vortexring

Good questions Jakee, although I figured it'd be apparant I am taking the misuse of religion into account, as it's what I've been harping on about. I dunno the answers; maybe burn and torture all the unbelievers I suppose... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Yes, an atheist can do whatever they like morally - just as any other person on this planet. What stops any of them from doing something "immoral?" Just because there is a list of do's and don'ts doesn't mean that any one person will adhere to them. Yes, that's rather obvious. Consider a society rather than the individual. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I think you're misunderstanding my context. Whilst you don't need God to tell you it's wrong to rape someone, what difference does it make to the rapist then? He still does it, despite knowing it's wrong too. What caused him to rape in the first place? What was his decision making process to decide to not only carry out an immoral act, but also to break the law? Would he still do it if he was religious? If he believed in God? Numerous Catholic priests abuse young boys - they're religious. They probably believe in God too. Could their belief in celebacy have contributed to their immoral actions? Is this an area of Catholic religion misapplied? I fully respect an atheists beliefs, but an atheist society? I wonder what that would be like.... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It isn't necessary to compare. I said earlier: '...if we consider moral behaviour 1000 years ago was apparantly a great deal worse, despite the vast, vast majority of the populace being religious'. The point therefore negates your comparison, because yours doesn't seem to take into account the misuse and misapplication of religion, which is essentially my further point. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You are being objectionable. Why relate the point to religion and the USA? Why not the Taliban in a more extreme case? I've already provided my answers to these points though. You take the base meaning of a point down to it's most basic root, whilst happily disregarding other important areas, to then help support your argument. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Hopefully I'll see your name on his sig line along with Kallends. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

From your initial point; it's easily apparant what should be expected of a decent and honest society. The power and the privilege has been mentioned, with my personal preference towards a religious agenda which supports the common good. The reasons why are simple. What else can provide an agreed generic moral code? If religion obviously can't, what's a better alternative? I've continually made an apparant assertion, where I've also asked a question. I continually read of answers which argue against the assertion, yet unfortunately read of very little which addresses the more important question. You're theory of apparant 'coolness' goes hand in hand with my issue of an ever increasing immoral society. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It is the norm. Most atheists are honest, upstanding members of society. Most religious people are honest, upstanding members of society. Most agnostic people are honest, upstanding members of society. Most of the rest of the people not already mentioned are honest, upstanding members of society. The fact is, most people are honest, upstanding members of society. Yes, I think they are, but, unfortunately, only to a point. The boundaries and definitions of this point are arguable. Atheists can set them as they please and see fit. People observing an agreeable and generic moral code will have them set in stone, which in itself, will make them easier to abide by. Who'll set them though? What are the chances of that happening! Goes against our nature doesn't it? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I can see your point, but I feel you can't see mine; if religion, in your opinion, can't address our increasing immoral Western societies, what can? Your points simply support a general atheism amongst a society which will only provide you with the problems we see today. I only believe my opinions through lack of alternatives. It's rather disheartening to read peoples counter arguments which consist of non religious parents being rather astute to general morality and bringing them up well, because it's readily apparant such examples in general are of the minority. How do we ensure such parentage then? As I've said before - it's going only in one certain direction. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Is this drunk typing? You've gone from fuzzy to incomplete English. A typo!!! And what if I am drunk? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

There are/have been immoral religious people, for example, jihadists. There are/have been moral atheists, for example, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, many of my own personal friends (most of which are not scientists), and millions of others I don't know. Therefore, your assertion that morality and religion go hand in hand is not true. We know for a fact that it is possible to be moral without being religious, just as it is possible to be religious without being moral, setting aside, momentarily, the fact that morality itself is subjective, not absolute. You need to either revise or abandon your hypothesis, because in it's current form, it is not correct, since there is observable evidence that contradicts it. Disagree - there is a very apparant and observable evidence our Western cultures are becoming ever more immoral. All I ask is why? What's the solution?If you feel in actual fact they're not, then hey; c'ya! My interpretation of this point is through society no longer having a generic moral code. This observation doesn't take scientists. I said earlier atheists can of course be honest, upstanding members of society. But this isn't the norm. So your counter argument therefore needs some revision. If you're so blind you require evidence for me to support my points, I no longer have any argument with you. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Mate, I so agree with the essence of your points. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I disagree. Religion can only keep people "moral" out of fear. Fear of not being loved by a presumably loving god. Fear of going to hell, not being "saved", not meeting with loved ones in the eternal afterlife. An atheist, on the other hand, actually has to choose between being "good" or "bad" based completely on their own free will. It's actually more direct and to the point. While religion may require a certain morality, morality does not require religion. Why does the application of religion have to encompass fear? That's only relating to its misuse. An atheist can arguably do whatever he or she likes morally. Not through a fear of any consequences, but through a lack of standard social morality. Through your last statement, what do we need as a society to be moral? A link to wikipedia won't cut the mustard. What will? Hence my emphasis on religion. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I think he didn't, becuase how provides the moral compass for the parents? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

The only real "moral" code you need is summed up in "The Golden Rule" of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Beyond that, there's really no need if you think about it. More here. Great! Can you now apply this to our societies? No? Why not? Have you any links to this more impertinent question??? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You're only providing points to be objectionable, on your quest to disregard religion. You're basically going back to the point I mentioned on my initial post on this thread: I'm not interested in arguing over the misapplication of religion today. My point is how we address the issues of a general society being ever more immoral. My view points to a generic moral code. I feel the proper honest encouragement of religion can at least aid this problem. All your trying to do is gob off about religion being a load of pish again. The moral code is the key here. If for you religion isn't the answer then fine! What is? Atheism certainly isn't. You can 'morally' do whatever you like then. If it isn't religion, then what's the alternative. An all enforcing police state? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Hey, I don't disagree with you when you say things were less shit in regards to your timelines and examples. Where I do disagree with you though, is that 'things' really are far more shit now in the context of general Western society and morality. It's a generalisation. If you find it disagreeable then what should I do? Provide my examples to countless issues to prove my point? Argue your further points you'd no doubt be able to provide to counter my own? I think the problem is so apparant it isn't worth arguing over, so I won't. Glad it's all nice in your reality though, as i'm also surprised you counter my claim. My hypothesis relates to a generic moral code I believe our societies lack. Are you telling me we don't need one? That everything, is in fact, peachy? C'mon!

Since it's about today why is it not applicable to talk about catholic child abusers or taliban dickheads (or at least their homegrown counterparts). Last time I checked they were both still happening, today. You mention that you're talking about religion through it's proper use and application - well there are a huge amount of people who are much more devout than you who would argue that the proper use of religion is a whole lot different from what you think it is, so in order for religion to keep us on the straight and nrrow, who's going to make sure that religion conforms to your standards? Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes? Not worth arguing over them in regards to the context of my point. Of course it's a well worthy point of contention in regards to religion in general but it simply isn't where I'd like this thread to go to. If you feel it's an essential issue then we've reached a point of disagreement; you'll therefore have to start your own little thread on this issue. I enjoyed your latter point though. I agree completely: who will ensure religion conforms to 'my' standards. What are the standards in actual fact? What body will set them? I wish I knew, hence my post. The current trend is to disregard such issues, as I've earlier alluded to. But to disregard such issues will surely only see the continuance of our ever increasing morality problems. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

That isn't the point - any similarities lie with my initial point. What are the causes then? What are the solutions? If you 'dunno' like last time, don't worry. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

A pat on the back is only a recce for a knife. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Great point: who does set the bar!? But that question lies predominantly with the problem. Bastard to answer. Regarding women working. If it supports the family unit then it can only be for the common good of the family. So it's therefore good.

I appreciate your points Wendy, especially in regards to tribalism. Iraq popped into my pea-brain when I read that. It does breakdown the question of a moral code: you're loyal to your tribal elders. But that in itself demonstrates an obvious problem if we relate it to Iraq. Consider the manipulation! Which therefore brings to mind the greater misuse and misapplication of religion. Sure, it's a problem which isn't easily addressed, but that doesn't mean it isn't addressable. (Fuck me, does such a word exist?) My point being: we have a common problem, to brush it under the carpet is morally irresponsible. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Putting evidence to one side, it's only an assertion through what I believe to be commonly apparant in our societies. Regarding evidence: what evidence do you feel is necessary? You either agree with me or you don't. If you don't please feel free to provide your counter argument. I'm not trying to position myself onto morally higher ground to then have an advantage to debate and argue with people on the subject of atheism. The important subject lies in the title to the thread. What evidence do you therefore have to disagree with my point? To be honest, I'll read it with interest. I'm not on any point scoring mission here. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

But there in your reply lies a common problem in relation to my points. This apparant lack of personal responsibility, so called 'rights' and of course; the inherent freedom to do whatever the individual choses, therefore points to an apparant solution. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'