Peter Hume
I read the economics.org site recommended and concluded that no sensible society or state could function on such a basis.

The hierarchical tendencies of primates leads to the need for some regulating body and so far representative democracy has been shown to work reasonably well, and better than other systems tried in the past, from monarchy and feudal systems to dictatorships.

It would probably work better if the selfish and/or wealthy did not have the ear of our representatives as easily as they do.

As for compulsory voting, people don’t have to actually cast a vote. The framers of our constitution, as reasonable people, decided that everyone needed to register and turn up to show that they had attended a polling place every few years. That is no great imposition considering the benefits we all derive from the communities efforts, through their governments, on such matters as such as the law, defence, education, health and social services.

Without some oversight by representative government who would ensure, for example, that artificial coal mining bodies (companies) do not ruin valuable farming land and subterranean water sources that are assets belonging to the people as a whole (and to future generations?).

I note that you did not dispute that the common weal is entitled to a return on the input of past generations into current economic operations as per my quote from Samuelson.

Instead you ask for proof on matters that most people accept as obvious and fundamental

Always pleased to help, Boaz.

>>PERICLES.. *dumb look*.. sorry I just don't get what you were trying to argue with your reference to the moloch stuff....care to elaborate a tad ?<<

Your observation that:

"Canaanites used to feed their children into the fire to satisfy Moloch their god"

...led you to conclude that:

"I guess if you asked them 'what is good'..they would say 'Obey Moloch..and feed your offspring into a firey death'"

I simply pointed out that:

"And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die"

- which was a reasonably contemporary instruction from the Bible - can equally lead you to conclude that:

"I guess if you asked them 'what is good'..they would say "Obey God, and stone anyone in your family who doesn't worship him"

Is the similarity not striking? I thought so.

>>The first 4 commandments have everything to do with Ethics... they form the 'relationship' between man and the Creator which gives validity to the next 6. If not for the first 4, the next 6 are just wishful thinking.<<

To give you some idea why this cannot possibly be the case, think for a moment what difference it would make if the first four were instructions from the Government. Would that make the "next six" invalid?

Or would they stand on their own two feet as being the sensible, socially harmonious thing to do?

Or indeed, the "ethical" thing?

All that you are saying is that Christians need the authority of their God in order to behave ethically. And some of them don't even do that well following the rules, despite the perceived authority.

Doesn't that put them in the "wishful thinking" category too?

If their God can't get them to toe the line, what hope would anyone else have?

That’s an extremely narrow way of looking at it SoG...

<<AJ the single factor contributed to the rise in the prison population is drugs. Without going into the reasons behind the uptake of illegal narcotics I will simply say that Christians are not usually going down to the local pub to score.>>

So, forgetting for a second how one could actually trust a belief system that threatens people with such an irrational, immoral and unjust punishment to set the standards, let’s get this straight:

Despite the fact that there is a consistent and direct correlation (granted that correlation doesn’t necessitate causation) all around the world with rape, murder, violence, teenage pregnancy, abortion, suicide, crime and the religiosity of a society; despite the fact that Christianity (and now Islam) has needed secular ideals to drag it kicking and screaming out of the dark ages; despite the fact that Christians rely on secular ideals to determine which of parts of their holy book are worth following and which parts are best ignored, we need religion because a tiny percentage of the population might be less inclined to dabble in drugs due to an unfounded belief.

That’s asinine.

In a debate recently, Stephen Fry, with the unwitting help of a Christian, demonstrated the flaw in this argument of yours:

Stephen Fry: ...[The Catholic church], for example, thought that slavery was perfectly fine. Absolutely OK.

Anne Widdecombe: As did all societies of the time!

Stephen Fry: And then they didn't. And what is the point of the Catholic Church, if it says, 'Well, we couldn't know better, because nobody else did'? Then what are you for!
<<They "attempt" to live to a standard.>>

And atheists don’t? What makes a theist’s standards any better; particularly in light of the immorality of the Christian belief system that I pointed out?

Like I said before, secular ethics/morals are superior to theistic ethics/morals because they are based on an understanding of reality, not an assertion of authority.

Secular morals require one to think, and I don’t know of a situation where ‘not thinking’ was the preferable option.

Continued...

...Continued

<<When you hit rock bottom and society has ostracized and imprisoned you there is always God, we are taught he will forgive no matter what, so that is where we look.>>

Well, truth never really did play a big part in why some choose to take up a religious belief now did it.

Interesting point either way, but it’s nullified by your very next sentence...

<<Given the recidivist rate most drop it as soon as they are out.>>

Do they? How do you know that? Or are you just assuming this because, well, they couldn’t POSSIBLY have kept their faith if they offended again?

But assuming this is true; it doesn’t say much for faith as a safe guard against crime if all one has to do is ‘drop it’!

<<...the more religious believers the less crime.>>

And every set of statistics you’ll find, for countries all around the world, disagree with you.

Your prison statistics prove nothing. Not only are they based on one tiny aspect of a much broader problem, but your assertion that the increase of drugs in society is due to the lack of Christians is flimsy at best and completely disregards every other aspect of our increasingly complex and diverse societies.

Again, that’s asinine.

I could just as easily argue that as Christianity declines, so too does racism, homophobia and bigotry in general.

Yes, we are becoming more enlightened as we continue to gain knowledge and learn more through better means of communication. Even if a higher crime rate were a drawback to that, keeping crimes rates low is no justification for wilful ignorance.

Ignorance is dangerous and never preferable.

<<As for me the Ten Commandments are the alpha and omega, the rest I will sort out with God as an individual with the free will and consciousness that was endowed to us and no other life forms on this earth.>>

Forgetting for a second how pathetically inadequate the ten commandments are, if a god exists, then we do not have free will and this is an insurmountable problem for Christians.

Continued...

...Continued

If a god existed then, being all-powerful and all-knowing, they would have full knowledge of what was going to happen in the future. This means that everything we have done, and will do, is already ’set in stone’. If we were able to deviate from what this god foresaw, then this god would no longer be a god.

That’s not free will.

<<Forget about what "religion's" expectations and caveats to immortality are, only God's are important.>>

Ah, the ol’ attempt to divorce the actions of religions from a supposed being who we would have absolutely no knowledge of without the religion. I remember using this one.
The immorality of the Christian belief system that I pointed out is not just the “expectations and caveats” of religion, but specifically that of the Christian god, according to Christian theology.

<<He gave you free will and he gave you a consciousness and a logical expectation that we will be judged on our interactions with each other. Not whether you think he is there or not, none of us know, some hope, and some deny, but none of us know.>>

Until you can demonstrate that my free will comes from this god of yours, this is nothing more than a ball-faced assertion.

But in regards to being judged on our interactions with each other, I suggest you read John 14:6. It is here that Jesus admits that his system is irrational and immoral as it rewards gullibility and sycophancy over good deeds.

Thanx Pericles...I understand now.

There is a rather large difference though.

The punishment for disobedient children or the various acts which incurred death were:

Known to all concerned as a divine punishment/Judgement for specific things done wrong. You do the crime...you do the time.

Those so punished would be of an age where they are responsible.

Contrast this with the Canaanites.. they gave their tiny innocent offspring to burn to death to 'improve harvests' etc...

I know you'd like to find a way of conflating the 2 together but I don't feel it's justified on the facts.