Antiseptic wrote: "David that's all fair enough, but let's face it, there is a great deal of immoral behaviour within the US and by the US, so something isn't working with that model. How do you think that might be improved?"

Dear Antiseptic,

You sound like the bluenoses who decried the immorality of alcohol and managed to inflict the monstrosity of Prohibition on the American public. By what criteria do you claim that Americans exhibit more immoral behaviour as individuals than anywhere else? As far as immoral behaviour by the US gov't I don't think an Australian should be holier than thou. The race to the bottom on the asylum seekers by Rudd and Abbott is a current example. The AIDEX arms trade fairs sponsored by the Australian gov't is another. I have lived in the US, the Netherlands and Australia. There are people who behave well and don't behave well in all three countries.

Immorality is a very loose term whose definition varies widely by those who define it. From what I have seen of other countries I have visited I would say that one cannot rate countries by morality. Where people are ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed they will do desperate things that people in more comfortable circumstances in general will not do.

My son lives in a middle-class area of Williamsburg, Virginia. It is a mixed area with both black and white people. His daughter had a friend whose father was or maybe still is a Virginia State policeman. He told they hadn't been a burglary or a holdup in the area in the last seven years. I asked him what he did. He said there is plenty to do - highway patrolling, helping people who need police assistance in a medical or other emergency, answering calls concerning domestic violence or barroom brawls etc. However, in general, it is a very well-behaved community which only has a small police presence. Other communities more under stress are not as well-behaved.

I don't know what you refer to when you mention a "great deal of immoral behaviour within the US".

Antiseptic,

I wasn't saying your arguments have been strong, and I think you know that.

<<If I "argue strongly" it's because a strong argument exists. I can't make a strong argument from thin air, don't you agree?>>

Cute. But so far only one of has been successful in arguing their case, and when only one of us has remained consistent, while the other is evasive and resorts to logical fallacies, it's pretty clear who that is.

<<I have to acknowledge that I think that religion has a central role in creating a moral society...>>

What gives you that impression, and how have the Abrahamic religions done this in spite of their inherently immoral theology and doctrines?

[Please don't pull the "literalist" line unless you are willing to explain exactly what this sophisticated, metaphor-laden interpretation of the Abrahamic religions is.] 

<<...and that none of the secular models have approached it in efficacy.>>

What secular models are you referring to? I don't think anyone's actually formally identified any, but as we can see, with the way secular societies have dragged Christianity kicking and screaming out of the dark ages, I think it's pretty obvious which models are better.

Given that so much history is against you, I'd love to see you justify this.

<<What I find interesting is that your objection is essentially advocating the model of the Bible, which is that it's not enough to do good works, you must also praise God (have an understanding of why they are good) in order to be regarded as truly a good person.>>

For this to mean anything, you would need to demonstrate (or at least start by explaining) how praising God is the equivalent to understanding why what's good is actually good.

By the way, anything that could qualify as a god would not want praising.

<<I'm at a loss as to how you arrive at "God is an immoral example for humans". God is a metaphor for all that is quintessentially human surely?>>

Apparently not, according to the theology. Either way, this does not negate what I said.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I haven't actually put any model forth.>>

Yes, you have: "Unless you have some model to replace that means of inculcating personal responsibility then removing religion is simply going to lead to a need for more draconian regulative frameworks and less personal freedom." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264800)

<<All I've done is to point out that there are useful metaphors, including "God-as-father", within the Abrahamic religious canon.>>

...while claiming that removing them would result in chaos.

How is that not arguing in favour of it?

<<You then proceed to take a literalist approach ... Try to remember I ain't one of them.>>

Whether or not you are is irrelevant. I'm addressing your claims. There is no failure on my behalf to remember anything. It has, in fact, been you who has needed constant reminding of what you have said. The closest you've come to any sophisticated argument was saying that religion was intended to inculcate a more sophisticated moral sense. But then, when asked what you actually meant by this, you backed away from it.

This "literalist" line you keep going down is a strawman, and your 'Answers in Genesis' gibe is unfair and totally uncalled for.

You act like these "literalists" are a small minority when in fact they are a big majority, if we use your application of the word. While a small majority of Christians accept evolution they pretty much all believe in God in the traditional sense, with a belief that Jesus actually existed as claimed, that the virgin birth happened, that the second coming will occur, etc. Furthermore, you have not justified why these "literalists'" interpretation of their own theology is wrong and why your's is right.

I said in the last thread that I suspected that you had relatively little experience with theists and you continue to confirm this more and more all the time. KarlX is right; you really don't have clue about religions and their followers.

I suggest you study them a bit more before you consider joining them.

Aj, To be completely honest, I find your whole approach to be aggressive and about point scoring not conducive to holding a discussion. I'm not sure what you think this might achieve, but
you win, I won't bother trying to discuss this with you anymore.

Put another notch on your pistol, cowboy.

David, you too are being dishonest in your characterisation of what I have said. You're substituting nationalist jingoism, silly sloganeering and personal abuse of me for a conversation. It's sad to watch from someone who is capable of so much better.

I leave you to enjoy the company of your friends and look forward to the scintillating discussion of ideas that will surely follow...

Oh, David, before I go,I'm prepared to risk disturbing your smug middle-class satisfaction with the wonders of the US where you choose not to live.

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

The US murder rate stands at around 4.8 people per 100,000 population, which is worse than many of the Islamic countries you hate so passionately. If you were to remove the middle-class enclaves of safety like those your son inhabits it's much worse than any of them except the ones involved in wars fomented or directly started by the US. The only regions worse than the US are those where civil society has broken down, including much of Africa and South America and your old bete noir the Soviet Union.

Whole cities in the US are bankrupt, unable to pay their bills, most notably Detroit. Unemployment in some areas is at close to 100% and what work their is you wouldn't allow your children to do at any wage.

As I said, a great deal of immoral behaviour. I didn't say it was the worst around, as you dishonestly tried to argue against, just that it was bad. It is, by any measure, once you get outside those enclaves where the poverty is not allowed to intrude.

I'm afraid you've gone down a lot in my estimation David. Moral relativism of the sort you display is not uncommon, but it's ugly wherever it shows its face.

Never mind, you can tell me you're insulted and you won't have to think about it. Good for you.

Dear Antiseptic,

You wrote:

David, you too are being dishonest in your characterisation of what I have said. You're substituting nationalist jingoism, silly sloganeering and personal abuse of me for a conversation. It's sad to watch from someone who is capable of so much better.

I leave you to enjoy the company of your friends and look forward to the scintillating discussion of ideas that will surely follow...

Dear Antiseptic,

I guess you are simply going to continue the name calling. Now I am dishonest. guilty of personal abuse of you and guilty of Jingoism. As far as personal abuse goes I have not accused of dishonesty, jingoism or called you any other names. You abuse me and then accuse me of abuse.

What in hell are you talking about?

You wrote about the immorality of the united States, and it is a reasonable question to ask you by what criteria are the people of the US any more immoral than those of any other country.

You wrote: "David that's all fair enough, but let's face it, there is a great deal of immoral behaviour within the US and by the US, so something isn't working with that model. How do you think that might be improved?"

I repeat. By what criteria are the people of the US any more immoral than the people of any other country?

It is neither dishonest nor abusing nor Jingoistic to ask you to justify your condemnation of the immorality of the US.