Grateful,

<<...no more presumption that atheists agree upon a set of principles or rules of conduct.>>

Atheists can still agree on a set of principals and rules of conduct - as they do with many theists - they just don’t NECESSARILY agree.

But if there is “no more presumption that atheists agree upon a set of principles or rules of conduct”, then why would you ask what a person who is an atheist would teach their children in regards to principals and conduct?

That would depend on the person, the culture they grew up in and what the society in which they live expects of them.

Exactly the same as theists.

Only theists have a sense of divine justification for their actions (good or bad) and holy books from which they can pick good bits or bad bits from to justify the good principals or bad principals by which they live - depending on whether they are a good person or a bad person - and ignore what their society’s laws and people expect of them.

I trust the above should adequately pre-empt the point you were eventually going to get to about atheists allegedly not having any moral guidance and just making it all up as they go.

Of course, my apologies if you are sincere in your enquires and I hope this clears it up for you.

Thanks AJP.... grateful.... perhaps we speak different languages?

What point are you trying to make with here... "what do you teach about guarding the tongue, or, if you like, about justice".

Is 'guarding the tongue' some arcane Biblical code that I have yet to crack, and is it the same as 'justice'?

You'd have to expand a little on 'justice', since it is a fairly large topic.

If the Biblical justice of stoning people was on the table, I'd not agree with it...or the references to enslaving people, or treating women as chattels.

If you discussed the injustice of allowing religion a tax free status, I'd agree that it is an injustice disadvantaging us all quite unreasonably.

If you were discussing the justice of the UK voting system, first past the post, I'd be inclined to say that this is a very dodgy and unjust system, as I would with the Qld system of optional preferential voting, but then I might hedge my bets too, because it really upsets me living in a safe seat where my vote never counts for a cracker, and then I'd be supporting multi-member electorate, with preferential voting, and even maybe a 'list' system too.

If you were asking about the justice of having government fund the NSCP scam, then I'd say that it was unjust and should cease.

If you asked me about the justice in capitalism, then I'd be inclined to ask you where it was to be found, as I would probably also agree with you if you countered with quizzing me on the justice of a totalitarian central economy.

'Justice' comes in different shapes, and what I see as 'just', you might regard as an abomination, although there would be many times when we agreed on what is, and what is not, just.

Can you reread AJPs post, and think again about precisely what you are trying to ask.

Can you lead the way with a examples of what this means, 'holding your tongue', and its relationship to 'justice'.... having defined what part/s of 'justice' you highlight?

AJP, TBC and grateful, please don't stop now.

Well this is amusing, isn't it?
Here we have a three way discussion between, apparently, a Muslim, a Christian and an atheist (or should that be Atheist?) and TBC argues "If the Biblical justice of stoning people was on the table, I'd not agree with it...or the references to enslaving people, or treating women as chattels."
In a world where Christians have moved on from the Old Testament but Muslims haven't, this is your typical PC ignorance.
No wonder grateful supports the idea of comparative religion studies.
At the moment, only Christianity gets much of an airing in our schools.
What better way to get Islam into the hearts and minds of impressionable young people than to introduce comparative religion studies?
This way all the multicultural teachers will have the opportunity to teach the whitewashed history of Islam, the "religion of peace".
It is abundantly clear that nobody would dare teach the real history of Islam.
They would be sacked as "racist".
Mohammedan blood-letting, throat cutting, beheading, raping, pillaging, paedophilia, forced conversions, death penalty for apostasy, death penalty for homosexuality, honour killings, female genital mutilation, etc, etc, etc, would disappear in an orgy of politically correct equality where Mohammed would be portrayed as the multicultural equivalent of Jesus.
Just another prophet of peace.
The true one, this time.
Small wonder that grateful sees his opportunity.
As for grateful's prediction that "Atheis(m) would come up second best", this is also predicated on the comforting (to him) knowledge that dhimmi Australian teachers would not dare teach the truth about the barbarity of Islam, even if they knew.
I would also like to see comparative religion studies introduced into Australian classrooms but certainly not under the current "all religions are equal" regime, which is based on ignorance and fear.
Yes, I know this is what you will accuse me of and so we go round in circles.
What can I say?
Read the Koran, the Hadith and the Sunna.

Glen,

I’ll take your comment as a compliment.

Speaking of indoctrination though, have you ever seen the BBC documentary called “Deborah 13: Servant of God”? It’s a shocking documentary similar to Jesus Camp that follows and documents the life of a home-schooled and severely indoctrinated girl for a few weeks.

The parents, while being seemingly nice, tidy-jumper-wearing Christians are absolute monsters in my books.

Proxy,

Who on Earth is the Christian among the three of us?

Speaking of which, I appreciate that you no longer deny your Christianity as you did as KMB and HermanYutic. You’re easier to take a little more seriously than before.

<<Well this is amusing, isn't it?>>

For me, it’s more “interesting” than “amusing” to have a discussion with a Muslim for a change. I am a little disappointed thought that the arguments from Muslims appear to be identical to that of Christians. You two groups share a lot more in common than either of you are willing to admit. It’s understandable though considering you both worship the same god.

<<In a world where Christians have moved on from the Old Testament but Muslims haven't, this is your typical PC ignorance.>>

Firstly, the only reason Christians have “moved on” from the Old Testament, is because secularism has dragged it kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages. So much for secularism being a “travesty”, eh?

Secondly, Christians can’t just disown the Old Testament or pretend it doesn’t count anymore, because a perfect god would be perfect from the start. Jesus wouldn’t just be able to come down and change everything unless god wasn’t perfect to begin with and this would be a fatal flaw in the claims of the alleged god’s alleged omnipotence, not to mention existence.

Besides which, the alleged Jesus even allegedly said that he didn’t come to change the laws of the Old Testament, but to uphold them...

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” (Matthew 5:17)

So no, there’s no PC ignorance there

Proxy.. yes, I forgot that grateful is claiming to be a Muslim, sorry.

But s/he sounds the same as a fundie Xtian to me, so I reverted to type for a moment or two.

"In a world where Christians have moved on from the Old Testament but Muslims haven't, this is your typical PC ignorance", but I refute the 'Christians moved on' Furphy, how on Earth can they?

And as with AJP, I am not sure who the Christian is either.

I must confess, and I think I have done this before but not on this thread, that I do not consider myself to be 'an Atheist' either.

I am, by the description of theists, an a-theist, but, to be honest, I have never thought to identify myself as this, and still do not elect to do so.

Others do this on my behalf, and I am powerless to prevent it.

There are people who wear the tag with some form of false pride, many of whom seem to be escapees from 'the faith' with a strong need to retain a membership of some sort, to something resembling the club they have just left.

I advise joining a ping pong club, or a bowls club, or something equally constructive for physical health, and leaving the need for mass assembly to .. joining the SES or rural fire brigade, or motor bike club, or cycling touring group, where all the social intercourse can be supplied, with an executive job too, if the need for belonging is too strong to ignore.

This is not to denigrate any of the above, but to point out that there are many good things to do in the community that can easily replace the coercive nature of organised religion.

I've just read AJPs post in full, so will sign off with a 'ditto to AJP' comment.