Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not get those that think if they can do away with religion that people will
not be doing evil things. We due to our hearts act out in certain ways due to
our nature, the 'reasons' or 'causes' for us to act that is driven mainly due to
our hearts and what is in them. If we could do away with religion, and I do not
believe it is possible, nothing wou ...[text shortened]... be much
worse too since restraints would be greatly deminished upon mankinds lusts.
Kelly

If I may give my ha'penny worth, I do not think it is easy to get rid of religion - certainly religious beliefs and ways of thinking. Consider the measures taken by the Inquisition to destroy the Jewish faith in Spain and Portugal - and the evidence they failed. Consider the survival of the Orthodox faith in the USSR. I also like the formula given by GK Chesterton - when people lose their faith in religion they do not believe nothing, they believe anything.

I am not convinced that any religion claims that evil behaviour can be eliminated. In the Christian faith we are often presented as inherently inclined to evil. We have the opportunity but not the necessity to be saved. I suspect that a Buddhist does not share this negative opinion of our nature, but they would certainly recognise that we are vulnerable to error and delusion in the absence of practices leading us to a more desirable path.

Arguably, secular philosophies like Anarchism and the athestic philosophy of Communism argue that man is inherently good and that we can create social conditions in which that will be the norm, but in both cases these are presented as aspirations. They are really models for social and political change and have to be judged by their success or otherwise in taking us closer to that ideal. Otherwise, they can be taken as critiques of existing societies and as such models by which to evaluate and analyse what is wrong - gven that so much is clearly wrong.

Whether the ideal is presented as a religious or a social / political goal, none appear markedly more successful in arriving at their destinations than Alice in Through the Looking Glass - to reach your goal, sometimes you have to walk away from it. Yet there have been many achievements and - for varying periods of time - some societies have been incredibly attractive in their various ways. I would suggest that this has been so in periods of tolerance and diversity and moderation, made possible no doubt by security from external threats and internal dissension.

When you suggest If we could do away with religion, and I do not
believe it is possible, nothing would change other than the words we would be
using to justify our actions or in-actions, I also imagine things would be much
worse too since restraints would be greatly deminished upon mankinds lusts you may in fact be reaching the core of the issue.

There are at least two related matters to be included here - one is ethics (or more generally, morality) and the other is values (or perhaps, the question of what matters, what gives "meaning" to our lives). These are surely to be seen, in your title above, as our plumb line, our spirit level, our yard stick.

When you believe that these are given to you by religion, what are you saying? It seems to me that you are describing something outside of religion and asking - can I get this something from religion, is one religion a better source than another, can I get this outside of religion? In other words, these are things that you bring to religion, not things that you take from religion.

Even religious people recognise that ethics and values must be regarded as separate to their religion, not least because otherwise there is no common ground on which to find a way of living in a world with diverse religious beliefs an practices. What we look to find in common is not religion.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You evidently didn't read the links I posted.

They include the information that despite America being conservatively 16% atheist.
atheists make up less than 1% of your prison population.
[i]
EDIT: http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
P7
"But when it comes to more serious
or violent crimes, such as murder, t basic
issues was of course dealt with because the people doing these studies are not thick.

[/i]I have started reading your links, and I think that the issue remains the same.
Answering a poll question does not mean that reality is being reflected.
I want to go through the rest.
Kelly

Originally posted by finnegan
If I may give my ha'penny worth, I do not think it is easy to get rid of religion - certainly religious beliefs and ways of thinking. Consider the measures taken by the Inquisition to destroy the Jewish faith in Spain and Portugal - and the evidence they failed. Consider the survival of the Orthodox faith in the USSR. I also like the formula given by GK Che with diverse religious beliefs an practices. What we look to find in common is not religion.

The vast majority of the world believes in God after some fashion with that you
get rules of morals passed down. Athiest are in the midist of this; however, all
that can be given from them is do as I say or do it the way I demand/want
as they try to reason with those that may not care about thier reasons.

The appeal of 'right' behavior rests now with man. If I don't want or like the
one demanding or trying to teach me his/her toughts on how I should live,
why would I do anything other than what I want, they would be no different
than I am, and if I think them less than, I'd reject their views if I didn't like
them. Once the restraints are removed people will start moving away from
one another to get what they want the way they want, behavior that is only
modified by threat goes away if the thought that it is possible to get away it.

Even with the restraint of possible punishment doesn't stop the lust of mankind
why would removing some make it better?
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
The stat from the study you cite looks like this...

None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%


Which means they are including all those who didn't want to answer the question in the
same group as atheists which means that there is no way of knowing (from these numbers)
how many of those are actually atheists.

Yes, I think those polls are open to large error, as Kelly has implied. In the american study I cited, the respondants who identified as atheist are lumped in with those who said 'other' or declined to answer at all. So we don't know what perportion are actually atheist.

However, there will also be an error on the other side: those who identified as Christian / Muslim / Buddhist / etc may consider themselves to be of that religion for purely social or habitual reasons rather than through any actual belief. As an example, some figures from the Mori poll of people who ticked Christian in the latest UK census:
Six per cent do not believe in God at all. Just a third (32😵 believe Jesus was physically resurrected, with one in five (18😵 not believing in the resurrection even in a spiritual sense; half (49😵 do not think of Jesus as the Son of God, with one in twenty-five (4😵 doubting he existed at all. so that means there are a proportion of atheists even in the 'religious' prison community.

All this make these figures quite hard to interpret.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by KellyJay
The vast majority of the world believes in God after some fashion with that you
get rules of morals passed down. Athiest are in the midist of this; however, all
that can be given from them is do as I say or do it the way I demand/want
as they try to reason with those that may not care about thier reasons.

The appeal of 'right' behavior rests now with ...[text shortened]... unishment doesn't stop the lust of mankind
why would removing some make it better?
Kelly

That's all very nice reasoning, but do the actual facts agree with it? What is yor view of the research cited by Googlefudge? Are the number wrong and if so, why? Is the interpretation (that less religious countries suffer less crime) justified and if not, why not?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The vast majority of the world believes in God after some fashion with that you
get rules of morals passed down. Athiest are in the midist of this; however, all
that can be given from them is do as I say or do it the way I demand/want
as they try to reason with those that may not care about thier reasons.

The appeal of 'right' behavior rests now with ...[text shortened]... unishment doesn't stop the lust of mankind
why would removing some make it better?
Kelly

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/matts-superiority-of-secular-morality.html

YouTube&feature=channel_video_title

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris_26_3

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Secular_morality

Originally posted by Penguin


All this make these figures quite hard to interpret.

--- Penguin

Indeed, and I would never on the basis of these suggest any causal link between being a theist
and committing crimes.

Or even that there is a causal link between the religiosity or secularity of a society and the crime rate.

However what the numbers do show is that there is absolutely no basis for the claim that increased
secularism (or atheism) leads to worse societies and/or more crime.

Which is the sole point I was trying to make.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Once the restraints are removed people will start moving away from
one another to get what they want the way they want, behavior that is only
modified by threat goes away if the thought that it is possible to get away it.

Even with the restraint of possible punishment doesn't stop the lust of mankind
why would removing some make it better?
Kelly

You seem to believe that theists live in constant fear of punishment for their wrong doings, and for this reason behave well. Are you being honest? Is that what you observe amoungst your fellow theists? Is that why you behave morally?
If punishment is your only reason for behaving morally, and no punishment would exist in an atheist society (or so you suggest), then why should people behave morally? What is your concern?
I think that you expect atheists to be concerned about the lack of morals that would prevail - yet your argument seems to suggest that any such lack of morals would not be a problem ie not a concern for atheists. You cant have it both ways.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to believe that theists live in constant fear of punishment for their wrong doings, and for this reason behave well. Are you being honest? Is that what you observe amoungst your fellow theists? Is that why you behave morally?
If punishment is your only reason for behaving morally, and no punishment would exist in an atheist society (or so you su ...[text shortened]... lack of morals would not be a problem ie not a concern for atheists. You cant have it both ways.

No I seem to believe people will march right up to the line, whatever that line
is when it comes to boundries, and some will cross them. When the lines are
gone except those they create themselves, then that will present other issues.

I do believe in a standard of correctness that is beyond human whims though
is allows for them up to a point. When it comes to what drives each person
if it isn't love than it will revolve around something more selfish.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The vast majority of the world believes in God after some fashion with that you
get rules of morals passed down. Athiest are in the midist of this; however, all
that can be given from them is do as I say or do it the way I demand/want
as they try to reason with those that may not care about thier reasons.

The appeal of 'right' behavior rests now with unishment doesn't stop the lust of mankind
why would removing some make it better?
Kelly

"...If I don't want or like the
one demanding or trying to teach me his/her toughts on how I should live,
why would I do anything other than what I want,...."

possible answers include: "because I have a morel conscience" or “because I have empathy and sympathy for others” or “because I have a sense of responsibility”.
Most atheists, just like theists, have all three of the above. Atheists ( and the more rational theists ) do not require some book nor authority nor a threat of some sort of 'divine' punishment to tell us how we morally should behave nor how we should think; we have the intelligence and independent thinking to judge for ourselves what is right and how we should think thank you very much.

Have you ever heard of “SELF-discipline”?
Or “independent thought”?
Or “personal sense of responsibility”?
Or “reason”?

Originally posted by humy
"...If I don't want or like the
one demanding or trying to teach me his/her toughts on how I should live,
why would I do anything other than what I want,...."

possible answers include: "because I have a morel conscience" or “because I have empathy and sympathy for others” or “because I have a sense of responsibility”.
Most atheists, just like theists, hav ...[text shortened]... line”?
Or “independent thought”?
Or “personal sense of responsibility”?
Or “reason”?

Have you ever heard of “SELF-discipline”?
Or “independent thought”?
Or “personal sense of responsibility”?
Or “reason”?

Yes, after spending some time here you think that everyone shares your
views upon how they need to act?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The vast majority of the world believes in God after some fashion with that you
get rules of morals passed down. Athiest are in the midist of this; however, all
that can be given from them is do as I say or do it the way I demand/want
as they try to reason with those that may not care about thier reasons.

The appeal of 'right' behavior rests now with unishment doesn't stop the lust of mankind
why would removing some make it better?
Kelly

You are mistaken and perhaps have not encountered alternatives. In particular, the classical Greek and Roman philosophers explored and debated a range of approaches to the fundamental questions of how to live a good life (and what that might be). The most attractive, entertaining and undogmatic account I have recently encountered is a book about the essayist Montaigne. Though he was a practising and orthodox Catholic, this being France in the Sixteenth Century, it was in the classical writers that he found the most useful advice about how to live. Here's a link to the book:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/24/how-to-live-montaigne-bakewell

after which the essays themselves make far more sense than on first impression. I am re-reading them at present. (The Church has vacillated about the essays; they were approved of for a long time, then placed on the index of forbidden books for a few centuries, then restored to favour. So you may take it that they are not intentionally anti religious and should not sock your little socks off - apart from the rude bits I suppose.)

You need not agree with a word of it. What you should do is accept the existence of a large range of philosophical writing about ethics, morality and values which is entirely secular in its sources. You may disagree but you may not insist that it does not exist.

As regards the need to control human lusts, which appear to cause you such fright, then I wonder what you propose to do about the many people who do not share your religion, or the many who accept no religion at all? Have you got a plan? Whatever it is, unless it is to be a theocracy, then I fear you are driven to find widely accepted standards to which your fellow man will subscribe, non believers, believers in other religions and all. If it has to be a theocracy then we are in for one hell of a fight. It has been tried already you know!

Originally posted by KellyJay
The vast majority of the world believes in God after some fashion with that you
get rules of morals passed down. Athiest are in the midist of this; however, all
that can be given from them is do as I say or do it the way I demand/want
as they try to reason with those that may not care about thier reasons.

The appeal of 'right' behavior rests now with ...[text shortened]... unishment doesn't stop the lust of mankind
why would removing some make it better?
Kelly

Even with the restraint of possible punishment doesn't stop the lust of mankind
why would removing some make it better?

If we were a group assigned the task of designing the institutions for a new country that was being set up, yours would be a good argument for including/allowing/encouraging religious institutions to be established. They have been historically where groups of people enshrine their moral codes, giving them the aura of divine authority. This also serves as a conservative force, because change in the moral code will require change in basic beliefs, which can take generations. Also, having codes of behavior that are independent of the law making and law enforcement institutions, will not be as subject to the whims of the majority, or political wheeling and dealing. This last consideration would be a good reason to set up the constitution to resist theocracy. Of course, these factors can be a two edged sword, if the times require reconsideration of the code, for survival.

This has nothing to do with whether there is a deity behind it all. But it has a lot to do with people believing there is a deity behind it all, especially those people whose moral development does not advance beyond the reward-and-punishment stage.

See the following for one view of moral development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I seem to believe people will march right up to the line, whatever that line
is when it comes to boundries, and some will cross them. When the lines are
gone except those they create themselves, then that will present other issues.

But what makes you think that lines we create our selves are any less effective than lines we do not create ourselves? In my opinion, I am far less likely to break a rule I made myself than a theist is to break a rule he thinks God made. Further, I think that theists pick and choose which rules to follow - so are, in fact, creating the line themselves anyway. They are just a lot more flexible about the line than I am because they don't take ownership of it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But what makes you think that lines we create our selves are any less effective than lines we do not create ourselves? In my opinion, I am far less likely to break a rule I made myself than a theist is to break a rule he thinks God made. Further, I think that theists pick and choose which rules to follow - so are, in fact, creating the line themselves any ...[text shortened]... are just a lot more flexible about the line than I am because they don't take ownership of it.

I can justify myself breaking any rule I place on myself with little to no effort.
I can justify myself breaking any rule you make on myself with even less.
I can speed down the highway faster than I should believing I can get away
with it, but would drive the speed limit when I see a police officer monitoring
the speed limits of traffic. Which is why I started this thread, people do
tend to take advantage of everything they can to get more out of life those
things they want. So if restraints are removed beyond what we think we can
get away with then it will evolve into that in my opinion.

DO NOT think I am claiming those that saying they are theist and those that
are not will show much of a difference in numbers now. I want to look at those
numbers but I don't think we honestly or correctly label ourselves when those
studies are being done. People sometimes write what they think they should
instead of what they actually are in how they live, people write what their
families are for themselves when they have no idea what that really means.

People jump into religion with the same goals of getting all they can out of it
without the restraints of that belief system, people are after all people! We see
lawyers, police, teachers, preachers, and so on going to jail because they have
been using that position of trust to get over which again isn't an issue with the
jobs of lawyers, police, teachers, and preachers but people.

Restraints are filters, they do not always stop all, but they stop some, and if
those restraints are taken away you get all those restraints stopped.
Kelly