I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Deterrence in the style of "let's make an example of a few of 'em" has a pretty poor track record. Look at the war on drugs - extremely harsh penalties for pot smokers - did not work - just filled up US prisions with people caught with a roach in their ashtray.

Right, well thankfully we no longer live in the dark ages.

And you're actually wrong about fear. We live in the safest time in history (statistical fact) and we don't use torture as a deterrent, yet when state sanctioned torture was considered a deterrent (which was much of human history) violent crime rates were much higher.

I suggest you read "The better angels of our nature" by Stephen Pinker.

Yeah, rape is worse than murder. Murder is sometimes, if not justifiable, at least understandable.

And I'd argue that rehabilitation works better than deterrence.
The ultimate deterrent is the death penalty and that has been shown time and again to be ineffective.

You think rape is worse than murder..? I'm not condoning rape or anything but there are worse crimes out there (like murder).

Anyway, rehabilitation simply doesn't work for the vast majority of criminals. Most were born and raised in poor conditions with negligent and/or abusive parents. They've been hard-coded to do what they do. Trying to rehabilitate them is a waste of taxpayer money.

No, what we need is for potential criminals to truly fear the consequences of their actions, to the point where they won't even consider doing them. That's the whole point of the punishment: to act as a deterrent. We want to stop criminals before they become criminals, not wait until they commit crimes and then try to persuade them to change their ways.

Saying; "Naturally, I don't believe in capital punishment." is a supposition. You infer that to believe in capital punishment goes against consensus, which is not the case. The majority are in favour of it.
Contrary to your opinion, there is a humane method. It is used by Dignitas and affords the "subject" dignity and a stress free death.
You say; "Capital punishment seems to be more about vengeance than justice or problem solving." Capital punishment IS about vengeance, justice and problem solving. But justice is the key. Until it has been proven - not with reasonable doubt, but unequivocally - that the accused is guilty, he/she should NOT be executed. People are not interested in whether execution has a deterrent effect (prison appears to have no deterrent effect either. N/York alone has a 65% recidivist rate). The causes of crime are myriad, but that is a separate issue which needs serious debate. We are talking about having your child raped, tortured and murdered by a fellow "human" who then turns to god, plays to the emotions of decent human beings, and asks for forgiveness. This is not something the victims families are interested in. They want justice. Yes, they want vengeance. But they, ultimately, want to see that society values the life of their child. The ultimate crime deserves the ultimate sentence.

How might gun ownership help a society? Well, it depends on the society doesn't it? Take Switzerland, for instance, which doesn't really have a standing army but inducts citizens into the militia and requires them to keep their firearms at home so they can mobilize quickly in the event of a crisis. I'd say there's a pretty strong benefit to their society (i.e. defense of the nation) in that case.

But I think @dystopianfuturetoday was probably asking about the benefits to a society in the U.S., where gun ownership is optional but also so prevalent So I'll focus on that area.

1) As has already been mentioned, from an economic standpoint, society benefits from the sale of guns and their related items through both taxes and levies and through the provision of jobs for those who produce guns, sell guns, or manage gun ranges. I have absolutely no idea exactly how big or small this benefit is in the U.S. but it certainly exists.

2) Armed citizens can (and do) stop "dangerous situations" from happening long before first responders have a chance to arrive and in some cases before they even have a chance to be notified. "Dangerous situations" here refers not only to crime but attacks by wild animals in rural areas.

3) Deterrence. Certain types of crime become much more risky to the professional criminal if you have to assume everyone is armed at all times.

Given these potential benefits to society, the question really then becomes do these benefits outweigh the costs to society? And also, what of the benefits to the individual? Certainly these must be weighed as well. CNN contributor David Frum wrote an interesting piece last year exploring these issues. You can find it here.

Good post.

There are always so many things could have an influence. A simplistic explanation is always going to be self serving and misleading.

Example: I bet just the move to credit cards (cash-less society) has lowered violent crime (muggings) by at least a small amount.

As a Criminal Justice student we reviewed studies on the effects of gun control (ineffective in the U.S.), death penalty (ineffective as deterrence), etc.

A very large influence to the crime rate was inequality and the number of people who feel disenfranchised from the mainstream.

The availability of social programs and safety nets (or lack of) also had a great effect.

That was years ago and the analysis has been out there for a very long time - but never used in any meaningful way.

Lower taxation? Much like people who say it's against their so-called privacy to run red lights without a camera taking their picture? Because I'm pretty sure spending 20k is cheaper than 50k it'd cost to hire just 1 officer to stand at an intersection and chase people down.

Cameras aren't some big evil. It's improper use of the cameras that's evil. It's illegal wire tapping that's evil. It's the recording of all text messages without any safe guards in place that's evil. You're worried about a camera? Seriously, what are you doing that makes you so terrified of a little camera?

Why do police cars have cameras? I doubt it's so they can be all big brother on you. It's to keep the officer honest. It's a non-biased witness to a crime. In most cases a camera isn't going to prevent a crime, but it certainly helps when it's a he-said/she-said incident.

I think I vaguely recall some discussion about guns not killing people. Or something along those lines. If guns are perfectly okay despite the massive evidence of the rampant gun use and rampant gun sales to foreign entities that use them to suppress and murder, I don't see the same argument being applied to CCTV. Why is the gun ok but the owner bad, but the camera bad and the owner is never talked about?

Maybe instead of cheering on the destruction of tax payer property we should discuss the rules and regulations of handling the data from these cameras. After all, I for some reason see tons of idiot criminals on here due to these things. Obviously that benefit outweighs any lame excuses listed above.

1. CCTV is a lot cheaper than an armed guard at every intersection, every school blah blah. Not to mention, armed security hasn't really been all that effective. Hell, someone just shot a few cops the other day. I'm pretty sure the cops had guns. But who's counting.

2. First they make us drive on roads. Next they're going to make us get LICENSED! OMG! Pretty soon they're going to require us not to run over babies, or run red lights, or shoot people who are going too slow! Jesus we're becoming such a nanny state! Why can't I just hire a doctor who went to Joe Bob's School or 3 Day Medical Training?

3. Aside from all the evidence pointing to the fact that CCTV does deter crime. If 1 out of 5 crimes don't take place because of a camera, that's called a Deterrent. But I could be thinking of statistics and not emotion. The reason why these cameras catch idiots is because they're stupid enough to do them in the first place. Locks don't stop criminals. Locks determine your level of honesty. If you're determined enough, you will get in no matter what. If I reaaaaally want in your car, I will find a way, even if you lock it. So why bother locking it? Oh, right, because 1 out of 10 will be super desperate while 9 out of 10 will be ok with just opening the unlocked door.

4. Yeeeeaaaaaaaaah. That's such a good reason. Hey, I don't really like these whole murder laws. I say I should dissent. Or I don't like financial regulation, let's just crash the entire countries economy . . . or sell futures for a product that doesn't exist. See your number 2. Slippery slope here . . . so while I agree with you that some laws should be broken, ignored, fought etc, it's not exactly a "one good reason".

I think people are missing the point. Guns are a deterrent. If someone wants to go on a shooting spree, they're not going to do it in a place where they know everyone is armed. That's why we have shooting sprees at schools and businesses instead of police departments or gun shows or firing ranges or military bases. The whole point of a shooting spree is to feel empowered. When you're the only one with a gun, you're in charge. When everybody has a gun, you're no longer in charge. A shooting spree becomes less appealing if you know you'll only get in a few hits before you're taken down. Shooters want to go out on their own terms (hence the suicide at the end of most shooting sprees). Even if the civilians carrying weapons don't have a lot of training, the simple fact that they are all carrying weapons is enough to deter would-be shooters.

If you want to end shooting sprees, enact a law requiring everyone to carry guns. Banning guns only ensures that criminals have them.

There is a nice part of Yes, Prime Minister regarding nuclear deterrent that outlines my position quite nicely. http://youtu.be/IX_d_vMKswE

See, your government isn't going to sell you to slavery overnight. More likely they'll strip your rights away bit by bit. How do you protect yourself against that with a firearm. At what point do you organise a militia to overthrow the tyrants, and tbh...why hasnt it happened yet? I didn't see many gun owners defending themselves from say, the patriot act or demanding that money be out of politics while waving a 9mm around.I like the spirit of the 2nd ammendment, I think europeans are perhaps too complacent, I just don't think its really practical. Its a law from another era.

As for school shootings etc. Well, correlation doesn't equal causation. Other countries might have less firefarms and less shootings, but we also don't lock up 1/7 of black men. Some shootings you can definitely see that gun control would probably have prevented it, but you can see that if somebody really wants to kill, and spends time planning it then they're probably going to find a gun somehow.

I do think that guns raise the stakes on a lot of non-violent crimes that can turn fatal though. Neither the homeowner or the burgler want to kill the other, but both fear that the other might pull the trigger first. Its a sort of prisoners dilemna where really the only winning option is to shoot first and ask questions later. Maybe with less guns swimming around you'd get less twitchy fucks shooting black kids carryin nothing more than a bag of skittles. I don't think it does anything as a way of deterrent either, desperate people do tend to somewhat ignore all risk.

There are no solutions, only trade-offs.

For some reason, liberals are incapable of understanding good people with guns are the best deterrent of bad people with guns.

>> ^CaptainObvious:

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?

"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...
The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....
...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...
...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....
Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_
Iran
Not all countries are built the same.
"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?


You are conflating two entirely different issues, and doing a bad job of it to boot...

Iran has done the same things for years, but the only thing that get's the US and Israel wet is when nuclear is involved. Don't kid yourself for a second in believing either country would go in to save the people from a dictatorial regime, all they care about is someone else dealing themselves in to the nuclear game. I suspect you know this very well of course but it makes a much more compelling case to break out the violins and claim the action is humanitarian.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?


"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...

The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....

...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...

...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....

Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --

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

Not all countries are built the same.

"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?

>> ^CaptainObvious:

Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.


What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |

Or, ya know, the right of self determination?