To suggest that a god is needed for morality is to suggest that morals are completely useless (in this life).  You see of morals are useful then we can derive them based on there effect on society.  No god needed.  I find it disturbing that you would kill, rape, ect... if your house of cards god fearing morality was pulled out from under you.  I think you should turn yourself into a mental institute.

"im concerned that the loss of god in our society"

You can't lose that which never existed.

"Look at the news everday the worst type of human behavior is is shown , our society is falling apart."

With theists at the helm. So remove them, and we'll be much better off.

"Since they have no one to fear and fear causes guidance ,"

Right. That's why there are so many atheists in jail. Oh wait, that's theists. Never mind.

Morality is a construct of humanity that has nothing to do with invisible friends. We had morality before we could make those friends up, and we'll have it after we've rid ourselves of them.

These days it's the believers of a god that are the most violent at the moment. A society without god, well look towards our scandanavian brothers that have a large society that doesn't believe in god, see how bad it really is there....you will be amazed.

However this kinda reminds me of a friend of mine that kept on going how the 60's were a more peaceful, better times. Of course if he took off his rosy coloured glasses of he would see that in that decade, there are 4 major assassinations in the US alone, JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. Riots in Chicago, Detriot, Los Angeles, New York, Neward and oakland. Then the vietnam war is starting as well, the bay of pigs attack that was just a slaughter fest. As well that 60 crime and civil unrest rose dramatically during the 60's and has never gone back to pre-60's levels. As well as some church was bombed.

Look in the end, we are what we are, how we embrace that is the difference. We are at a point in time which technology and well reality are conflicting with religion and it's traditions, in more ways than we can imagine. Even more so we have groups of people that would prefer if humanity would abandon all technology and just be a slave to their religious dogmas. But hey we are will move forward as a species, and that causes the old groups fear.

A major flaw in this opinion is the fact that the author is not a "we". He is not a "species". He is not "moving forward".

The title "old groups" is left undefined, but I am sure that no individual in the group is a "group" or an "old group".

We are each one of us singular, finite, physical, emotional, social, sexual, imminent, aware creatures walking the paths of our own destiny.

We may feel safe in groups and perhaps if we choose to perceive a group as doing something we beleive to be victorious in some way we like to associate ourselves with that, but we each and every one of us, regardless of the seeming potential infinity of genetic reproduction, are left at night, utterly alone with self left to self.

The safety is perceptual and all the "we"'s you can muster will never change that. You remain you, they (sometimes referred to as them) will remain "there" as only you can be and are "here", atleast for now.

Atheism depends on the actual existence of this imaginary "we" of which they convince themselves that they are a part, to actually exist as thing unto itself for the structure to hold itself up. Once this matrix fails, which it must as all non-existent things cannot exist actually, the actual individuals are all that remains.

When this day comes... and it will... all men will know the actuality of fear. Many a nation has crumbled under the weight of the falling of its false gods. This "we" will fail as sure as the rest.

We are all unique little snowflakes, (yet another bullshit concept) but we live and identify for the majority of the time as a group, as christians, as jews, as americans as canadians, as democrates as conservatives, as muslims, etc, etc, etc. As I have always stated, individually people are great as a group their assholes and it doesn't really change.

The title OLD GROUPS is undefined because it covers a bunch of groups of people, such as radical islamics, fundamentalist christians, conspiracy groups that believe  that we should abandon technology, extreme orthodox jews, and many other groups. So yes it is left undefined because it's abroad base that I am dealing with here. Every group is comfortable with scientific advancements to a point or some none at all, so I made a blanket statement about a very diverse group. Sorry don't exactly have the time to type down every single group.

How about this any and all groups that are trying or have tried to hinder the scientific advancement of humankind using the rehetoric of their religious dogmas or fears of technology.

Atheism is just a non belief in god, it could be just 1 person in the entire planet that believes in a god(s), and everyone else not to believe in that said god(s) for everyone else to be an atheists. It doesn't require a group of people, it requires a concept, if the concept and idea of god did not exist, atheists label would not exist.

As for that last line, go tell it to some religious folks, bet you can get them to wet their pants. Let me give you a hint, all nations, rise and fall, all empires fall in due time, and things change, the power changes from one nation to another, give enough time and the US will lose it's rank as a power. The nation that had the longest time as an empire and has never been matched is the eyptians, for almost 3000 years. After than, the byzentines was 1100, and after that it's really goes down in the amount of time an empire stays and empire, as technology advances for all cultures it gets hard to remain as the dominate power for very long time.

Your statement is about as meaningful as saying that god will bring down any empire that does not praise him (oh wait the british were christians and their empire didn't last, nor did the roman empire that became a christian nation and gave the rise to christianity....guess god does not like his followers, and the good old US of A isn't in good standing right now and hell they even had nothing but christian presidents)

I have no fear of God, on account of his lack of existence, and yet I do not kill or rape.  I have married only once and I am faithful to my wife (actually, atheists have a lower divorce rate than do Christians).  Atheists are significantly under-represented in the American prison population, which I think strongly suggests that belief in God is mostly irrelevant to morality (I can expand on what I mean by that if you want).  I treat people fairly; I'm motivated by self-interest which, for me, includes being compassionate and sympathetic.  I try to enjoy my life while also being an enjoyable part of the lives of others.

I'm an atheist and, yet, I live what most Christians would consider to be a morally good life.  Why is that?  Am I an extraordinarily good person or am I a fairly normal human being?  I think that the latter is more likely. 

You prefer that our society should not be one in which people do terrible things to each other.  Do you think that is because God prompts you to feel that way or do you think it's because you're a fairly normal human being?

I think that humans have a natural tendency toward morality.  I think it is necessary for humans to be that way because we are a social species.  Living in groups is part of the human survival strategy and, in order for that to work, I think it is necessary that most individuals have a tendency toward balancing one's individual needs and desires with some idea of what is good for the group of which one is a part.  Isn't that what morality works out to be about -- balancing what is good for me with what is good for my neighbour?  If I'm happy and my neighbour is happy, I have a good life.

You can see similar tendencies in other social species.  Within a pack of wolves, for example, there is both cooperation and competition, in keeping with certain behavioural tendencies that are natural to wolves.  Their brains and their social interactions aren't as complex as ours, so their moral codes are less complex and less intentionally developed than ours, but I think there is a basic similarity.

Experiments have shown that apes and monkeys and even dogs can tell when they're being cheated and will react by withdrawing cooperation, which I think strongly suggests that having some kind of a sense of right and wrong is natural to many species and I think we can be reasonably confident that it is also natural to humans.

Why is it that every atheist I talk to salivates over the demise of the U.S.? Just had to get that in at the top of your "falling empires" list eh? That of course is a side conversation.

You concede my point and the point of this discussion in the statement you made. As time has moved on the consolidation of civilization brought on by technology which has fundamentally been the advancement of communication has decreased rather than increased a nations viability as a cohesive unit. This absence of cohesion is, in reality, measured in the blood and suffering of multitudes. Is this what you mean by "moving forward?" 

Ultimately though it is not merely the ability to communicate that has brought down civilization after civilization, it has been the enemies of the states increased ability to communicate that has brought them down. 

My point is that a society has a social contract made up of agreements of behaviors based in a particular worldview that itself comes from a common belief about the nature of self. This agreement requires the individual, if they are to be a member of the contract, to hold up their end of the agreement which requires responsibility, which itself must be understood within the context of the worldview that initiated the contract.

The contract itself will be formed within the context of the concept of perceived order meaning that the very nature of the contract will form only as the individuals perceive the need for it to trade chaos for what they obviously believe and further agree together is its absence.

So the foundation of this discussion is "what is moral code?" It is the foundations, columns, walls and roof of the social contract which only exist in free societies although all soceities depend on some type of social belief to maintain cohesion even if that belief is primarily fear. 

What evidence do you have that having a theist belief system prevents crime? Are there more atheists than theists in prison?

The law with punishments is a way to enforce a code of behavior beneficial to the group as a whole. But people will do whatever is convenient and whatever they think they can get away with. No one ever follows a moral code other than do whatever is convenient and pleasurable for yourself, so morality is BS. If we start with this truth, maybe we can design societies that minimize crime and suffering of it's members. If we pretend that people can really be unselfish, compassionate and moral in any absolute way, we can never solve our biggest problems.

And how is theism anything but a self-centered 'morality'? Please an invisible man so he'll give you nice things and let you into heaven. That sounds as hedonistic as anything.

You mean like Europe ? Yikes.

Are you implying that "something" is God?

But you have no way to actually know that it is true. You only have techniques of self-deception like religious 'faith'. 

There you go again with those assertions of yours. Ok, once again "no way to know" is a definitive statement of truth that, if true, makes the statement irrelevant as a"a truth" would be knowable if this statement is true. Your statement creates a knowable unknowableness of the truth which is a "knowledge" of the unknowable making it not an unknowable at all but places it firmly in the realm of knowability making this asserted truth claim of yours wrong both if the truth is knowable and if its unknowable which moves us firmly into the realm of nothingness.

In fact what was it you were trying to say?

Pat,  

I wanted to respond, if i may, to a number of specific comments you made in your post. 

"im concerned that the loss of god in our society is creating a world that will be an terrible place to live. Look at the news everday the worst type of human behavior is is shown , our society is falling apart."

First, society doesn't create "a world," society is the world.  If what you are trying to say here is that certain individuals in society (i.e., atheists, non believers) are "creating" a terrible world to live in, I beg to differ.  Atheists such as myself have no lobbyists promoting our political agenda in Washington.  We have no real unifying organizational body which represents us--because we are all very different--the sole common denominator among us being that we value critical and rational thought above superstition and irrational, unsubstantiated faith.  Our society is, for the most part, made up of theists like yourself.  You cannot attribute whatever "terrible" world it is you're referring to to atheism.  That's absurd.

"but looking at the issue god has been removed from the basics of the community, and now people have lost the fear of judgement by god . Since they have no one to fear and fear causes guidance , they feel they are free to do whatever they want , killing , divorce , rape , etc. how do athiest maitain a moral system without guidance ? is there a moral code ? does the law become the guidance ? i need some understanding."

What struck me as most interesting about your post the first time I read it, was this statement specifically:

"now people have lost the fear of judgement by god . Since they have no one to fear and fear causes guidance" 

Fear causes guidance? What does that even mean?  I'm going to try and identify your meaning here, which is I'd expect, that people who are afraid of god's judgement are more "religious," or moral.  While that may be true (although I've not seen any data on this either way), is that REALLY the argument you want to make?  That this fear of eternal damnation is the only reason that man behaves in a civilized manner at all?  That's simply not true, not for myself, anyway--and not for any atheists I know.  All of whom are highly ethical and civic-minded people, none of whom are doing so because they're convinced they're being watched by some sadistic Santa Claus in the sky.

Thanks for your post, I appreciate your sincerity and your honesty....

Negative assertions of that kind can be treated as as close to certainty as anything could be. Statement such as "most human 'knowledge' cannot be proven with 100% certainty" is hardly to be contested.

It should be easy for you to refute me - so what makes you think your belief is true?

No implication, it was a statement of fact. The "we" referred to in that post, I pointed out, does not actually exist. If a society serves a non-existent thing, it too will cease to exist.

The post by latincanuk referred to a "we" and textualized the concept of this "we" "moving forward" which itself is left as anomolous as the "we" is.

The we is a perception, it is not real and further it cannot do anything including move forward, backward, turn upside down... you know any of that because only real things can actually do such things and here only certain things that are real can do those things as being real alone is not sufficient, other attributes must also exist.

Fundamentally I would argue that within the context of the reality we are in, the nature of it, in its awsome totality, somehow this "truth" surfaces again and again. We, as in ourselves collectively NEED something more than ourselves to fulfill that which we can identify, within the boundries of our nature, makes us "healthy". It is good to believe in things that give us hope however far afield they are from that which actually can give us hope as the two are utterly unrelated. We see cohesion, however brief, occur everywhere that a social commonality of belief in the greater whole exists.

Amazingly, 1 belief happens to be on top...interesting.

The beauty is that The Truth never conflicts with the actual demands of  society. It's the measuring of the real demands, pursuing effort to know them completely or the failure to do so that undoes it.

You see the Huns I believe followed their leader with a psychotic religious fervor that brought them great victory over the Roman empire, but then Atilla died right? Well then it was over. The failure was both the peoples faith matrix and in this case the object of the faith, Atilla himself. The people were "grown" in a garden that taught certain things, it even taught things detrimental to its survivability, things that they fervently believed were true that were utterly meaningless and even caustic to the fundamental cause of their initial social contract. Atilla, coming from within this structure could consume what was there ,the Roman empire, but could not envision permanent solutions to the problems of his people. In fact he was so limited that destruction alone was his mastery, consumption of the existant was his road. That society could do nothing but fail as it did because of the ignorance of both the peoples and their leaders understanding of the real "True" demands of their society.

Of course the truest demand of all societies is the demand from each of us, that is to persist... to continue... to live.

My statement does not depend in any way on the actual 'truth' of the assertion referred to , such as that "God exists".

EVEN if God actually exists, that does not make it provable that he does. Any demonstration that could be presented to us would be indistinguishable by us from the manifestations of a very advanced but non-supernatural alien or aliens. Actual infinite aspects of such an entity are never going to be provable to our finite perceptions. 

It is on arguments such as that that my statement is ultimately based.

It is time for you to support your assertion that your God belief is 'true'.

I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. It must be your cunning use of words in quotation marks that's throwing me.

It is amusing to me to notice that, in order to utilize that God given morality you claim, we have to not act like your God.

Tr1nity. And your handle is really clever, too.

There's something about that old staple of the believer - that the existence of god is obvious and we simply choose not to believe. You apply no circular nonsensical logic here.

Then there's the original OP's little gem. That the unbeliever seeks no more than murder, rape and endless sex and depravity. This might be something that applied to theists before their conversion

but don't go looking at us through your pin-hole morality.

I also love your swipe at some earlier poster, suggesting that the believer would think them immoral and depraved. Look - the feeling is certainly mutual. You worship a monster who plans the eternal torment

of the bulk of the planet's population is his pathetic quest to 'be friends'. It's obvious your pea-like brain contains insufficient empathy to really own what this means. Have your ever been seriously beaten? I think not.

Any atheist on this site brave enough to withstand an upbringing salted with your gun-to-the-head doctrine is worth ten of you, Tr1nity.

Now you've come out with "The existence of god is self evident truth" why not deliver us the self evident proof that exists outside your own head. Then explain to us exactly what the holy ghost is.

Finally, remember this. You lot have done nothing more than trademark the core values of humanity - it was we who invented you, not the other way around.

Your boat is sinking Tr1nity. You might as well go get your floaties on.

So nothing but naked assertion huh?

"He exists because He must".

And you dismiss my arguments??

You are insane.

Any of those earlier civilizations in their prime could have asserted exactly the same thing. Many of them lasted longer than the current 'Western Civilization', if that is what you are referring to.

Well I did have some other words in that post to attempt to support the "must exist" assertion. Certainly calling it naked is ever so slightly disingenuous. Complete, no not at all.

As it stands I leave it at this, life cannot exist at all if no truth existed. The truth that makes and nurtures life is as alive as the life it maintains and nurtures for it is inseparable. Here we are getting into it. The very nature of the reality in which we live, including the complexity of the life that is actually it incarnate makes up the traits of it. This is true, once again, because they are inseparable from each other, the flesh is the reflection of its acuality.

Simply put, it must be for I am.

Now we have a few steps to go to get to Christianity, but the steps are there. The doubt of God's existence is actually the thing that remains without an evidentiary reason for its existence. This was the foundation of my initial posts to you, to attack your reasoning why God isn't or God can't ect. The fact is that you have no reason to doubt God's existence and plenty of reasons to believe. The nature of nature does not allow ignorance.

Then justify it. Provide your evidence.

What is "truth?" Why can't life exist if there is no "truth?" What is the "nature of the reality in which we live?" How is it "incarnate?" How is the flesh the "reflection" of its "actuality?" What is a "reflection?" What is its "actuality?"

Um, yeah, this is called a non sequitur.

Try this reason. No evidence.

umm, certain procedures must be followed to conceive and raise a child. The absence of following these procedures makes life absent. Is this not true? Further certain "spiritual" feelings MUST be acted on in specific ways to conceive and nurture a child. It is complex, true, but it does exist. The nature of nature makes the truth true or existent. It's existence "persists" even now. Our indiidual persistent existence defines or reflects the nature of the truth that made us so.