rstuart – I’m not sure what you are trying to say with your comments about logic. I agree that not all comments on these forums are logical but surely we must endeavour to be logical and believe it is possible or else it is all a waste of time.

If John Ness is simply making an observation about what people claim is moral behaviour and not making any assertion about what actually is moral behaviour then that is of no help at all. An accurate observation can be made that in some cultures most people regard female genital mutilation as being morally acceptable. That observation though tells us nothing as to whether or not they are correct.

And are you seriously suggesting that no atheists have the attitude of just eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow they die? Why wouldn’t they?

if 'morals' are the things we do to ensure the survival of the species :) then.. I better CULL a few of my enemies here....

aah..now there's a good thought....

*looks up 'user-list'*

Of course.. the clear thinking person immediately tweaks to the problem of not having a foundation for morality other than 'existence'....

But while some might say I'm overly optimistic to think that I don't need to say any more.. for it would sound like 'preaching'... never mind.. I have faith.... and am sure the bright ones among us can also work out the obvious.

This issue has raised the point about morality and who defines it. As GP stated in some cultures there are behaviours that we might not accept. Moral codes or ethics are subjective. I guess we can only talk in terms of our own cultural experience.

"And are you seriously suggesting that no atheists have the attitude of just eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow they die? Why wouldn’t they?"

Why would they? Do you really think human beings need the idea of an 'afterlife' or a 'vengeaful God' to be able to behave with integrity or within an ethical framework? There are other compelling influences; the natural desire to form a society that would protect our children and create a better world for the ensuing generations; to do good rather than harm or to lead a purposeful life.

I am not perfect but I am not a hedonist intent on my own pleasure at the expense of others.I was raised in a non-religious family (albeit both of them were raised as Catholics). My parents managed to raise all their children with a strong sense of right and altruism without religion.

There is no doubt that religion has played a part in establishing ethical and moral behaviours, but as we evolve I think those ethics can be passed on without the need for religious dogma.

Religious dogma has the disadvantage of being self-serving and overly focussed on 'religion' rather than the premise of religion which I am sure was to act as Jesus (he may have existed) intended. Religious dogma that overrides compassion and tolerance defeats the original man-made purpose of constructing religion to provide such an ethical framework.

Constructing a fake icon or deity to establish an ethical framework is bound to become a house of cards at risk of tumbling down. A more honest and transparent approach to providing this ethical framework based on a natural sense of altruism is no less valid. A false belief has no more validity to trigger the development of a moral code in children than one based on pragmatic and biological commonsense.

You have enemies here Polycarp? Gee that didn't take long.

To not really answer your question GP, but to tweak you to it, I guess not that many atheists are obsessed with their own mortality. They could be, but they aren't. Now the question is why is that?

Noone has yet mentioned empathy here, but I should hardly be surprised. Even dogs have empathy, and they also seem to be able to operate as social animals with 'rules' and cooperative behaviour without the need for torturous philosophy.

But humans also have a temporal sense, such that we can imagine and often foresee the consequences of our actions before we take them. You may conjure any supernatural entity you like to explain it, but it is not illogical to posit that social behaviour can evolve to become as it has from a natural origin.

QUOTE 1
Morals, then are essentially the elements of that code of behaviour that ensures the survival of the species and, in complex social animals such as humans, this requires certain considerations for the welfare of others.

QUOTE 2
The decline of religion therefore actually opens up the possibility of a more moral society....

ADULT CHILD MARRIAGE How then.. do we decide on the morality or lack thereof on this issue?

According to Dr Bilal Philips.. the Prophet MOhammad by his life and example, established the parameters of marriage being that:
-A man in his 50s can marry a child of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-FY3f-YTKM

According to Dutch law:
http://www.pnvd.nl/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1160223395
Interesting discussion.
-According to Aboriginal Culture, Adult child marriage is valid.

ADULT CHILD SEXUAL RELATIONS.

-According to NAMBLA adult child homosexual relations can be 'positive' experiences.

-According to Various countries Adult child sexual relations outside of marriage are ok at certain ages.
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
lists all the ages for countries around the world for
Male/Female Male/male and female/female

Some of them indicate the age difference.. and one example is Indonesia female 16 male 19

The problem for me is how 'genetics and survival' will manage the problem of VAST age difference?

To me.. it is common sense that any huge age gap between a male and a females age... should be guided for the best interests of the community and individuals.

In the case of a man of 60 and a female child of 9.. the following problems are self evident.

1/ Intellectual development/condition.
2/ Life span issues.. (He will die within perhaps 5-15 yrs)
3/ Maturity. (Her outlook is dolls..his is fences and sheds etc)
4/ Fairness. (having the most nubile part of her life, and giving the butt end of his... then leaving her with possibly children and a home to manage.. just seems grossly unfair)

In the absense of an abiding standard.. why not accept Nambla's claim?
I won't...but will you? why not?

Gawd - not only did it not take 'Boazycarp' very long to acquire "enemies" at OLO, but he has rapidly reverted to form.

His latest post not only returns to his overworn obsessions of Mohammed as paedophile and the dangers of NAMBLA, but also exhorts us to watch some idiotic YouTube piece that confirms his blather.

All we need is a few biblical quotations and capitalisations (e.g. "MIUAUG"), and Polycrap will have reverted completely to BOAZ_David. The only thing that is unclear is why he persists in pretending he's someone else.