muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I do not believe we can .. but I know what you mean.
Of course we need to learn from history .. but I do not agree that history shows that
tougher laws are not effective.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
tougher laws are not effective.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I'm not saying "tougher laws are not effective."
I'm saying that a society in which people are killed, tortured and maimed for breaking laws is not a society that maximizes human flourishing, happiness, health and liberty. I'm saying such a society is a violent society. You seem to think it's a less violent society than one in which people are tortured, killed or maimed for breaking laws, which is generally not borne out in reality, historically speaking. It just makes for a crappy society in which people can have their lives taken, and/or their bodies mangled for any number of non-violent crimes. Which to me, is an infringement upon human rights. I don't want to live in a society that places such low value on human life.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
This is becoming a debate on capital punishment..
The point that I was making, is that the only "signal" that secular law gives to people
about sexual relations, is one about adult consent.
That is because public opinion has shifted, and started with the advent of the contraceptive pill, imo.
Atheists often tell us that the universe came into existence "naturally" .. but I see nothing
natural about the contraceptive pill. Time will tell where mankind will end up in their present trajectory.
We live in the least violent era of human history ever.
Even with two world wars, a person's odds of dying by violence were lower in the 20th Century than in every century that preceded it.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yes, because you've advocated for the torture or killing of people who commit adultery.
Consent is paramount, yes. Engaging in sexual relations without the other person's consent is rape. This has nothing to do with contraception.
I have no idea how this ties into anything or what one has to do with the other. Eyeglasses aren't natural either, but I need them to see.
Contraception allows women to have some control over their own bodies and their own reproductive cycles, which contributes to human flourishing. I take it you disagree?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I would think that depends on where you live..
I doubt whether those in Vietnam were thinking along those lines, for example.
It is a fact that violent crime is on the increase in US .. what will change that, do you think?
It is not as though US as a nation is poor .. or maybe it is .. how much was the national debt?
..or maybe that is just a figure in a sum, calculating who gets what somehow..
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I am not criticising what women want to do with their bodies..
I am merely saying that public opinion about virginity, and sex before marriage has changed
because of the pill. Can you not understand that?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I'm wondering what it has to do with the point about violence in society.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Already explained..
We think that it's OK to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage,
because we consider ourselves in control of pregnancy.
..but we disregard the fact that sexual relationships involve strong emotions,
and often causes violence.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
That's because it is
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
From your link: "Telomeres play a central role in cell fate and aging by adjusting the cellular response to stress and growth stimulation on the basis of previous cell divisions and DNA damage."
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
When those people have died I guess you can say ok, it's over for them, right?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So you know what that means. Then please explain that!
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You might try reading the entire article and/or ask SubductionZone and others here. Nevertheless I find it interesting.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, I am ask you, becaiuse you pick that out in the article.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once again, so what?
If you could learn how to make a point it would help you when you tried to debate.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
One death by violence is more than enough.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is a belief that is of no value. There will always be some violent deaths due to human nature. The goal is to continually lower the number. Stating the obvious does not help the number of violent deaths go down.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I know it says debate, but honestly -- I do not debate but sometimes post my opinion about things. Take care. So once again -- "Telomeres, the specific DNA–protein structures found at both ends of each chromosome, protect genome from nucleolytic degradation, unnecessary recombination, repair, and interchromosomal fusion. Telomeres therefore play a vital role in preserving the information in our genome. As a normal cellular process, a small portion of telomeric DNA is lost with each cell division." Telomeres, lifestyle, cancer, and aging.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I do not believe that will always be the case about violent deaths. I know you don't believe the Bible. Lowering the number doesn't bring back or restore those who have been killed violently.