other products of science give non believers an enormous advantage. Actually, this hypothetical is wrong as it implies that secular humanists would let this happen and nothing can be further from the truth.

4) comes from the misunderstanding

5) It is our involvement that got rid of slavery for example. Even though abrahamic religions condone it.

6) Because there’s nothing else. It’s a scientific fact.

7) Based on arguments. It certainly should not be based on dogma.

8) see 7

9) There’s something to be said for a suggestion that we’d be better off dead then living in a society where fathers are expected to murder their sons on the whim of a god, slavery is rampant, there’s no gender equality etc. But again, see 7.

10) Totalitarian communism, fascism and nazism are exactly alike religions in every respect except their "deities" are human. Them being atheistic with respect to other religions is an expected consequence, not a precursor.

11) There’s no killing in any sane persons view of the evolution of society.

12) That is exactly why evolution is a nice word for it. Utopian society never seems to work if it’s thrust upon mankind. But if it comes gradually, based on the strength of arguments I fully expect it to be functional.

My world view gives all answers that are possible to give by anyone about any practical subject. Read it again, I mean every word of it! I personally may lack the knowledge and skill to answer, and I’m sure that someone sharing my general view would not agree with some answers I gave to you above. But the point is to get our knowledge from science and our morals from each other, and all to the very best of our current ability. No amount of threats with hell fire can convince me that the value for Pi is exactly three, and that owning slaves is moral.

We are the only “supernatural” beings on this planet. We are so because we posses logic, reason, morals, empathy and other qualities we evolved but allow us to transcend the very nature in which we evolved. We know that it is natural for a sick animal, body or mind, to die. But we won’t let our fellow human die. We won’t succumb to eugenics either. Some research might show (as it indeed does) that there are differences in intelligence between ethnic groups or genders. A model might suggest that the planet is overpopulated and that a cull of humans would be in order. Science only gives us the raw data, the knowledge. It is up to us to make use of it and boy are we in luck that there’s not one shred of evidence to compel us to obey a deity that demands we commit genocide.

We put the individual first, and everything else falls in to place more or less easily.

Nowhere have I said that there is some arbitrary classification of which animals are to be killed and which ones are not. You’ve just made that up. This debate is not even about animals, and that’s the point you can’t seem to get past. It’s about humans and trying to identify what makes us human and how to preserve it. I believe those things to be, among others, compassion, empathy, sense of fairness, reason, etc. And none of those involve killing anything for fun. And all of those hold up if you kill in a life threatening situation, i.e. strong possibility of an attack, hunger etc.

Just go about it from the other side, human side, your side. It will be much clearer…