Xian ethics is irrational, otherworldly, and impractical. It promises much, and delivers nothing. Jesus' "interim ethic" couldn't outlast one generation of true believers. The fideistic irrationality of Paul of Tarsus with its anti-intellectualism, misogyny, and revenge seeking has poisoned the West for 2,000 years.

Chinese culture was far luckier. From that very rational, this worldly, and practical book, The Analects, attributed to Confucius (500 years before a myth encrusted Jesus):

6:20 Fan Ch’ih asked what constituted wisdom. The Master said, “To give one’s self earnestly to the duties due to men, and, while respecting spiritual beings, to keep aloof from them, may be called wisdom.”

15:23 Tsze-kung asked, saying, “Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life?” The Master said, “Is not 'reciprocity' such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” [trans. S.R. McIntyre 2003]

No god is needed to police human behavior. All ethics is irreducibly social, but not utilitarian. Harming others can not be generalized; otherwise, no culture could exist.

There's no need to invoke modern evolutionary theory (or memes) -- unless they're Lamarkian -- each generation of persons teaches the next.

bipolar2 ©2008

So the story goes that Adam and Eve get kicked out of Paradise of obtaining the knowledge of good and evil, and it is from that sin that every child is born into the world worthy of hell. The problem is that this knowledge of "good and evil" that we seemed to have paid so dearly for doesn't seem to be universal in people. There are some general moral guidelines that seem to cross all cultures, but within and between those there are tremendous local variations. What ever happened to that?

I've had a running commentary with Billy Graham (undoubtedly, a staff member) and my local newspaper that carries his column. Below is another missive of mine that was printed by the paper, and for which I was called a bigot. The paper printed the letter calling me a bigot, but mounted a strong defense on my behalf, a good bit to my surprise. Anyways, for what it's worth:

Editor:

Billy Graham: Same Old, Same Old

Responding to someone saying, “A good friend of mine has never wanted anything to do with religion or Jesus, and every time we talk about it he throws up all sorts of questions I can’t answer,” Billy Graham (My Answer, July 5, 2008) never says, “Find the answers” except to suggest praying.

Instead, Graham offers one of his common themes by saying, without offering any evidence, “Often people who put up one objection after another aren’t really interested in getting answers…The real problem is their will, they simply don’t want to yield themselves to Christ and have him take control of their lives.” This is nothing but an ad hominem attack, one that allows the correspondent to stay in his comfort zone without making any effort to find the answers.

Might I equally turn Graham’s assertion around and say that often Christians don’t want to search for the answers because they are afraid they will clearly understand what they intuitively know, and to be intellectually honest would have to “come out” about their resulting agnosticism, atheism, secular humanism, rationalism, or naturalism and thus be ostracized? They are also under the sway of guilt and fear provided by all religions. And I further suggest that Graham doesn’t want them to search for the answer, but rather, to submit.

Those who don’t yield themselves to Christ, or to any religion (Graham’s reference to Jesus is simply denominationalism), don’t want to have their lives controlled by new or ancient myths and superstitions of any stripe, but most are willing to listen to counter arguments that provide evidence without invoking the carrot and stick of heaven or hell.

Jim Coufal

Anyone who maintains absolute standards of good and evil is dangerous. As dangerous as a maniac with a loaded revolver. In fact the person who maintains absolute standards of good and evil usually is the maniac with the revolver.

I wonder if he meant that absolutely.

:)

Anyone who maintains absolute standards of good and evil is dangerous. As dangerous as a maniac with a loaded revolver. In fact the person who maintains absolute standards of good and evil usually is the maniac with the revolver

I noticed the same thing Count. Another Christian blogger who often demonstrates this goes by the name of Rhology. Only a Christian has an objective reason for being against child rape because god says it is wrong. Atheists such as us are only against child rape because it is not our "personal preference" to engage in such activity. In the absence of god, there is no objective reason why child rape is wrong, with the unspoken assumption that if he did not believe in god, he might partake in the act.

As for Edward Gordon, he clearly is a troubled person and I tangled with him on someone else's blog, either Atheist Revolution or The Atheist Experience, or possibly both.

What I get from these fundie types is that there is something messed up in their lives and their personalities that they feel the need to believe in some powerful external force to get them to behave. They view the rest of the world through their own personal experience and assume that if we do not believe exactly what they believe then we deserve to suffer.