What is morality without a belief in God?

[Itachi]

Yes it has.
Siddhartha Gautam
Alvar and Nayanar saints
Bhakti and Sufi saints in North India.

They all fought against injustices against lower class people and dedicated all their life to the upliftment of downtrodden. They were all religious and preached the message of one almighty except perhaps Siddharth but even his teachings had a religious element in them.

Religion infact has done a LOT to solve the problems of injustice. Now that's a completely different matter altogether that it failed in that task.

That's the point i am trying to make. Even if a religion does fight against injustice (for argument's sake), then it has failed in the task. Which brings me to my first question.

If religion was such an integral part in terms of bringing morality, how come it has failed in the task? It simply means, the morality was independent of the religion itself in the first place or.... religion may play part but the entity i.e. the morality has came out of the restrictions of religion and itself defined as an independent identity.

In both the ways, religion became irrelevant to the morality as of now.

 

[TM Riddle]

That's the point i am trying to make. Even if a religion does fight against injustice (for argument's sake), then it has failed in the task. Which brings me to my first question.

If religion was such an integral part in terms of bringing morality, how come it has failed in the task? It simply means, the morality was independent of the religion itself in the first place or.... religion may play part but the entity i.e. the morality has came out of the restrictions of religion and itself defined as an independent identity.

In both the ways, religion became irrelevant to the morality as of now.

What has failing in the task of securing equality in society has to do with religion and morality?
What people describe today morality and ethical values invariably trace their origins to the proto religion of early Humans. Our moral values are inextricably tied to our religious principles.
Moral values are ideals of conduct and thus it isn't surprising that religions have failed in their task of turning the societies into completely moral since human beings by nature are mercurial.
Our capricious nature has ensured that we would never be able to establish a perfectly moral society where everyone is treated equal and where there exists no inequalities or differences.
Religion has nothing to do with that.

 

[Itachi]

What has failing in the task of securing equality in society has to do with religion and morality?
What people describe today morality and ethical values invariably trace their origins to the proto religion of early Humans. Our moral values are inextricably tied to our religious principles.
Moral values are ideals of conduct and thus it isn't surprising that religions have failed in their task of turning the societies into completely moral since human beings by nature are mercurial.
Our capricious nature has ensured that we would never be able to establish a perfectly moral society where everyone is treated equal and where there exists no inequalities or differences.
Religion has nothing to do with that.

My reply was in context to this post:

I disgree when you say it would have developed its own moral because such a "moral" might not be what we generally define as moral. I believe it would have developed a (im)moral code that "Might is right" which is exactly what God less corporators and powerful businessmen do. Traditions,sentiments of powerless people take a back seat for their evil agenda of greed, unregulated progress and personal interests. Isolated system might move towards equilibrium but equilibrium doesnt always mean justice for all. If the powerless accept that being oppressed is their only choice, then things would reach an unjust equilibrium. Without religion, the isolated system would move towards such a state. Many social contract theorists have pointed towards such a condition in the state of nature where there was no religion.

My point was, even if such a system does exist without any religion, the system will setup itself some principle in order to survive by preventing chaos. it comes from natural instinct of self-preservation. You don't need religion to teach that. The morality differs because the level of natural self preservation differs in different people.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Right or wrong is defined by quantity. In any society, whatever the majority goes for is right and opposite is wrong in that context. As I have said earlier, morality is relative. It will depend upon the time, the people, and the place.

It could be immoral giving water to a thirsty person but when water is a rare commodity, you can justify that even.

The majority of the world still believe homosexuality is wrong, so this means it's wrong then? And say in 100 years the majority believe insect is morally fine, it will be ok then? You are saying morality changes with the views or lifestyle of society, nothing more.

The death penalty is Biblical.

Then again two million people marched against that invasion, and a lot of MPs voted against it including all fifty Lib Dems of the time. You will find few Britons now who will try to justify it and millions who think Blair is a war criminal. This despite the U.K. being largely secular now.

Murder comes in many forms. Millions are ok with killing someone if they are given reasons they agree with. So killing people can be morally correct?

 

[Itachi]

The majority of the world still believe homosexuality is wrong, so this means it's wrong then? And say in 100 years the majority believe insect is morally fine, it will be ok then? You are saying morality changes with the views or lifestyle of society, nothing more.



Murder comes in many forms. Millions are ok with killing someone if they are given reasons they agree with. So killing people can be morally correct?

You got that right. What I am trying to say is, morality changes with views or lifestyle of society. Nothing more. Homosexuality was morally wrong in once upon a time in india. But now, more and more people coming forward advocating for. Hence it has come to a point where homosexuality isn't morally wrong in India anymore.

I believe you meant incest and not insect? Incest is still prevalent in some of the societies and tribes that lives in remote places here in my place. it is morally wrong for us but it isn't for them because the society is shaped in such a way where it isn't even frowned upon.

Everything is relative in this world. Even morality. And it will change from time to time.

 

[axis]

You got that right. What I am trying to say is, morality changes with views or lifestyle of society. Nothing more. Homosexuality was morally wrong in once upon a time in india. But now, more and more people coming forward advocating for. Hence it has come to a point where homosexuality isn't morally wrong in India anymore.

I believe you meant incest and not insect? Incest is still prevalent in some of the societies and tribes that lives in remote places here in my place. it is morally wrong for us but it isn't for them because the society is shaped in such a way where it isn't even frowned upon.

Everything is relative in this world. Even morality. And it will change from time to time.

I am afraid there will come a day when not being gay would be considered morally wrong.

 

[axis]

Do you have a degree in Islamic studies , fiqh, Jurisprudence and a permission from an Islamic university/authority to interpret hadiths and derive rulings out of them?

If not, then kindly go to a learned scholar who will clear your doubts. The science of hadiths is not as simple as reading a hadith and taking its literal meaning out.

Do the Islamic universities have permission from Allah swt to give permission to others on Islam ?

 

[Itachi]

I am afraid there will come a day when not being gay would be considered morally wrong.

It may happen. As I said, everything is relative.

Woman will get pregnant via artificial means and even in homosexual relationship, they could continue parenting kids.

Or it may happen that heterosexual intercourse will be strictly for reproduction and the rest of the relationship will be homosexual.

It will depend upon the society. Today, it may look very far fetched but as time goes by, people adapt to changing environment.

 

[MenInG]

Stay on topic

This thread is not a generic religion thread

 

[Robert]

Murder comes in many forms. Millions are ok with killing someone if they are given reasons they agree with. So killing people can be morally correct?

I think this is based on a Papal edict - the deadly sin of murder is absolved if committed by a sanctified Crusader on the battlefield. Some of the Crusaders pushed the point by killing prisoners of course.

A modern humanist interpretation of this rule would be killing is acceptable as long as it does not breach the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter.

 

[Sidilicious]

A farce.

Non-religious people have no morality of their own but what they took from religious people around them or before them. Even this morality is twisted by them at their own convenience. So they can pick and choose as they please. Hence, non-religious people have a greater tendency than truly religious people to be untrustworthy and sometimes dangerous. This, because they arent bound by any strict moral codes but are generally guided by self-interests, principle of self-preservation, individualism and progress at any cost.

So what came first - religion or morality? And, are you saying that before the religions were invented, civilisation were not moral?

 

[Sidilicious]

I am afraid there will come a day when not being gay would be considered morally wrong.

It may happen. As I said, everything is relative.

Woman will get pregnant via artificial means and even in homosexual relationship, they could continue parenting kids.

Or it may happen that heterosexual intercourse will be strictly for reproduction and the rest of the relationship will be homosexual.

It will depend upon the society. Today, it may look very far fetched but as time goes by, people adapt to changing environment.

Homosexuality occurs at a similar species in all animal species, as it does in humans. But that percentage is just enough so that the species is not impacted by homosexual behaviour. i.e no reproduction.

Now, in human race, about 10% of people have homosexual tendencies. That rate will not increase as it will start impacting the rate at which we can pass our own genes. Because of evolution, the percentage of gays will not jump up.

Now, in societies such as the Romans, having sex with men was considered purer than having sex with women. But people still had se with women to reproduce. And since cultures evolve, yes, having same-sex sexual activity may become prevalent, but heterosexual intercourse will not stop.

 

[last_knight]

Knowledge is the god.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You got that right. What I am trying to say is, morality changes with views or lifestyle of society. Nothing more. Homosexuality was morally wrong in once upon a time in india. But now, more and more people coming forward advocating for. Hence it has come to a point where homosexuality isn't morally wrong in India anymore.

I believe you meant incest and not insect? Incest is still prevalent in some of the societies and tribes that lives in remote places here in my place. it is morally wrong for us but it isn't for them because the society is shaped in such a way where it isn't even frowned upon.

Everything is relative in this world. Even morality. And it will change from time to time.

I think this is based on a Papal edict - the deadly sin of murder is absolved if committed by a sanctified Crusader on the battlefield. Some of the Crusaders pushed the point by killing prisoners of course.

A modern humanist interpretation of this rule would be killing is acceptable as long as it does not breach the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter.

So as I thought.

Morals are subjective. One person or society may find something moral while others may not.

I will take what the Creator has told us, it makes much more sense.

Athiests have no answers for anything. We came by chance, we make up morals as we go long , are their answers.

 

[JaDed]

So as I thought.

Morals are subjective. One person or society may find something moral while others may not.

I will take what the Creator has told us, it makes much more sense.

Athiests have no answers for anything. We came by chance, we make up morals as we go long , are their answers.

Creator hasn't told us anything personally , humans have.

 

[RogerBao]

Creator hasn't told us anything personally , humans have.

But somebody said so, it must be true!! Btw, God bribing us with carnal carnival & threatening us with carnal carnage makes perfect sense and is the epitome of morality.

http://2pm.co/demo/2500/55/56/

https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=69&tAyahNo=32&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

 

[Robert]

So as I thought.

Morals are subjective. One person or society may find something moral while others may not.

I will take what the Creator has told us, it makes much more sense.

Athiests have no answers for anything. We came by chance, we make up morals as we go long , are their answers.

Of course the atheists will say there is no Creator, humans made up scripture and attributed it to a Creator to make their rules sound more credible to other humans. Scripture is therefore just as subjective as secular morality.

 

[troodon]

So as I thought.

Morals are subjective. One person or society may find something moral while others may not.

I will take what the Creator has told us, it makes much more sense.

Athiests have no answers for anything. We came by chance, we make up morals as we go long , are their answers.

If you follow what the creator has said, you will be in Jail bro. You know it as you live in West.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Of course the atheists will say there is no Creator, humans made up scripture and attributed it to a Creator to make their rules sound more credible to other humans. Scripture is therefore just as subjective as secular morality.

Not at all. The scriptures(in Islam) are very clear as to what is morally acceptable and what is not. These morals have been around for a long time and arguably more relevant today than ever. With secularism it's make things as you go to suit your whims and desires.

If you follow what the creator has said, you will be in Jail bro. You know it as you live in West.

I dont know what you are talking about. Im not sure you do either.

 

[troodon]

I dont know what you are talking about. Im not sure you do either.

If you follow everything that religious books say, we will get arrested. It may have been okay back in the day. But not in 2018.

 

[DeadBall]

Quote Originally Posted by troodon View Post
If you follow what the creator has said, you will be in Jail bro. You know it as you live in West.

I dont know what you are talking about. Im not sure you do either.

Well, for starters if you follow Polygamy living in the UK, you can get up to 7 years in prison.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Well, for starters if you follow Polygamy living in the UK, you can get up to 7 years in prison.

But I dont and there it's not mandatory to do so. Most Muslims dont even in countries where it's allowed.

If you follow everything that religious books say, we will get arrested. It may have been okay back in the day. But not in 2018.

Such as? Im not a mind reader.

 

[DeadBall]

But I dont and there it's not mandatory to do so. Most Muslims dont even in countries where it's allowed.

Point isn't if you or somone does or does not, point is that it is allowed by Islam and will be legally prosecuted by the law in the UK if someone chooses to act upon it. Go read your earlier condescending post when you were telling others they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Point isn't if you or somone does or does not, point is that it is allowed by Islam and will be legally prosecuted by the law in the UK if someone chooses to act upon it. Go read your earlier condescending post when you were telling others they don't know what they're talking about.

So?lol. In Islam you are also to follow the laws of the land you are living in. Your point is foolish and nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Robert]

Not at all. The scriptures(in Islam) are very clear as to what is morally acceptable and what is not. These morals have been around for a long time and arguably more relevant today than ever. With secularism it's make things as you go to suit your whims and desires.

Since there is no evidence for the existence God, there is no reason why these rules are any more valid than secular rules, which are not “make things as you go” but decided by the evolution of society as a whole.

 

[shaz619]

Since there is no evidence for the existence God, there is no reason why these rules are any more valid than secular rules, which are not “make things as you go” but decided by the evolution of society as a whole.

There are many things we can't truly make sense of Robert, for example England have all the resources and constant invesment in cricket yet they have not won a World Cup and also have not beaten Pakistan in a Test series for almost a decade now. We can come up with various theories but nothing concrete, on the other hand Pakistan remain mercurial regardless off strength or weakness.

 

[axis]

There are many things we can't truly make sense of Robert, for example England have all the resources and constant invesment in cricket yet they have not won a World Cup and also have not beaten Pakistan in a Test series for almost a decade now. We can come up with various theories but nothing concrete, on the other hand Pakistan remain mercurial regardless off strength or weakness.

How this is related to morality and God ?

 

[Robert]

There are many things we can't truly make sense of Robert, for example England have all the resources and constant invesment in cricket yet they have not won a World Cup and also have not beaten Pakistan in a Test series for almost a decade now. We can come up with various theories but nothing concrete, on the other hand Pakistan remain mercurial regardless off strength or weakness.

Eh?

 

[Itachi]

How this is related to morality and God ?

He diverted the topic towards atheist vs theist which is not the subject itself here.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Since there is no evidence for the existence God, there is no reason why these rules are any more valid than secular rules, which are not “make things as you go” but decided by the evolution of society as a whole.

Evolution hasnt worked out too well with many of the main moral issues surrounding humans. We have seen the most bloodiest wars in history in the last 100 years. WMD's produced, billions without clean drinking water, millions starving to death, divorce rates all time high, STD's a regular thing, single parent children in huge numbers, attacks on women all time high etc etc. I could list many more. We dont need existance of God to be proven to determine if his moral guidance makes sense, which it does.

 

[Itachi]

Evolution hasnt worked out too well with many of the main moral issues surrounding humans. We have seen the most bloodiest wars in history in the last 100 years. WMD's produced, billions without clean drinking water, millions starving to death, divorce rates all time high, STD's a regular thing, single parent children in huge numbers, attacks on women all time high etc etc. I could list many more. We dont need existance of God to be proven to determine if his moral guidance makes sense, which it does.

On that same note, of evolution is failed, then god has also failed in the plan he had devised. When the kids commit crime, most blame goes to the parents. God has given the authority, wish or whatever aspect you want to call it, to human. He entrusted human with those. But mankind failed. Which means, the executioner of the plan has also failed who couldn't see the outcome of the decision that he has made.

If at modern times, if you believe morality is shaking, evolution or god.... Both has the same role depending upon which perspective you want to see. And both has failed if I go by your claim.

 

[shaz619]

Eh?

What?

 

[KingKhanWC]

On that same note, of evolution is failed, then god has also failed in the plan he had devised. When the kids commit crime, most blame goes to the parents. God has given the authority, wish or whatever aspect you want to call it, to human. He entrusted human with those. But mankind failed. Which means, the executioner of the plan has also failed who couldn't see the outcome of the decision that he has made.

If at modern times, if you believe morality is shaking, evolution or god.... Both has the same role depending upon which perspective you want to see. And both has failed if I go by your claim.

God can't fail, by definition if he did he wouldnt be God. According to God mankind is destined to fail in so many ways but many of mankind will also not fail, so not sure what you have read.

 

[Itachi]

God can't fail, by definition if he did he wouldnt be God. According to God mankind is destined to fail in so many ways but many of mankind will also not fail, so not sure what you have read.

Then how come you can accuse the athiest way of representing hit and trial plus adaptation method as fail?

A group of people may indulge in to crime but even then, humanity still exists in mankind.

I'll make this clear.

In your case, the driven force is god.

In my case, the driven force is evolution, adaptation.

If the result is same, how come you can say that god can never fail yet evolution has failed since both the entity is involved in the same result but just different driving force from different perspective?

 

[Robert]

Evolution hasnt worked out too well with many of the main moral issues surrounding humans. We have seen the most bloodiest wars in history in the last 100 years. WMD's produced, billions without clean drinking water, millions starving to death, divorce rates all time high, STD's a regular thing, single parent children in huge numbers, attacks on women all time high etc etc. I could list many more. We dont need existance of God to be proven to determine if his moral guidance makes sense, which it does.

Those are questionable indicators of morality. Humans have always had the capacity for destruction, but the technological means has increased. Yet now WMDs are so terrible that they safeguard peace. There have always been food and water shortages.

Though I think Western society became kinder after the “God” memeplex began to decline. Nearly everyone believed in God during WW1 and WW2. Attacks on women have declined as feminism has taken root, but reporting rates have risen so we are more aware. Divorce isn’t evil, it’s a symptom of people choosing to be happy rather than stay in miserable relationships.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Those are questionable indicators of morality. Humans have always had the capacity for destruction, but the technological means has increased. Yet now WMDs are so terrible that they safeguard peace. There have always been food and water shortages.

Though I think Western society became kinder after the “God” memeplex began to decline. Nearly everyone believed in God during WW1 and WW2. Attacks on women have declined as feminism has taken root, but reporting rates have risen so we are more aware. Divorce isn’t evil, it’s a symptom of people choosing to be happy rather than stay in miserable relationships.

Nearly everyone believes in God even now but some only when they find themselves in certain circumstances, mostly when they need help. Technology such as nuclear weapons and other wmds are morally wrong to create, keep or use. Sure it's a deterrent but they have been used with justification a number of times and will be used again, possibly to the point of huge loss of life and destruction to the planet.



Can you show me some proof the world is becoming morally better because humans are evolving? I see no evidence at all but plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[RogerBao]

Nearly everyone believes in God even now but some only when they find themselves in certain circumstances, mostly when they need help. Technology such as nuclear weapons and other wmds are morally wrong to create, keep or use. Sure it's a deterrent but they have been used with justification a number of times and will be used again, possibly to the point of huge loss of life and destruction to the planet.

Can you show me some proof the world is becoming morally better because humans are evolving? I see no evidence at all but plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Believing in God and believing in a book claimed to be from God are not the same thing. It could well be the author at that point of time put a divinity stamp on it to further his interest, whatever that it.

 

[Robert]

Nearly everyone believes in God even now but some only when they find themselves in certain circumstances, mostly when they need help. Technology such as nuclear weapons and other wmds are morally wrong to create, keep or use. Sure it's a deterrent but they have been used with justification a number of times and will be used again, possibly to the point of huge loss of life and destruction to the planet.



Can you show me some proof the world is becoming morally better because humans are evolving? I see no evidence at all but plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

When nuclear weapons were used they actually saved far more lives than they claimed, if you think about what was going to happen if they were not used.

Evidence that human morality is evolving.... restricting myself to the U.K... the long term drop in murder rate. No more child labour. Much better protection of children under law. Acknowledgement of spousal rape. A drop in racist attacks overall since the 1950s. More and more people switching to vegetarianism or veganism. Growing commitment to environmentalism and animal welfare.

 

[KingKhanWC]

When nuclear weapons were used they actually saved far more lives than they claimed, if you think about what was going to happen if they were not used.

Evidence that human morality is evolving.... restricting myself to the U.K... the long term drop in murder rate. No more child labour. Much better protection of children under law. Acknowledgement of spousal rape. A drop in racist attacks overall since the 1950s. More and more people switching to vegetarianism or veganism. Growing commitment to environmentalism and animal welfare.

We have discussed this many times, nukes were not needed as Japan was ready to surrender. Dont take my word for it but the person in charge of the war from the US. You are morally justifying dropping a nuclear weapon on thousands of people because it MAY have saved lives. I know you mean well but this thought process opens up a can of worms, esp in terms of per-emptive strikes which imo are not morally correct unless you are about to be attacked instantly.

I agree the UK as a nation has implemented a lot of positive morals in it's society, which is one of the reasons I love being a part of this nation. But those morals you mention are no different to morals set by religion. What is more interesting is to judge those morals which religion hold dear but a secular society based on evolution does not. So let me ask, do you accept it's immoral to have multiple intimate partners? Do you accept it's immoral to charge huge amounts of interest on loans to people who are struggling as it is?

 

[saadibaba]

My relatively obvious conclusion is that there is no difference between the religious people, atheists and agnostics when it comes to morality. Atheists navigate their morality through a larger public discourse within the societies in which they socialise. Agnostics have the similar tendencies when it comes to morality. Religious people on the other hand are slightly, but not drastically, different from atheists and agnostics when it comes to morality. Their morality is also informed by a larger social discourse around them, however their tendency is to project their morality on their religions. For example, the Christians justified the system slavery by using the same biblical verses as the opponents of slavery used to deligitimise slavery. Similarly, Muslims have justified violence through quoting Quranic verses and the other Muslims have chosen the path of peace by giving references of Quran. Hindus have defended cast system for more than a millennia and they are now using Hinduism to deligetimise the cast system. The fact of the matter is that it’s the societal discourse that shape our morality and moral values on which we project our religious beliefs. Morality is infinitely malleable and so are the religious beliefs. The fact is that it is we who use religion and God to legitimise and further our morality and self interests.

Top Post! Cannot agree more.

 

[RogerBao]

I agree the UK as a nation has implemented a lot of positive morals in it's society, which is one of the reasons I love being a part of this nation. But those morals you mention are no different to morals set by religion. What is more interesting is to judge those morals which religion hold dear but a secular society based on evolution does not. So let me ask, do you accept it's immoral to have multiple intimate partners? Do you accept it's immoral to charge huge amounts of interest on loans to people who are struggling as it is?

What religious morality? For instance, the Bible (Deuteronomy 13:6-9) allows you to murder apostates. The Quran (24:33) allows you to pimp your maids etc. Today most religionists will find this abhorring & disgsuting. Why? Because they follow secular moralls blindly or their own consciense tells them these are wrong?

 

[Robert]

We have discussed this many times, nukes were not needed as Japan was ready to surrender. Dont take my word for it but the person in charge of the war from the US. You are morally justifying dropping a nuclear weapon on thousands of people because it MAY have saved lives. I know you mean well but this thought process opens up a can of worms, esp in terms of per-emptive strikes which imo are not morally correct unless you are about to be attacked instantly.

I agree the UK as a nation has implemented a lot of positive morals in it's society, which is one of the reasons I love being a part of this nation. But those morals you mention are no different to morals set by religion. What is more interesting is to judge those morals which religion hold dear but a secular society based on evolution does not. So let me ask, do you accept it's immoral to have multiple intimate partners? Do you accept it's immoral to charge huge amounts of interest on loans to people who are struggling as it is?

It did save a million lives. Maybe five million, according to US military estimates. As the USMC saw on Okinawa, the Japanese were not ready to surrender and defended their land with utter ferocity. The nukes gave Hirohito the excuse to surrender while saving face before the new technological terror. The alternative was continued saturation firebombing of cities (the Tokyo raid killed more than the nukes), and either mass starvation by naval blockade or the most bloody of WW2 battles following invasion.

Churchill allowed Coventry to be destroyed by the Luftwaffe, rather than defend it and let them know Enigma had been cracked. Thousands died but the war was shortened and millions were saved.

Morality comes down to utilitarianism in such cases.

As for your first question - I have no problem with it.

As for your second, yes these legalised loan shark firms should be outlawed.

 

[troodon]

What religious morality? For instance, the Bible (Deuteronomy 13:6-9) allows you to murder apostates. The Quran (24:33) allows you to pimp your maids etc. Today most religionists will find this abhorring & disgsuting. Why? Because they follow secular moralls blindly or their own consciense tells them these are wrong?

But but without religion, we will all be going on a crime spree according to some posters.

Killing apostates/infidels, having concubines is just a few things we have to ignore for all the other benefits that religion brings

 

[KingKhanWC]

What religious morality? For instance, the Bible (Deuteronomy 13:6-9) allows you to murder apostates. The Quran (24:33) allows you to pimp your maids etc. Today most religionists will find this abhorring & disgsuting. Why? Because they follow secular moralls blindly or their own consciense tells them these are wrong?

I dont follow the bible and no the Quran doesn't allow you to pimp your maids. I would suggest you refrain from making up stupid allegations. If you want to debate this , post in the relevant thread.

 

[KingKhanWC]

It did save a million lives. Maybe five million, according to US military estimates. As the USMC saw on Okinawa, the Japanese were not ready to surrender and defended their land with utter ferocity. The nukes gave Hirohito the excuse to surrender while saving face before the new technological terror. The alternative was continued saturation firebombing of cities (the Tokyo raid killed more than the nukes), and either mass starvation by naval blockade or the most bloody of WW2 battles following invasion.

Churchill allowed Coventry to be destroyed by the Luftwaffe, rather than defend it and let them know Enigma had been cracked. Thousands died but the war was shortened and millions were saved.

Morality comes down to utilitarianism in such cases.

As for your first question - I have no problem with it.

As for your second, yes these legalised loan shark firms should be outlawed.

Eisenhower and many others believe it wasn't required. It was a political move not a self defence one, therefore an act of state terrorism. Of course if you believe UK, US were the good guys and thus couldn't do no wrong it would be hard to criticise this act against humanity. Lets agree to disagree but you have made my point which was morals are subjective. Evolved people think it's ok to drop nukes and perhaps also chemical weapons on towns such as Fallujah where babies were born after with defects because it would save the lives of the good guys of soldiers from UK and US. Let me ask you, Do you agree with using chemical weapons on a town if it meant 20 British soldiers lives were saved ?

Appreciate your honesty as always Robert. So for a 18 year old woman to have 3/4 partners at the same time is morally fine in your view. This is not human evolution, this is backward mentality where a human being cannot feel love with one person, thus needs multiple partners, which then can result into stds, unwanted pregnancies, broken homes, abuse, mental health problems etc. This is why religion can be far advanced because it believes in the family structure. And interest is how the world is run, it has been around since time but never on this level where the world is enslaved by debt while the lenders, the rich are getting richer on the misery of others. I don't see how these two examples show humans have evolved in any positive ways but the opposite.

Heres another one. Is it morally right for two gay men to adopt a child?

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Top Post! Cannot agree more.

Thank you.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

The more pertinent question is; what is morality with the belief in God?

 

[Robert]

Eisenhower and many others believe it wasn't required. It was a political move not a self defence one, therefore an act of state terrorism. Of course if you believe UK, US were the good guys and thus couldn't do no wrong it would be hard to criticise this act against humanity.

Hmm, Ike didn’t seem to have a problem with burning alive millions of NK civilians in 1950-52 with massive B-29 napalm strikes, on a scale that dwarfed the combined efforts of the RAF and USAAF in the European and Pacific theatres of WW2 including the two A-bomb raids, razing a whole country to ash. I wonder why he balked at the use of the nukes when he unleashed far greater destruction?

Lets agree to disagree but you have made my point which was morals are subjective. Evolved people think it's ok to drop nukes and perhaps also chemical weapons on towns such as Fallujah where babies were born after with defects because it would save the lives of the good guys of soldiers from UK and US. Let me ask you, Do you agree with using chemical weapons on a town if it meant 20 British soldiers lives were saved ?

No, that is a false equivalence with the Pacific theatre of WW2 which was colossally larger involving the fate of millions not just twenty.

Using DU penetrators in a town made no earthly sense anyway. Those weapons were designed to destroy tanks on a battlefield, not guerilla fighters. BTW 98% by weight of such weapons were fired by US forces, though the British Army’s Challenger II tanks loosed off a few at Saddam’s armour.

And I think most people agree now that the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Applying utilitarianism again, any atrocities which might have been perpetrated by Saddam had he remained in power are dwarfed by the total enhanced morbidity due to collapsed infrastructure, refugee crisis and the rise of ISIL.

Appreciate your honesty as always Robert. So for a 18 year old woman to have 3/4 partners at the same time is morally fine in your view. This is not human evolution, this is backward mentality where a human being cannot feel love with one person, thus needs multiple partners, which then can result into stds, unwanted pregnancies, broken homes, abuse, mental health problems etc.

What this hypothetical young woman does with her body is simply not my business. If she wants to sow her wild oats then fine by me.

This is why religion can be far advanced because it believes in the family structure. And interest is how the world is run, it has been around since time but never on this level where the world is enslaved by debt while the lenders, the rich are getting richer on the misery of others. I don't see how these two examples show humans have evolved in any positive ways but the opposite.

When said hypothetical young woman has finished playing the field she can settle down with one life partner and marry and have kids.

I took out plenty of loans and never considered myself enslaved.

Heres another one. Is it morally right for two gay men to adopt a child?

Sure, if they provide the kid with a safe and loving home which it would otherwise be denied then good on them.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Hmm, Ike didn’t seem to have a problem with burning alive millions of NK civilians in 1950-52 with massive B-29 napalm strikes, on a scale that dwarfed the combined efforts of the RAF and USAAF in the European and Pacific theatres of WW2 including the two A-bomb raids, razing a whole country to ash. I wonder why he balked at the use of the nukes when he unleashed far greater destruction?

Nuclear weapons were the most powerful weapons and they also put on a big show when used. The world had never seen a nuclear weapon used on civillians. The US used this opportunity to show a force of strength and send a message to others. Nothing else compares to the sight we are now so used to seeing over and over again.

No, that is a false equivalence with the Pacific theatre of WW2 which was colossally larger involving the fate of millions not just twenty.

Using DU penetrators in a town made no earthly sense anyway. Those weapons were designed to destroy tanks on a battlefield, not guerilla fighters. BTW 98% by weight of such weapons were fired by US forces, though the British Army’s Challenger II tanks loosed off a few at Saddam’s armour.

And I think most people agree now that the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Applying utilitarianism again, any atrocities which might have been perpetrated by Saddam had he remained in power are dwarfed by the total enhanced morbidity due to collapsed infrastructure, refugee crisis and the rise of ISIL.

[\QUOTE]

I agree which is why you have to be very careful using force in any circumstance. What Im saying is man has evolved to a stage where it will use force believing it's morally right to do so without thinking of the consequences. It's interesting religion gives so much importance to only use force as last result, in self defence. Poisoning of wells was prohibited, therefore it was religion(Islam) which banned the use of chemical warfare a very long time ago. There are no circumstances you can use such weapons of mass destruction, even if you are being attacked. The evolved secular man will never hold on to such morals.



[QUOTEWhat this hypothetical young woman does with her body is simply not my business. If she wants to sow her wild oats then fine by me.



When said hypothetical young woman has finished playing the field she can settle down with one life partner and marry and have kids.

I agree if it's not our business and there is no harm to society then sure he/she can do what they want but humans live in communities, what one does can potentially harm others. We see in society, we end up paying taxes, having to deal with bad behaviour which infringes upon your life because people have morally evolved to such freedom where they feel they can do what they like. If my actions have a negative effect on your life or the society around me, it's is everyones business.

I took out plenty of loans and never considered myself enslaved.

Not everyone can manage, many dont including nations. Look at Pakistan it's in so much debt and due to the interest it has to pay it will stuck in this debt 10% of $1 billion is a lot which means people dont get the services they need. The country borrows more to pay of existing debts. Not every nation can go around the world selling arms, invading others to keep themselves wealthy. The majority of the world nations are not rich. The same for people, debt has gone out of control which means the people are enslaved as they are not free do what they wish. The debt in society can also owed more than what the income of society is, therefore you will never be debt free. Again with evolution, lending money with interest has become normal without looking into the moral aspect.

Sure, if they provide the kid with a safe and loving home which it would otherwise be denied then good on them.

Sounds great but is it morally correct for a child to subjected to way of life which is not normal? The kid could be taunted, bullied, made to feel he/she is different. If the child is a girl she may not be able to talk to father and father when it's woman issues. Again this is evolution which is more about the selfish nature of man, doing what he/she wants and making it morally ok.

 

[James]

Sounds great but is it morally correct for a child to subjected to way of life which is not normal? The kid could be taunted, bullied, made to feel he/she is different. If the child is a girl she may not be able to talk to father and father when it's woman issues. Again this is evolution which is more about the selfish nature of man, doing what he/she wants and making it morally ok.

I disagree with you on this one.

The majority of adopted children in the UK come from the care system and are often between foster families when they are identified for adoption, so an extensively vetted and steady income gay couple are likely to provide a far better growth environment for the child - or children, if they come as 2 or 3 siblings - than (a) whatever hell the kids were initially pulled out of and (b) the uncertain futures that they then faced.

Also I don’t wish to go into the detail in terms of how many children in the care system get sexually abused, but the official numbers are frightening and then what goes unreported is far more widespread. Thousands of children have their lives essentially ruined before the age of ten.

Yes ideally a child would be born into a heterosexual married couple and grow up with one mother, one father, maybe a sibling or two, in a nice house that the parents own and maintain via a £40,000+ household income, allowing them to nurture and protect the child throughout its young life and ensuring it attends good schools and is well socialised. Many children are lucky enough to experience this very scenario -

....But sadly many others are not, and in life we don’t always get to choose the ideal scenario, we have to make the best of what we have.

 

[Robert]

Nuclear weapons were the most powerful weapons and they also put on a big show when used. The world had never seen a nuclear weapon used on civillians. The US used this opportunity to show a force of strength and send a message to others. Nothing else compares to the sight we are now so used to seeing over and over again.

That message had to be sent. WW3 could very easily have broken out in the late 1940s with a Soviet invasion of Europe. Again - 100K die but millions are spared.

I agree if it's not our business and there is no harm to society then sure he/she can do what they want but humans live in communities, what one does can potentially harm others. We see in society, we end up paying taxes, having to deal with bad behaviour which infringes upon your life because people have morally evolved to such freedom where they feel they can do what they like. If my actions have a negative effect on your life or the society around me, it's is everyones business.

I don’t see how an 18 year old girl with multiple partners affects my life negatively in any way. As long as she is not getting hurt.

I am interested as to why you pick a young woman as an example and not a young man. Is it ok by you for lads to do this and not girls? Why?

Not everyone can manage, many dont including nations. Look at Pakistan it's in so much debt and due to the interest it has to pay it will stuck in this debt 10% of $1 billion is a lot which means people dont get the services they need. The country borrows more to pay of existing debts. Not every nation can go around the world selling arms, invading others to keep themselves wealthy. The majority of the world nations are not rich. The same for people, debt has gone out of control which means the people are enslaved as they are not free do what they wish. The debt in society can also owed more than what the income of society is, therefore you will never be debt free. Again with evolution, lending money with interest has become normal without looking into the moral aspect.

Usury isn’t a problem for me - trouble only starts if a person can’t keep up the payments. I don’t know about Pakistan so let us talk about Greece. Their leaders were incompetent by borrowing more and more and the people pay the price. They should have elected responsible leaders who payed off one round of debt before borrowing more.

Sounds great but is it morally correct for a child to subjected to way of life which is not normal? The kid could be taunted, bullied, made to feel he/she is different. If the child is a girl she may not be able to talk to father and father when it's woman issues. Again this is evolution which is more about the selfish nature of man, doing what he/she wants and making it morally ok.

What you are doing here is saying that prejudice against kids of gay couples is ok. Akin to saying that Pakistani families should not be allowed to have kids in case white racist school kids bully them.

This hypothetical girl child might have a rotten relationship with one or the other hetero parent and be unable to talk to them, suffering long term personality problems as a result. In my view the child would be better off with a loving gay couple than a damaging hetero one. The parents might be so bad that the state intervenes and takes the kid away, giving her to a gay couple to repair the personal and societal damage. Utilitarianism again.

 

[RogerBao]

That message had to be sent. WW3 could very easily have broken out in the late 1940s with a Soviet invasion of Europe. Again - 100K die but millions are spared.

All weapons are potentially destructive & evil. Most humans at least has evolved enough to accept that it is wrong. Politicians & warmongers justifying it, is another issue.

I don’t see how an 18 year old girl with multiple partners affects my life negatively in any way. As long as she is not getting hurt.

I am interested as to why you pick a young woman as an example and not a young man. Is it ok by you for lads to do this and not girls? Why?

FYI, in Arabic aurat means private part. In Urdu it means woman. Now get it?

Usury isn’t a problem for me - trouble only starts if a person can’t keep up the payments. I don’t know about Pakistan so let us talk about Greece. Their leaders were incompetent by borrowing more and more and the people pay the price. They should have elected responsible leaders who payed off one round of debt before borrowing more.

Usury is not without problem, especially when the borrower is in a desperate situation & the lender is abusive. Compationate capitalism is the way to go. For those who are looking from a religious angle, usury (Riba) for believers shouldn't be bad just beacause the God said so just as humiliation tax (Jizyah) on disbelievers can't be good just because God said so. Each issue has it's merit/demerit & shall be addressed accordingly. Same goes for atheists.

What you are doing here is saying that prejudice against kids of gay couples is ok. Akin to saying that Pakistani families should not be allowed to have kids in case white racist school kids bully them.

This hypothetical girl child might have a rotten relationship with one or the other hetero parent and be unable to talk to them, suffering long term personality problems as a result. In my view the child would be better off with a loving gay couple than a damaging hetero one. The parents might be so bad that the state intervenes and takes the kid away, giving her to a gay couple to repair the personal and societal damage. Utilitarianism again.

Being gay is your right, married as a gay couple is also your right but you do not have the right to decide an infant/young child should have gay parents. If it's a teenager who makes a concious choice to be cared by same sex couples, then it's up to him/her.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I disagree with you on this one.

The majority of adopted children in the UK come from the care system and are often between foster families when they are identified for adoption, so an extensively vetted and steady income gay couple are likely to provide a far better growth environment for the child - or children, if they come as 2 or 3 siblings - than (a) whatever hell the kids were initially pulled out of and (b) the uncertain futures that they then faced.

Also I don’t wish to go into the detail in terms of how many children in the care system get sexually abused, but the official numbers are frightening and then what goes unreported is far more widespread. Thousands of children have their lives essentially ruined before the age of ten.

Yes ideally a child would be born into a heterosexual married couple and grow up with one mother, one father, maybe a sibling or two, in a nice house that the parents own and maintain via a £40,000+ household income, allowing them to nurture and protect the child throughout its young life and ensuring it attends good schools and is well socialised. Many children are lucky enough to experience this very scenario -

....But sadly many others are not, and in life we don’t always get to choose the ideal scenario, we have to make the best of what we have.

Fair points James. Am I right in saying if children are of a certain age, they are able to choose the family they are placed into? If this is not the case would it be morally right to put children into a gay family when they might not be comfortable with the idea? OF course Im talking of teenagers not younger children.

 

[KingKhanWC]

That message had to be sent. WW3 could very easily have broken out in the late 1940s with a Soviet invasion of Europe. Again - 100K die but millions are spared.

Again this is one opinion millions were spared. But in religion(Islam) you do not use violent brute force which kills innocent people indiscriminately to save lives further down the road. The moral difference between religion and the secular evolved man. This difference will one day prove to be a disaster for the secular evolved man, because they will attack on the premise of pre-emptive strike which will result in mass deaths for no reason and damage to the planet with such weapons. Iraq is the proof it has already happened.

I don’t see how an 18 year old girl with multiple partners affects my life negatively in any way. As long as she is not getting hurt.

I am interested as to why you pick a young woman as an example and not a young man. Is it ok by you for lads to do this and not girls? Why?

Because it's the young women who are suffering more than men. In the UK we now have shelters for single young mothers, these are often filled with drug abuse and violence which will impact the society. I dont live too far from one so see it first hand. How is the evolved man become more moral when young women are living such lifes and this is very normal now, not the shelters but the life they are living.

Usury isn’t a problem for me - trouble only starts if a person can’t keep up the payments. I don’t know about Pakistan so let us talk about Greece. Their leaders were incompetent by borrowing more and more and the people pay the price. They should have elected responsible leaders who payed off one round of debt before borrowing more.

Its great your are but many in the UK are not. You haven't heard of the personal debt crisis in the UK and how it is forcing millions to struggle? Sure it's their fault but also the fault of a interest based society which pushes people into debt.

What you are doing here is saying that prejudice against kids of gay couples is ok. Akin to saying that Pakistani families should not be allowed to have kids in case white racist school kids bully them.

This hypothetical girl child might have a rotten relationship with one or the other hetero parent and be unable to talk to them, suffering long term personality problems as a result. In my view the child would be better off with a loving gay couple than a damaging hetero one. The parents might be so bad that the state intervenes and takes the kid away, giving her to a gay couple to repair the personal and societal damage. Utilitarianism again.

So its last resort but it's better if the child isn't homed into a gay family over a hetero family?

 

[James]

Fair points James. Am I right in saying if children are of a certain age, they are able to choose the family they are placed into? If this is not the case would it be morally right to put children into a gay family when they might not be comfortable with the idea? OF course Im talking of teenagers not younger children.

At least initially it is less about being choosy and more about the “perfect match” - which is based on every conceivable aspect of both parties, and decided by experienced adoption agencies usually under the oversight of a local council authority.

What I do know is that there is always a trial adoption period of (absolute minimum) 10 weeks, wherein the parents or the child have the window to essentially “reject” each other and go their separate ways, that is before the parents can legally apply for the child to become theirs. This adds an element of conscious choice at least.

 

[KingKhanWC]

At least initially it is less about being choosy and more about the “perfect match” - which is based on every conceivable aspect of both parties, and decided by experienced adoption agencies usually under the oversight of a local council authority.

What I do know is that there is always a trial adoption period of (absolute minimum) 10 weeks, wherein the parents or the child have the window to essentially “reject” each other and go their separate ways, that is before the parents can legally apply for the child to become theirs. This adds an element of conscious choice at least.

Thanks, makes sense. Thinking back it was probably a bad example for this topic. Just because someone is homosexual doesn't mean they are bad people with bad morals, even if their lifestyle goes against the morals I believe in.

 

[Robert]

Again this is one opinion millions were spared. But in religion(Islam) you do not use violent brute force which kills innocent people indiscriminately to save lives further down the road. The moral difference between religion and the secular evolved man. This difference will one day prove to be a disaster for the secular evolved man, because they will attack on the premise of pre-emptive strike which will result in mass deaths for no reason and damage to the planet with such weapons. Iraq is the proof it has already happened.

You’re confusing the whole secular Western morality with that of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and latterly Blair here - all of whom are Christians. As I said, a very substantial number of secular Britons hold them to be war criminals.

Trueman was Christian but nuked Japan. Ike was Christian too and yet he killed all those NK civilians.

Because it's the young women who are suffering more than men. In the UK we now have shelters for single young mothers, these are often filled with drug abuse and violence which will impact the society. I dont live too far from one so see it first hand. How is the evolved man become more moral when young women are living such lifes and this is very normal now, not the shelters but the life they are living.

Whereas there used to be the workhouse and the Magdalene Asylums and such, run by the church. The difference between those and modern women’s shelters is that the women were blamed then, as though their sin got them into strife instead of abuser men. But now the men are blamed.

I know plenty of women who sowed their wild oats when younger and none ended in such places. My understanding is that girls who do are often damaged by bad relationships with their fathers.

Its great your are but many in the UK are not. You haven't heard of the personal debt crisis in the UK and how it is forcing millions to struggle? Sure it's their fault but also the fault of a interest based society which pushes people into debt.

Usury doesn’t push people into debt of itself. Lack of self-control by the debtor does. In any event the practice is centuries old in the West, it’s not a modern secular invention.

So its last resort but it's better if the child isn't homed into a gay family over a hetero family?

I doubt that as it would be illegal under the Equality Act. It’s down to the adoption agencies whom they place with whom, under law.

 

[DeadBall]

FYI, in Arabic aurat means private part. In Urdu it means woman. Now get it?

It does not mean private parts as in the sense you are referring to. Given the context, it could be anything from the face to the voice of a woman. In Arabic it comes from the root word "awrah" which can mean anything having a defect, being imperfect, being weak, vulnerable or even the modesty of a person (nakedness). In fact in Arabic, Awar also means someone who is blind/defected in one eye.

The Urdu word Aurat from its Farsi root could be translated into a state of nakedness, vulnerability or weakness though, basically an inferior being or someone that needs protection.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You’re confusing the whole secular Western morality with that of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and latterly Blair here - all of whom are Christians. As I said, a very substantial number of secular Britons hold them to be war criminals.

Trueman was Christian but nuked Japan. Ike was Christian too and yet he killed all those NK civilians.

They are all elected in a secular nation and supported by secular people. Besides they are only Christian by name, no real Christian will use WMD's in any situation, it's not what Jesus taught. This is the morality of the evolved man.

Whereas there used to be the workhouse and the Magdalene Asylums and such, run by the church. The difference between those and modern women’s shelters is that the women were blamed then, as though their sin got them into strife instead of abuser men. But now the men are blamed.

I know plenty of women who sowed their wild oats when younger and none ended in such places. My understanding is that girls who do are often damaged by bad relationships with their fathers.

You are once again using example of bad religious people or bad religious institutions, the religion itself doesn't advocate these morals.

There are nearly 2 million single parent families in the UK alone, while the divorce rate is near 50%. Religious morals value the family structure because it's the best for society as a whole. Now we see these family values are dying. You've been around with experience, tell me honestly the family structure is as strong as it was when you was a nipper?

Ill will agree to disagree with the last two points otherwise it will be repeat mode.

 

[James]

Thanks, makes sense. Thinking back it was probably a bad example for this topic. Just because someone is homosexual doesn't mean they are bad people with bad morals, even if their lifestyle goes against the morals I believe in.

I have spent most of my adult life in a city that has a bustling nightlife - including a vibrant gay scene.

Occasionally (and this was a very long time ago) I have found myself in a friendship group that might drop into a gay club or two. It was a bit of an eye-opener to encounter the “gay partying scene” but these chaps are really in the minority.

Don’t get me wrong, as a straight man it can feel a bit weird to briefly exist in these camp clubbing environments, but the stereotypes that you encounter do not represent the gay people who have long-term partners and lead steady lives.

Honestly any gay person that would be in a position to adopt children would seem like anybody else on the street if we saw them. Their homosexuality is a very minor part of thei overall persona. (Reportedly, many gay couples also do not engage in “the act.)

 

[troodon]

It does not mean private parts as in the sense you are referring to. Given the context, it could be anything from the face to the voice of a woman. In Arabic it comes from the root word "awrah" which can mean anything having a defect, being imperfect, being weak, vulnerable or even the modesty of a person (nakedness). In fact in Arabic, Awar also means someone who is blind/defected in one eye.

The Urdu word Aurat from its Farsi root could be translated into a state of nakedness, vulnerability or weakness though, basically an inferior being or someone that needs protection.

That sucks. So women may be vulnerable, weak in the past. The word Aurat has lost its meaning.

 

[DeadBall]

That sucks. So women may be vulnerable, weak in the past. The word Aurat has lost its meaning.

Yeah, better go with Bhagyawan or Aji sunti ho from now on or Abdullah/Fatima ki amma in case of Muslims.

 

[troodon]

Yeah, better go with Bhagyawan or Aji sunti ho from now on or Abdullah/Fatima ki amma in case of Muslims.

We have the word Sthree for women. It simply means female.

 

[DeadBall]

We have the word Sthree for women. It simply means female.

Sthree means iron or to iron Urdu, that's even more sexist. The word has lost all meaning for me.

 

[RogerBao]

It does not mean private parts as in the sense you are referring to. Given the context, it could be anything from the face to the voice of a woman. In Arabic it comes from the root word "awrah" which can mean anything having a defect, being imperfect, being weak, vulnerable or even the modesty of a person (nakedness). In fact in Arabic, Awar also means someone who is blind/defected in one eye.

The Urdu word Aurat from its Farsi root could be translated into a state of nakedness, vulnerability or weakness though, basically an inferior being or someone that needs protection.

Awrah (Arabic: عورة‎) is a term used within Islam which denotes the intimate parts of the body, for both men and women, which must be covered with clothing. Exposing the awrah is unlawful in Islam and is regarded as sin. The exact definition of awrah varies between different schools of Islamic thought.

http://islamic-dictionary.tumblr.com/post/5658467793/awrah-arabic-عورة-is-a-term-used

In modern-day Iran, using the two words ( 'awrah and za'ifah) to refer to women is uncommon and is considered sexist language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam

 

[Robert]

They are all elected in a secular nation and supported by secular people. Besides they are only Christian by name, no real Christian will use WMD's in any situation, it's not what Jesus taught. This is the morality of the evolved man.

Ah, but Christianity is a mix of Old and New Testament and the former was very bloody indeed with wars of conquest. It’s not all turn the other cheek and forgive your enemies seventy times seven. The Popes were happy to declare the Crusades, and the Catholic Church turned a blind eye to Mussolini and Hitler.

You are once again using example of bad religious people or bad religious institutions, the religion itself doesn't advocate these morals.

You must not be aware of the Virgin/Wh*** Dichotomy which is writ large in Western Christianity. Their exemplar for women got pregnant without having sex! Women can’t speak in church according to Scripture. Though shalt not suffer a witch to live. Mary’s Gospel was written out altogether. Those women were blamed for their sin, even if they were rape victims. Those you term bad religious people are merely following centuries of Christian patriarchal thought.

There are nearly 2 million single parent families in the UK alone, while the divorce rate is near 50%. Religious morals value the family structure because it's the best for society as a whole. Now we see these family values are dying. You've been around with experience, tell me honestly the family structure is as strong as it was when you was a nipper?

It isn’t.

I won’t defend modern divorce rates or fathers who run out on their woman and kids. They should man up and face their responsibilities.

But modern families can be strong without being rigid, as plenty of men step up into the stepfather role without getting married.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

The majority (in numbers and percentage)of sexual and physical abuse takes place within the immediate or very close to immediate family.