(cont) This is not to say that people do not or cannot create ethical systems, such as those generated by Confucianism, Buddhism and presumably by A J Phillips and pelican. Of course that can be done.

The question is whether these systems have any foundation that is not subjective and relative. I would say that, given that these ethical systems are all based on human opinion, they remain subjective and relative. None of them can answer the question of why a person who disagrees with them should abide by the ethical requirements that they have made up.

Regarding your atheist friend who said that for aesthetic reasons he would not act “immorally” even if he could get away with it, that may well be true for him. But so what? What of the atheist who cares more about their own self-interest than for aesthetics? Why shouldn’t he act “immorally” if he wants to and can get away with it? (Or don’t such atheists exist?)

Pelican – I would strongly dispute that there is not much difference between the moral systems of atheists and theists (in particular Christians). Certainly there can be very similar behaviours in both groups, but the fact that the atheist’s moral behaviour has no basis, beyond their own personal opinion, is crucially important.

You say, “human behaviour is clearly flawed”, but it is hard to make sense of that in an atheistic universe. No one has any responsibility to any one or any thing in an atheistic universe. You may so that is not the case, but your saying that does not make it so.

In the atheist’s view humanity is simply the chance end-product of pond scum that happened to come into being and is heading toward no goal or objective. On those terms how can any human behaviour be described meaningfully as “flawed”?

One behaviour is just as “good”, “bad”, and meaningless as any other behaviour, personal opinions notwithstanding.

JP, I agree, me just saying something does not make it so. That applies to anyone including those that assert the existence of God/Allah etc. I don't set myself up as a wise arbiter of anything. Like you I offer only an opinion about the basic nature of man.

Where did I say it would be ME determining 'whether individual values or communal values should prevail in a given situation'. Surely that would be done at a community level in a democracy with a strong judicial (ethical) system.

You ask about sources but do not offer your source - other than a belief in the supernatural. Why is your belief in a higher power considered a 'source' when there is no evidence to support that view.

Why do you not also ask why your views should prevail without equally having to provide evidence for your source. Why not argue the folly in following what could be described as simplistic faith based ideologies.

I am neither Right about all things nor am I certain about everything - who is? However I do believe in a biological imperative (which can include the spiritual) that drives human beings towards survival rather than destruction in the main. Our behaviour might not always reflect that view in its minutae but in the broad sense.

Ethical structures and frameworks can and are formed separately to religious influence albeit our judicidal system has been highly influenced by a Judeo-Christian history. Why can't ethics and morality stem from something other than via the supernatural. That is other than the 'human'. If there is no God, (and with or without religion) all we have to rely on ultimately is the solid reality of ourselves. Why is a pessimistic view of human nature more valid than an optimistic one even with our failings?

You continue to criticise my view of human nature but do not provide any evidence that morality has to be a supernatural 'construct' for it to have any validity.

I’m not sure how else it can be explained to you, JP. This is obviously one of the fundamental aspects of how you justify your religious belief, because there is a seemingly impenetrable block here that makes it appear as though you’re not reading our posts properly.

Just be aware that even if religion did have the value that you claim it has, that still wouldn’t say anything about whether or not a god existed.

That being said, what you’re essentially saying, is that in a universe where there was absolute proof that no gods existed (forgetting that one can’t disprove a negative) and that religion didn’t exist, inventing a god (and religion) and conning people into believing that this god existed would be absolutely essential in order for us to survive.

Very pessimistic.

Humans (as we know them) have been around for around 100,000-200,000 years. Religion has only been around for about 30,000. So how is it that you propose we survived without this assumed higher authority for all those tens of thousands of years?

<<You insist that you don’t simply make assertions yet you continue to do so...>>

The examples of what I’ve said, that you provided, weren’t assertions because they are demonstrable. Wellbeing, on many difference levels, can be measured medically using physical health. Whether it be my already provided, simplistic example of two people on a deserted island, or just the negative effects of stress caused by someone else’s wrong doing to us.

<<You are not presenting arguments to support your position.>>

Well, there’s the above, then there’s also my point you’ve dodged about a yardstick to measure who out of God and Satan is the good one which, unless you can come up with a completely different yardstick for determining who is good and who is evil and point out why ours is wrong, demonstrates my point.

No assertions or opinions required.

But it goes both way, JP. You need to provide some reasoning as to why I haven’t presented arguments to support my position. Simply claiming that I haven’t isn’t enough, I’m afraid.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Again I ask you, why is your opinion, as one human being, any more valid than theirs, a fellow human being?>>

It’s not.

I can’t really add much more to what pelican has said other than to point out that religion is a poor moral source and authority, and considering how many interpretations there are of each religion and how often theists simply interpret their religion to suit their own prejudices and desires, it’s a pretty flimsy and open-ended source of morality too.

Incidentally, religion focuses on wellbeing as well; only it’s mostly concerned with wellbeing in the afterlife instead, and this makes religious morality potentially more dangerous and immoral.

So I ask you, if a Muslim says they have the right to kill unbelievers, how is your moral authority any more valid than theirs?

<<Regarding The Euthyphro Dilemma, you’ve largely answered it yourself...>>

Erm... yeah, and I explained why that didn’t work too (This is just one example of what I mean when I say you’re not reading posts properly); and until you can demonstrate that god exists, your claim is mere speculation anyway.

<<You [pelican] say, “human behaviour is clearly flawed”, but it is hard to make sense of that in an atheistic universe ... One behaviour is just as “good”, “bad”, and meaningless as any other behaviour, personal opinions notwithstanding.>>

If words have such little meaning in and of themselves, then how could you possibly know that you’re gaining the correct understanding of your god when you read the Bible?

If there is anything we can define as “bad”, it’s total misery for everyone, and If there is any meaning to the word “evil”, it’s someone who would put us there.

Anyway JP, pelican, McReal, myself, and now George have explained this to you in so many different ways that I don’t know that there’s any point in continuing. Could you at least provide us with something to support your position in light of all that I’ve said that discredits it?

<<One might argue that those who continue to relate pedophilia to homosexuality are spreading untruths to suit their own religious agenda>>

One might argue that those who refuse to recognise the statistical relationship between homosexuality and child sex abuse are spreading untruths to suit their own homosexual activist agenda.

81% of Catholic Church child sex abuse victims were boys.
As in homosexual activity between men and boys.
As in homosexual child abuse.
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

Homosexuals form 1-2% of the population yet homosexual priests are responsible for 81% of child sex abuse cases.

The statistics speak for themselves

pelican,

Thanks for the undeserved compliment.

>> the term 'collective' or 'community' does not necessarily relate or belong solely to a Marx-Leninist perspective<<

I never claimed that, as I would not claim that the term “Führer” (meaning “leader”) “necessarily related or belonged solely” to the Nazis. Nevertheless, I can understand why today Germans are uneasy about it, and try to avoid it whenever possible. It is not a matter of “belonging to” but of unpleasant PERSONAL/national associations with an ideology that the term was central to. That is all I hinted at.

>> the theist and atheist come to the same conclusions in the main, about morality<<

This is what it is worth to argue for: not to covert believers into unbelievers (to make them more “rational”) or unbelievers into believers (to make them more “moral”), but to find a way of peaceful coexistence of people of different world-views, religious or not.

See for instance the atheist Jürgen Habermass’ “post-secular society” (http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html) or his discussions with the Pope (http://www.amazon.com/Dialectics-Secularization-Reason-Religion/dp/1586171666), or those of another atheist, Marcello Pera, with the Pope (http://www.amazon.com/Without-Roots-Relativism-Christianity-Islam/dp/0465006272/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233401525&sr=8-9).

>> Religious adherence would not be possible if there was no natural 'foundation' to work with<<

I agree. As I said, I am not an ethicist but e.g. the Catholic Catechism speaks of “the natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men<<

Well, you may substitute here “cooperative instincts (that) are simply the result of evolutionary conditioning” (Fergusson) - or whatever evolutionary psychologists are suggesting - for “natural law, present in the heart of each man” (It is not the fault of the Catechism that the English language lacks a brief term for “human being” except for the equivocal “man”). This natural (moral) law is in addition to the “divine law”, for which atheists obviously don’t have, and don’t need, an equivalent.