vortexring

There is a subject I've quite a lot of interest in; I assume you have too. Essentially it asks the question of morality in modern life, or even; why are things so shit these days? Now, you might have recently experienced some rather positive and uplifting factors in your day to day life. Theoretically you may have shared such factors with your family and friends so naturally feel disinclined to agree with my assertion. Equally, you could have experienced the opposite. Either way, to view the subject objectively brings about a rather apparant observation... Immoral behaviour is on the rise throughout countless aspects of our societies. Could religion be the issue here? Probably not, if we consider moral behaviour 1000 years ago was apparantly a great deal worse, despite the vast, vast majority of the populace being religious. But this is about today. And I'm convinced religion is the crux of the problem. More of that later. Anyway - the commonly experienced breakdown of everything that's good in life. Where do I start? At family units commonly breaking down? Divorce rates rapidly increasing? Individualism? Power? Kudos? Wealth? I know numerous families that have broken up through work commitments. Why? Military aside, what kind of person puts work before family? It doesn't just relate to our employments; it's from simple aspects of patience and our treatment of fellow humans to drugs and setting about people with knives and hammers. Our perception of our leaders, muddled beyond any reasonable comprehension through the medias of our choice? Basic individual integrity and morality. Are we all somewhat lacking in this area? WHY? Going back to the religious point. It brings to mind atheism. Could this be the cause? I think it's simple: religion, through it's proper use and application provides a moral code which benefits us all and helps address the issues we're facing today. It's not worth harping on about Catholic child abusers or Taliban dickheads or Christian based acts of depravity through the ages. This is about today. I'm convinced we all need a generic code to live by. You may well be atheist and an outstanding example of human integrity, honesty and morality. But are your fellow atheists? Ha, are your fellow Christians? It goes back to my point though: without a code of morality, and as 'things' are going, we're pretty much fucked I reckon. What solutions can you provide? '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'm convinced it's a badger in human form or vice versa... Anyway, good to hear from you again. Been busy? '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.'

Your effort to continually provide sincere replies is commendable. '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 filthy bastard - what on earth have you been up to...???? '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 strength of the British people has always been that of a free people who take their own decisions and are ready for the greatest sacrifices to defend their freedom. How many invincible armadas has your nation defeated? How many battles has it won which everyone thought lost? Your nation has succeeded in taking up so many challenges which seemed out of reach precisely because it quite simply was convinced that its cause was right, because it had faith in itself, in its values, because in all circumstances it has demonstrated an unfailing determination and courage. In this respect, the Battle of Britain was a magnificent achievement. In the hearts and minds, even of those who fought against it, your nation has stood out through its respect of the Other, its tolerance, its way of life, its freedom of spirit which has been forged throughout a long history full of sound and fury. In all circumstances, it has succeeded in remaining itself, continued thinking for itself, and that was enough for it to embody in the eyes of many a human and political ideal. So many peoples of its former colonies have remained attached to it precisely because they had gained their freedom in the very name of the principles whose greatness it had shown them." from Nicolas Sarkozy's speech to Parliament, 2008 I like. Go on, summarize his points into a one liner! edit: Think of it today. '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.'

Ah, fair one square one. Still, when it comes to you and dogged tenacity...... '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's only a simple case of somebody not thinking through his actions. No big deal really. It's readily apparant the bloke would swim in pig poo or stab his granny in the back if it might enhance his wank career. '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'd be delighted to demonstrate. Christ, that'd be funny as fuck! Words failing your debate? Have a fight!! Brilliant '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.'

Don't be soft - have a fight! '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 guys need some 16 ounce boxing gloves and a minute to MILL! I'd be happy to provide a demonstration.

This initially might cause offence, it isn't my intention to do so. When I was a kid, to be a 'bit stingy', i.e. tight, non-generous, etc; made you a 'Jewish bastard.' I've always wondered why everyone finds it reasonable to hate the Jew. Whether they're blamed for Jesus ending up in his predicament, the price of diamonds or rents, or even for having big noses, and monopolising global wealth; why are they so commonly disliked as a race? I've heard numerous examples of why, but nothing that really seemed to apply. Is it simply racism? edit: I've read the above again - it does seem pretty anti-semitic considering the way I've written my questions. Sorry for that. It's a genuine question though. Why all the hate towards Jews? '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 applied innovation is geared primarily for consumption. Technology advances so quickly these days to make money. TV's, MP3 players, cars, cellphones.....could be an endless list here. I reckon the boffins and the bigwigs are realising they're going to be coffin dodgers soon, hence the attention.

It does seem strange; why couldn't they discover a way to simplify general life through the application of technology instead of complicating 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.'

No shit? Still shit now though. '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.'

Well, if you continue reply in such a manner I'll be happy to reply too - rather than let it all develop into a slagfest... I still have a slight issue with you stating what I said in your own words though. Petty, yes. Still, didn't you make a point earlier regarding cut and paste? But I'd much prefer this argument to be constructive. I do believe that the main reason we can see society becoming more immoral is through the increasing lack of religion amongst the general population. Now, I've kind of explained my thought process in why I've came to this conclusion, as I've also acknowledged the almost countless reasons surrounding this issue too. What I'm asking of you is to explain why this is such a wrong opinion. I'm all ears - whilst I strongly believe this to be the case I'm very interested in alternative theories. But then that goes back to what I said earlier, the numerous possible reasons all seem to point to one underlying cause. What else can provide moral guidance? If you're so quick to knock religion as being wrong, then surely you must have an alternative theory? If you are so certain of what's wrong, that surely implies you have at least an idea of what is right. So what is it then? And why? '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 means you are. Duh! Really? It speaks volumes you're now resorting to pointing out my typo's! Because not knowing the right answer does not mean I don't know what some of the wrong answers are, and you're wrong. What? Uh, no - you asked me to answer a question and I did. It wasn't intended to provide substance to my opinion about something, it was my opinion about something. I'm tempted to mention a word or two that'll only continue this nonsense. But you're boring me now. C'ya. '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.'

"Good. I guess that unlike your own arrogant self I don't pretend to have all the answers." You're arrogant manners have continually implied that indeed you do. So if you haven't in actual fact got the answers, why be so quick to cry bullshit, why be so quick to provide whithering critiscism? Why be so quick to arrogantly fucking gob off? Because if 'dunno' is all you have in providing substance to your 'considered' opinion..... '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't believe you've called me an objectionable bugger. That merit surely lies with yourself.

Jakee - he didn't say: 'Ok, so atheists don't care about right and wrong and they also want to build soulless tyrranical regimes wherever they set foot.' Explaining why you came to such an interpretation isn't THE FUCKING ISSUE. Using such means to then 'directly' quote myself as having said what is your interpretation therefore makes you the liar. So fuck off.

You never know do 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.'

'Ok, so atheists don't care about right and wrong and they also want to build soulless tyrranical regimes wherever they set foot.' Did he say that? Did I? Fucking bollox again Jakee - that's your interpretation. You've used such tactics earlier in regards to what I've said - go back and see. And then you have the fucking nerve to call me a liar. And hop up and down to get me to waste time proving you so. Tut - fucking - tut. It does make me wonder though. Do you believe society would be better if people no longer believed in God/Religion/etc? I can only assume you do. All you've read is his opinion on such a matter. Why would it be different in your opinion then? Feel free to provide your opinion. (I've asked you that a few times now - you never do, do ya!?) '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.'

Right, not because you were tired, or couldn't be arsed, or your dog ate your homework, now it's this? You haven't got a leg to stand on, have you? See earlier points regarding this. edit:'You should find it quite easy though; it's where you've 'quoted' me as having said something I never actually said. Have a look - you should find several examples now.' '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 ultimate destination of atheist thought." That in itself shows why there is more to the article than proving atheists just 'don't care.' He writes to provide what his opinion is of an atheist societies future, by simply using todays increasingly immoral society as an example. He writes critically of what he believes atheist beliefs cause in a society. I only share a somewhat similiar opinion. I can think of numerous possible reasons that can explain our increasingly immoral societies, none so better than this. '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 you don't, because you know you're wrong, and were lying. Why else would you say you were going to, then chicken out? Pretty transparent. If it makes it any easier, it's probably somewhere between pages 12 and 14. I can't be any more specific than that, 'cos I haven't got a fucking clue what statement you're talking about. 'Cos you made it up. Bollox - it's your fucking demands that make me loath to go off and find the misquoted statement. You should find it quite easy though; it's where you've 'quoted' me as having said something I never actually said. Have a look - you should find several examples now. '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.'

Where? You've said that religion can't be blamed for people doing bad things, while it is the only thing that can keep people doing good things. That's not both sides! Just saying what you think is not explaining your opinion. Your reason for thinking that religion is neccessary for society to be moral is that you think religion is neccessary for morality. Why? And he's wrong. He assumes that just because he needs something to worship, everyone must want something to worship. That is (quite shockingly) the least shallow part of his argument. He just assumes the truth of that statement and takes off from there. It's realy, really shit work. hell, look at his first paragraph; "Atheists claim they behave no worse than believers, and often better, but why should atheists care, or use such terms as "good" and "virtue" anyway?" I mean, WTF? Most atheists obviously do care, so why does the rest of the article read as if he's proved that we don't? It's risible - I wouldn't wipe my arse with it. Your questions have been answered in my earlier posts. The article isn't based on proving atheists don't care. I'm amazed that's your understanding of it. Read it again. Do I have to spell out his points for you? For fucks sake. Not likely. If it's beyond you, fine. Because I don't really give a fuck. '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.'