Man can (and did) set the same laws as are put fourth in the bible. The bibles laws are also immoral compared to todays standard; things like slaying your children for disobeying and killing those who work on Sunday. The church and those who act in the name of God have also had a long history of abuse and killing. Even today in religious areas there are killings and torture done in the name of the divine. It's the laws and the morality that a society decides upon that matters, not whether or not it is religious.
I see you fall with the Neo Conservatives that believe the US is a Christian country. Neo Conservatives are no better that progressives as they believe in social change through the force of government which is antithetical to the Constitution. The US is not a Christian country but a country of many religions.
Not one of those things that you listed are found in the Bible. Since Jefferson is associated with most of them as the primary advocate he must be the originator of natural law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people I looked them up and found out they do believe in spirits. So yes, they have religious beliefs that can't be proven by evidence.
Natural law does not require a creator. Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature -- both social and personal -- and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Natural law is contrasted with the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to critique said positive law.[2] According to natural law theory, which holds that morality is a function of human nature and reason can discover valid moral principles by looking at the nature of humanity in society, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law The term “natural law” is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe. According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world. While being logically independent of natural law legal theory, the two theories intersect. However, the majority of the article will focus on natural law legal theory. http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/ It's law based on the natural condition of humanity.
I can't, the concept of not believing in fantasy is slowly fading. According to a CBS News poll over half the population still believes in ghosts.
It's also worth noting natural law isn't really natural. It has taken most of human history to come up with it.
God has set the laws of the Universe in place. You may not want to worship God but you darn sure better honor the laws he set up.
Funny, because whenever the Mayan Civilization based all of it's laws on religious obligations, it lead to mass human sacrifices. Humans would be sacrificed by the thousands to appease their God. Sounds like a just creator. Or perhaps the Massacre of Verden, where Charlemagne killed 4,500 people who refused to become Christian. I'm glad he founded his empire on natural law. Let's look at the unfortunate people of Goa, India. When the undoubtedly Christian Portugese took over Goa, they began a mass inquisition, killing hundreds of Hindus who decided not to convert to Christianity. Many were simply burnt at the stake. Isn't it great that Portugal had natural law from their creator. And don't get me started on the Muslims, who killed many people who decided not to convert to Islam. Natural law is great!
Japan,atheist...then there were the romans and Greeks who followed the philosophies of Stoicism and Epicurean both of whom were persecuted out of existence by christians ...Chinese Confucianism again a philosophical way of life and not organized religion...Buddhism another philosophy which has a following today of 300 million...
The increase in islamism cancels out any increase in atheism. back to square one for the militant dogma thumpers
I came across an article sometime last year that cited a study that found european followers of Islam converted to atheism at the same rate as european Christians...public secular education is the catalyst...
The only meaningful morality that can exist--one defined by human beings, accurate in relation to human behavior. I'm not entirely sure why you would equate atheists with pagans. Where does that like of logical shot-circuit come from? No it didn't, it just replaced those immoral practices with other immoral practices--like priests (*)(*)(*)(*)ing little children and engaging in thousand-year-long institutional conspiracies to cover it up. Child predation is nothing new in the Christian church. Which sure beats the alternative--a slow, painful death in a hospital where no one cares about you, smothered in your own (*)(*)(*)(*). Because, you know, that's really the alternative to euthanasia. Why do Christians like tormenting people, rather than offering a dignified death? Christianity does essentially nothing to prevent that. If anything it would encourage suicide--why would an atheist ever kill himself? That makes no sense whatsoever. IF this life is all you've got, suicide is totally nonsensical. Your alternative would be slavery for women. So, which is the lesser crime here? Slavery or murder? Because you can only choose one or the other. Either women own their own bodies and can make medical decisions for themselves... or they do not. Which is their choice. Absolutely ludicrous. There's no such thing as a demon, much less a "demonic possession." It's total bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Yeah, caused mainly by religious folks. What, exactly, makes you think atheists are any more likely to put up with crap from Muslims than we are Christians? I think everyone else can agree on that point.
And what credibility do these apparently anonymous "demographic research services" have? I like how you conveniently neglected the entirety of the article, instead pulling one sentence out of the entire page and hinging your entire argument on that one little tidbit. That's like quoting "an eye for an eye" from the Bible and based upon that one passage, labeling all Christians as vengeful.
In general, the people who seem the most certain that they will be taken "into his Kingdom" are the ones who seem to be fooling themselves. You should read up on what Jesus thought of the Pharisees; I see a lot of the same behavior, arrogance, and self-righteousness that were present in those hypocrites taken up as proper behavior by today's "Christians".
