Dear Al,

"Humanity left to itself will go anywhere...."
Well, yes. These "God given" ethics are still translated according to the desires of whichever society is implementing them.
Hence, modern society has a much lessened awareness of the natural harmony between itself and the world. Whereas once it was Christian outlook to see humanity as part of God's earthly creation and to experience God through the world, modern Western/Christian practice is to excise man from his earthly connection and responsibility as steward in favour of the questionable morality of plundering her fruits while despoiling her with nary a second glance.
This happens with the tacit approval of the Church in the West.
What are seen by some as "God given ethics" are construed and adapted according to the whims of the times, and are, therefore, totally at the mercy of man's vagaries.

Which part did you disagree with, Boaz?

>>Pericles and Lexi... The rest of the paragraph? I did read it..but disagree with it.<<

It seems perfectly straightforward to me, describing as it does the circular logic required to believe that God has actually established some ethical standards.

You kinda prove the point yourself, by going on to say:

>> I disagree that there is a standard independant of God which is valid. The Canaanites used to feed their children into the fire to satisfy Moloch their god. I guess if you asked them 'what is good'..they would say "Obey Moloch..and feed your offspring into a firey death"<<

http://blog.aurorahistoryboutique.com/moloch-worship-in-ancient-canaan/

What, I wonder, were the instructions of your own God, around the same time? Much along the lines, I suspect, of all those instructions in Deuteronomy 13 6-10

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die"

The stated ethical standard here would appear to be "It is permissible - no, it is mandatory - to kill anyone who does not share your religious views".

Using your own phraseology:

"I guess if you asked them 'what is good'..they would say "Obey God, and stone anyone in your family who doesn't worship him"

Nice.

AGIR:

As I understand it from your last post - and as Dawkins also observed: " it seems that in the absence of God, people would commit robbery, rape, and murder..." in that case you reveal yourself as an immoral person, and all of us would be well advised to steer a wide-course around you. If on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even not under divine surveillance, you've fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good." Dawkins told us, "I suspect that quite a lot of religious people do think religion is what motivates them to be good, especially if they belong to one of those faiths that systematically exploits personal guilt. It seems to me to require quite a low self-regard to think that, should belief in God suddenly vanish from the world, we would all become callous and selfish hedonists, with no kindness, no charity, no generousity, nothing that would deserve the name of goodness..."

The cynic H.L. Menchen might have got it right when he tartly observed: "People say we need religion when what they really mean is we need police."

Posted by Lexi:>> As I understand it from your last post - and as Dawkins also observed: " it seems that in the absence of God, people would commit robbery, rape, and murder..." in that case you reveal yourself as an immoral person, and all of us would be well advised to steer a wide-course around you.<<

Lexi we are all fallible and immoral.

If we gauge morality as the willful act of "conforming ones actions" to standards that attempt to stop us preying on each other, then we by historic example are overwhelmingly immoral. I cannot think of one society that has existed throughout our history that has not employed a civil force to detain wrong doers and administer punishment. It seems that we are on the whole immoral.

Since the demise of Christianity in the first world the percentage of citizen in jail has grown remarkably. Here in Australia in the 1980 the incarceration rate was 89.9 per 100,000; by 2000 this had climbed to 149.2 per 100,000, and at present we have more people locked up than ever before, and you have to consider that the courts are immensely more lenient now than previously, it is hard to get locked up, they have no room.

Lexi you may not fear a creator and modify your behavior but adherence to a religious teaching and the threat of eternal retribution keeps some in line, so it is a positive to the non believer as well given that society as a whole is safer.

Foyle
You first assume without proof that the state *is* society, and when called on that error, you assume without proof that the state *represents* society.

But it is not enough for you to assume it - you need to *prove* what you are arguing.

One fact alone in Australia disproves that entire argument – voting is compulsory. You can’t build any theory of consent on that.

For a complete demolition of your *assumption* that the state represents society, see: http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/#comments

Even if the political system provided a way to know that a majority are *in fact* in favour of a particular governmental action – which it doesn’t – still, if the majority vote for slavery, or robbery, or murder, that doesn’t prove:
a) that they represent society, nor
b) that what they vote for is ethically okay or
c) that they represent people better than the people represent themselves.

If Smith the fruiterer seller uses violence to drive all his competition out of the neighbourhood, that will not prove that the use of violence was *necessary* or *desirable* to supply the neighbourhood with fruit, will it?

How is your argument about the state in any better position?

You have not explained how, if someone commits a crime, it’s ethically bad, but if the state commits the same crime, it’s positively good.

Furthermore the fact that the state provides valuable services does not prove that only the state can provide them, nor that it does so better than could be provided otherwise.

For a more complete refutation of your assumption of the moral superiority of state action, see Rothbard “The Nature of the State http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentytwo.asp in the Ethics of Liberty.

Thus you:
1. have not done anything other than *assume* without proving that the state represents society;
2. have not established that violent expropriation and redistribution based on demagoguery is morally or practically superior to voluntary production and exchange .

It’s not enough for you to *disagree* with my arguments, you need to *refute* them.

Pericles discrediting Christianity with an edict written for a society that is so alien to modern Western society is simplistic and obvious.

The Torah, the Bible, and the Koran carry a set of words from God that are not open to interpretation, or that were relevant to the times they were written but hopelessly archaic now. In fact these words should encompass the entire contents of all scriptures, nothing else just these words, the only ones delivered to mankind in the presence of God.

1.You shall have no other gods before me.
2.You shall not make for yourself any carved image,
3.You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, on it you shall do no work.
5.Honor your father and your mother, .
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness..
10.You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.

It is an amazingly concise set of rules for humanity of whatever era. The first three make sure we do not make up our own set of rules. The fourth stops us from being exploited seven days a week. While the last five are a blueprint for love and a peaceful world.